Is/Should being a Nazi in the U.S. be illegal?

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
re: The Nazis. Remember, the real trouble started when Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. And furthermore, what kind of sentance is 6 months for treason? What I would have done is remain more vigilant and more strongly campaign against the Nazis.

I would have thrown all of them in prison, not for 6 months, but forever

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

My point is that banning parties we don't like is not a good thing. We should be vigilante against them, but they can say what they want to say.

But what do we do when they gain enough power to start putting their evil program into practice? Do we do nothing?

It isn't a matter of people merely having different beliefs - the Nazis are just wrong, scientifically, politically and morally. Any reasonable person accepts this. As long as they have little influence they should be left alone; but if they gain in strength they should be hammered out of existence - after all that's what they want to do to the Jews.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies. What would banning the Nazi Party in 1930 do? It would simply create a revolution and they'd be in charge anyway, much sooner. If I'm living in that era, I wouldn't want to give them an excuse to revolt and engage the country in a bloody civil war. Instead I'd try to vigerously campaign against them.

Our liberal ideas and beliefs demands that we let them speak. Free Speach is the cornerstone. If we deny that, then we are no better than them.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies. What would banning the Nazi Party in 1930 do? It would simply create a revolution and they'd be in charge anyway, much sooner. If I'm living in that era, I wouldn't want to give them an excuse to revolt and engage the country in a bloody civil war. Instead I'd try to vigerously campaign against them.

On what basis do you say this? Making them legal gives them legitimacy. Communism didn't even become more popular after McCarthism. In fact it became less so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

On what basis do you say this? Making them legal gives them legitimacy. Communism didn't even become more popular after McCarthism. In fact it became less so.

You are not making them be legal. You are simply allow them to exist. Can you imagine banning a party that has 1/3rd of Congress? It'd be nuts. Of course there would be massive problems and revolution.

Communism never arose to the heights it did before WW2 because even after McCarthyism the US had an anti-communist philosophy. The movement had its balls cut off during McCarthey and it wasn't like the US government stopped all anti-Communist supression afterwards. So, the Communist that were around were either spies or kept quiet because of a lack of popular support and US crack down. Furthermore, there was really no popular support for Communists. There weren't any in Congress and people generally disliked the Russians. It's a different situation.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If we deny that, then we are no better than them.

But Germany today is by no means the same as between 33-45.

And if a society outlaws individual violence, why then not outlaw a party that spreads violence? A party consists of individuals - if they agree to use violence as political program, why not react against their organization. How can we have a free discourse, when those individuals take the right to murder political opponents (as the Nazis did before 33)?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if a society outlaws individual violence, why then not outlaw a party that spreads violence?

If they engage in violence, then we can lock them up for using violence. If they specifically incite violence, then you can get them. But if they simply talk about their views, then that's fine. They can talk all about how the Communists or Jews are destroying the country, but they can't saw we should kill this guy or go out and kill and destroy businesses here.

How can we have a free discourse, when those individuals take the right to murder political opponents

Then you lock them up for murder. If the party was involved, take down the entire party from the top on down as accessories to murder. If the entire party is involved, then you can outlaw that illegal practice.


Remember the KKK wasn't destroyed in the US by banning it, but rather by cracking down on the violence and putting those responsible in jail.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Communism never arose to the heights it did before WW2 because even after McCarthyism the US had an anti-communist philosophy. The movement had its balls cut off during McCarthey and it wasn't like the US government stopped all anti-Communist supression afterwards. So, the Communist that were around were either spies or kept quiet because of a lack of popular support and US crack down. Furthermore, there was really no popular support for Communists. There weren't any in Congress and people generally disliked the Russians. It's a different situation.

Communism never took hold in America because it is portrayed as an illegitimate party. America is a conformist society and the communist party is non-conformist. As long as the Nazi party remains a minority it sufers from this complex also. Banning them would not be a problem and would only hurt them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As long as the Nazi party remains a minority it sufers from this complex also. Banning them would not be a problem and would only hurt them.

