Doom Marine
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Icelandic pirate party gets elected to congress
Pages (2): « 1 [2]  
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:35. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7956
Registered: 08-04



pablogener said:
I think WE SHOULD NOT give those parties a chance. Even if one or two, people want to vote for them. The institutes of the peoples representation shouldn't channel views against humanity. What is freedom? how can we organize ourselves as a nation, to keep our own safe and sound from whatever might try to hurt us, even if it's ourselves?? I think it's not an easy question.
Oppressing hostile views will only allow feelings to fester. Have more faith in humanity then that. Let all parties be represented.

Old Post 04-30-13 22:07 #
Technician is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2642
Registered: 09-02



pablogener said:
I think WE SHOULD NOT give those parties a chance. Even if one or two, people want to vote for them. The institutes of the peoples representation shouldn't channel views against humanity.

I think you should reread what Scottland89 said there. Seriously.

It's more of a free speech and free association kind of thing. If you can ban political parties based on nebulous criteria, you are setting yourself up for terrible times ahead. If you can do that with political parties you can easily do it with activist and labor groups, unions, churches...you name it. It's a road that lead in one direction.


What is freedom?

The ability to choose. The right to think, say and feel what I want and if I choose, to be involved with or otherwise be a part of a group of like-minded people even if what was advocated was considered to be wrong.

The only speech worth a damn to protect is that which is unpopular.

Old Post 04-30-13 23:59 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
pablogener
Mini-Member


Posts: 87
Registered: 11-12



Quast said:

I think you should reread what Scottland89 said there. Seriously.

It's more of a free speech and free association kind of thing. If you can ban political parties based on nebulous criteria, you are setting yourself up for terrible times ahead. If you can do that with political parties you can easily do it with activist and labor groups, unions, churches...you name it. It's a road that lead in one direction.


The ability to choose. The right to think, say and feel what I want and if I choose, to be involved with or otherwise be a part of a group of like-minded people even if what was advocated was considered to be wrong.

The only speech worth a damn to protect is that which is unpopular. [/B]


I do support your last remark, there. I honestly do, please don't get me wrong, I do believe in freedom of speech, mind and association. but....


even if what was advocated was considered to be wrong.


There's gotta be a limit to "just anything". Of course, that's something that wouldn't be decided only by one person, one party, one representation, one "view of politics and society". there has to be somekind of social agreement in banning some political parties that organize around ideas that lessen humanity. I know many of the DW posters are from Europe. A while ago, on a local (argentine) forum, there was a hot debate about this ('so-believed-to-be') party from Holland or Belgium (I think...) that proposed the legalization of pedophilia and what is believed by us as child abuse. See, it really depends on the context, but, even if there are different views inside any given society, there are some things that could be accepted as common sense and a majoritary agreement.

Old Post 05-01-13 01:19 #
pablogener is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Scottland89
Mini-Member


Posts: 63
Registered: 02-13


Pablogener, Quast got my point spot on but I would also say I do support your point of view. I don't want to see another Hitler or Stalin.

The main reason I made my point is due to 2 similar parties in the UK.

There is a British Political Party (BNP) who are a small party no where near getting the majority votes to get the next Prime Minister but get the odd seat in British parliament. Due to their anti foreign views, a lot of people want to see the BNP banned.

Then their is the Scottish National Party (SNP) who are even smaller British party, but now have the majority in the Scottish Parliament so they effectively run Scotland. Their is no talks about banning them but they are anti English. Saying that, they were voted in as they were not Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrats, the big 3 Parties in the UK, not on their policies. They are now planning to make Scotland independent from UK, and I'm guessing that they will beg to be in the EU which will mean we'll be in the Euro when it's about to fall apart.

Why's should we ban the anti non-British BNP but give a lot of power to the anti English SNP without question. It should be a both or none option there.

Maybe my lack of knowledge in politics makes me nieve about democracy, which would make me understand the reasoning to ban parties who are for abusing human rights. Hell I don't even know what Communisim or Fascistim is, just know those not in power hated it (or so I'm told). Still don't know why Maggie Thatcher was so bad for Scotland either (but that was before my time) but nearly every Scotsman and women were celebrating her death.

Anyway that's my 2 cents worth

Old Post 05-01-13 01:54 #
Scottland89 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2642
Registered: 09-02



pablogener said:
There's gotta be a limit to "just anything".