And why would allowing them be bad? They would be the only party banned in the United States. Is that something we want to do? Ban political parties because we don't agree with what they say? If they preach specific acts of violence get them for inciting murder, but don't ban political speech!

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then you lock them up for murder. If the party was involved, take down the entire party from the top on down as accessories to murder. If the entire party is involved, then you can outlaw that illegal practice.

Your assuming that they are found guilty of murder. Again, not all guilty parties are brought to justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well then you can get them for other things. I'm sure you know that the police can find you guilty of anything, if they wanted to .

[Ned]

The problem if you ban parties like the Nazi party is that they change their names into something innocuous. For example, today we have many Communist who call themselves "Socialists" in United States because is no not possible to be Communist in United States and have any credibility at all let alone get security clearances are be gainfully employed. I note for example that in France, the Communist Party is not only tolerated, it is respected. This flows primarily, according to French Communists here on Apolyton, from the fact that the Communist were allies against the Nazis in World War II.

This is not to say that one cannot ban a party that does more than just exercise their free-speech rights but which has or remains active in the overthrow of legitimate government. Thus we banned Confederate officers and above from participation in government or voting at the close the Civil War. We also banned the Nazi party in Germany, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we have now banned the Baath ("National") Socialist Party in Iraq.

The question then pertains, how long should the ban continue once imposed? To us in United Statesthe continued ban on the Nazi party in France and Germany is a puzzle because no one seriously believes the Nazis remain a viable threat to again take over the governments of Germany or France. In fact, the only place I can see that ban on Nazi party would be told acceptable today will be in Israel for obvious reasons.

By the way, I believe that most of parties in Europe that have "national" as part of their party name or in fact Nazi parties. This illustrates my original point does it not?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thus we banned Confederate officers and above from participation in government or voting at the close the Civil War.

Yes, but that's because they actually committed treason .

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies.

And what if that doesn't work?

Our liberal ideas and beliefs demands that we let them speak. Free Speach is the cornerstone. If we deny that, then we are no better than them.

Our liberal ideas and beliefs also demand that we commit ourselves to protecting the sort of society in which these flourish. Unfortunately, there are some people who are basically at war with this conception of society. How can anyone count themselves as for a liberal society when they would allow it to be destroyed?

[Imran Siddiqui]

And what if that doesn't work?

Then it doesn't work. At least I tried. But I won't ban any party simply because I disagree with their views.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

And what if that doesn't work?

Then it doesn't work. At least I tried. But I won't ban any party simply because I disagree with their views.

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

Surely you think that more violations are worse than less?

[Az]

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

So you're pro-religious/racial profiling?

[/devil's advocate]

[GePap]

No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active. If you ban a group, what you are saying is that you fear it, believe it may actually have power one day. If you et them in but ignore them, what you are syaing is that they are so contemptible, they don;t deserv attantion, one way or another. And that is the way to treat Nazi's, with contempt.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

So your position is: I stand for a liberal society and the rights and freedoms it entails, but I will refuse to violate any of them even if it means that all rights and freedoms for everyone will be destroyed.

So you're pro-religious/racial profiling?

[/devil's advocate]

Only if it solves more problems than it creates.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active. If you ban a group, what you are saying is that you fear it, believe it may actually have power one day. If you et them in but ignore them, what you are syaing is that they are so contemptible, they don;t deserv attantion, one way or another. And that is the way to treat Nazi's, with contempt.

I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

I find the idea of taking away their freedoms stranger. It is simply wrong to take freedoms away from people just for having an opinion. Period. The idea is morally bankrupt.

Imran isn't saying we should do nothing; in fact, I am willing to bet he would fight such a party tooth and nail. Still, why he may try his best to keep them out of power, he respects the fact that they have their rights to speech just as he has his.

To think otherwise is a basic rejection of the civil liberties we stand for, and cannot be ethically justified in a liberal society.

[Az]

Only if it solves more problems than it creates.

We can work something out, I am sure.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you'd overturn democracy in its own name? Even if the Nazis had the support of the majority of citizens I still think it would be justifiable to suppress them. My reason is that a democracy isn't "anything goes" but a political form that has definite limits. If we believe in the preservation of democracy more than we believe in this or that temporary government then suppressing the Nazis is the rational thing to do.

You can't tell me that you care about freedom of speech if you think that it is OK to allow a course of action that leads to more free speech violations (by the Nazis) than a course of action that requires less (you suppressing them).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...

You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions.

In fact, if each moral viewpoint is subjective and has no binding claim on others, then the purported "right" for these people to hold their own views is also subjective and therefore a figment of your imagination. So if you are a subjectivist you cannot find an objectively binding reason why I shouldn't shoot the Nazis.

I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it.

That's a fair comment. However, my example only holds when things have got out of hand and there is a realistic prospect of them getting in whatever arguments people put forward.

I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority.

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Kidicious [/SIZE}
Unfortunately people break the law and get away with it.

Well, that's not an argument for making more things illegal (ESPECIALLY constitutionally protected rights) but for trying to improve our police, etc. so that people don't get away with breaking the law.

Finally, if they ADVOCATE violence, their views should be heard. Violence is only illegal because there are laws against it (tautology ) but they should be free to petition to change the laws.

Originally posted by Agathon

Quote:

Originally posted by Imram Siddiqui Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies.

And what if that doesn't work?

Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct.

Originally posted by Gepap
No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active.

No, unless a party incites violence against others. It is their right to petition for a change in the law.

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange.

No, Imram is saying, as I do, that we should do nothing unless they try to seize power illegally. If they do so by convincing the majority, they SHOULD be in power. Also, we can argue against their views. The net result is, the set of views the majority finds the most logical/valid/convincing will be selected!

(must be the 10th or 20th time I've made that point in this thread )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran isn't saying we should do nothing; in fact, I am willing to bet he would fight such a party tooth and nail. Still, why he may try his best to keep them out of power, he respects the fact that they have their rights to speech just as he has his.

I also agree with GePap (kind of). If the party leaders stand up there incite violence, put them all away. Also the guys that talk about other things to stay, but get all the violence dudes out and in jail.

[Kuciwalker]

YAY! I was afraid this thread was going to fall off of the page. I want to see a thread reach the 500 mark

[Kidicious]

No you don't. Trust me. It's not pretty.

[Kuciwalker]

OT WARNING!

wait a second...

[Kuciwalker]

Didn't Voltaire say something like "I may not like what you have to say, but I will give my life that you may be allowed to say it!"? Or was it someone else?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...

You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions.

If you are going to have a liberal-democracy because it's the best form of goverment then it is non-negotiable. Presumably, what justifies any party being in power is that they represent the will of the majority. Unfortunately, if the Nazis get in and act true to form they will disband democracy, thus making themselves an illegitimate government. Similarly if you let them get in they will abolish the various rights and freedoms that are supposed to be protected.

At some point in any political system certain values are non-negotiable if the system is to be preserved. That's why it's justifiable to suppress the Nazis if they become too powerful.

I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it.

If a Nazi government told me to gas Jews, I sure as hell wouldn't do it, and damn the majority.

I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority.

And if they do, what then. It would be an act of terrible irresponsibility not to stop the Nazis from taking power by any means possible.

Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct.

Then democracy will be destroyed. You can't defend the destruction of democracy on democratic grounds - it's irrational and self contradictory to do so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Didn't Voltaire say something like "I may not like what you have to say, but I will give my life that you may be allowed to say it!"? Or was it someone else?

"I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."

-Voltaire.

Though I must say that I prefer Milton in Areopagitica:

"Let truth and falsehood grapple. Whoever knew truth to be the lesser in a free and open encounter?"