But there would have to be some kind of governing body or council or dictator or someone or something that sets these limits. Who decides that? The "people" somehow? People can be petty and vicious over the smallest of slights and easily overreact and do dangerous things very quickly without a thought. This is why we have our modern systems of jurisprudence because we might otherwise descend into roving gangs of lynch-happy people. I do not wish to see such things.


there has to be somekind of social agreement in banning some political parties that organize around ideas that lessen humanity.


This is where the marketplace of ideas goes to work and does its magic and what makes these enlightenment ideals work so well. If a political party says that idea 'A' is the greatest idea ever then people have the ability to hear that argument and disagree. You bring up literal pedophilia advocates. I can understand and even agree with you on the idea that it is not something to be accepted in society, and 99% of people also will in turn. But you have to understand especially that certain things that we take for granted now and things that people are working for now were once considered to be terrible wrongs or even seditious. Black people as equals, womens suffrage, homosexual marriage, you get the picture I'm sure. Pedophilia will almost certainly remain a criminal activity, and we all hope it does, but what of other things to come? Trans-humanism, human cloning, mind-machine interfaces? Things that perhaps society at large may very well be opposed to for seemingly legitimate reasons. To not even be able to have a discussion about these things, which is what banning free association would do, would be horrible.

It's not a perfect system, but it isn't by design. There are failures and the people can and have chose the wrong path. One need only look at obvious historical examples and of course Greece at present to see that in action. However, you can also rest assured that it will be corrected. It always does.

Old Post 05-01-13 02:09 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
darknation
Forum Staple


Posts: 3083
Registered: 03-02



Scottland89 said:

Then their is the Scottish National Party (SNP) who are even smaller British party, but now have the majority in the Scottish Parliament so they effectively run Scotland. Their is no talks about banning them but they are anti English.

Scotland is spelled with one T, o genius political pundit.


Why's should we ban the anti non-British BNP but give a lot of power to the anti English SNP without question.
uh, because Scotland voted for the SNP with an overwhelming majority? Like, you know, democracy?

styling the SNP as a purely anti-english organisation is wrong on many counts. 1), we fucking hate the welsh as well and 2), the SNP is the closest thing you'll find in the UK to a socialist government.

why don't I trust tory and labour to deal with scottish interests fairly? shit like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report

Last edited by darknation on 05-01-13 at 02:30

Old Post 05-01-13 02:14 #
darknation is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Quast
insert title here


Posts: 2642
Registered: 09-02



Scottland89 said:
Still don't know why Maggie Thatcher was so bad for Scotland either

Her father was Edward Longshanks.


darknation said:
1), we fucking hate the welsh as well

Honestly, I find this to be odd as opposed to a sense of brotherhood or solidarity against the english.

Old Post 05-01-13 02:30 #
Quast is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Technician
Still no custom title


Posts: 7956
Registered: 08-04



Quast said:
Honestly, I find this to be odd as opposed to a sense of brotherhood or solidarity against the english.
I always found that weird as well.

Old Post 05-01-13 02:46 #
Technician is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
pablogener
Mini-Member


Posts: 87
Registered: 11-12



Quast said:


Things that perhaps society at large may very well be opposed to for seemingly legitimate reasons. To not even be able to have a discussion about these things, which is what banning free association would do, would be horrible.



I find that it's one thing to have a discussion about it, and just quite a different thing to run for president for it

Old Post 05-01-13 03:02 #
pablogener is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Aliotroph?
postCount++


Posts: 2658
Registered: 03-02



Quast said:
Honestly, I find this to be odd as opposed to a sense of brotherhood or solidarity against the english.


I suspect they hate the Welsh for not hating the English enough. :D

Old Post 05-01-13 05:27 #
Aliotroph? is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Scottland89
Mini-Member


Posts: 63
Registered: 02-13



darknation said:
Scotland is spelled with one T, o genius political pundit.

uh, because Scotland voted for the SNP with an overwhelming majority? Like, you know, democracy?

styling the SNP as a purely anti-english organisation is wrong on many counts. 1), we fucking hate the welsh as well and 2), the SNP is the closest thing you'll find in the UK to a socialist government.

why don't I trust tory and labour to deal with scottish interests fairly? shit like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report


I have spelt Scotland with 1 t, but my name is Scott hence the second t in my username. I never claimed to be a political genius, quiet the opposite.

Also if I shouldn't style SNP as anti-english, should we then not style BNP as anti-forign like most people do? I'd on,t want to vote BNP but hey I should still have right to vote for them should I want to.

My main point is it looks to me like we don't have, or support full democracy to an extent, as some want parties banned and also some places have banned parties due to their views.

Old Post 05-01-13 09:14 #
Scottland89 is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
pablogener
Mini-Member


Posts: 87
Registered: 11-12


Ok, then I'll start a party that proposes to ban certain parties... some may vote for me, you know..hehe very kafkian.
cheers!

Old Post 05-01-13 13:56 #
pablogener is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12586
Registered: 07-06



pablogener said:
There's gotta be a limit to "just anything".


The $1.000.000 question is who sets this limit. For as long as politics are not scientifically fool-proofed or refereed by a neutral third party (both highly unlikely), none can set such a limit without falling into one of the following categories:


  • Colonial powers
  • Authoritarian regimes
  • Dictators
  • Lobbyists
  • "Head Hanchos" or "Booty Daddies" of various kinds, who get the last saying by apparently arbitrary criteria


Constitutional limitations like those e.g. in effect in Italy and Germany are not very effective: if they were, nobody would be talking about neo-fascists and neo-nazists in Germany. The problem is that a law banning a particular ideology has to be made extremely precise, so by avoiding particular references, using particular symbols etc. you can often get around it. E.g. the German constitution specifically bans the NSDAP and the Italian constitution specifically bans the historical Fascist party, and prohibits its reconstitution.

However, there's no "umbrella clause" to cover all potentially unwanted or inconvenient ideologies or workarounds. Why? Because then the terms used would have to be more vague and broader. And if they are not precise enough e.g. "The Constitution bans all non-liberal ideologies", then it can be twisted and turned against almost any target group all too easily.

It's really a lose-lose game: you can't put limits on inconvenient ideologies without becoming "inconvenient" yourself.

Old Post 05-01-13 15:23 #
Maes is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
pablogener
Mini-Member


Posts: 87
Registered: 11-12



Maes said:


The $1.000.000 question is who sets this limit.


get 66% of the chambers of representatives to vote for or against banning a certain party, and you got it. you can't just have automatic majority, you really need various, several social representations to take action and get in the ring to debate wether it is or not convenient to ban a party. and I'm not talking about banning idiologies, you can't get inside people's minds. you CAN (and I think we should) ban parties that present to elections, who in turn, if elected will get to run the government.

Old Post 05-01-13 21:07 #
pablogener is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Maes
I like big butts!


Posts: 12586
Registered: 07-06



pablogener said:
get 66% of the chambers of representatives to vote for or against banning a certain party, and you got it.


Problem 1: you will only manage in banning that particular party. It's way, way harder to pass a bill that prevents a similar party from reforming, for the reasons I illustrated in my post. E.g. check out under how many creative names & labels neo-nazi parties have popped up in Germany, which has an explicit anti-nazi clause. Why it doesn't work? Because it bans Adolph Hitler's NSDAP, specifically.

Problem 2: that percentage you mentioned is arbitrary, and may vary or might not even be technically/politically achievable between different parliamentary systems and countries. YMMV.

Problem 3: that "political achievability" I was speaking about? While banning a pictoresque, ridiculous, low-significance party that does not even make it to parliament might be "easy", politically speaking, banning one which is already represented is much, much harder, and not without risks. Several currently represented parties would not risk creating a precedent where another currently represented party is banned, because that might open themselves up to similar attacks. Clamorous case: the Greek opposition SYRIZA party (some call it extreme left wing), voted AGAINST declaring the Golden Dawn party unconstitutional (it has 8% of votes, and growing stronger). Why? Because they too, would be open to similar attack by part of a "coalition of the willing" by part of the governing alliance and perhaps the other parties. Again, YMMV depending on the details of your local political scene.

Old Post 05-01-13 22:25 #
Maes is online now Profile || Blog || PM || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:35. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
Pages (2): « 1 [2]  
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Misc. > Everything Else > Icelandic pirate party gets elected to congress

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.