4 ms·

Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence? No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those lines. We can clearly observe

Isn't "liberal democracy" pretty incompatible with political violence? No, there is no simple conclusion to be drawn along those lines. We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. And when I said "free speech", I wasn't talking about "unrestricted free speech", but rather the idea that we should minimize restrictions on speech (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but you can say things that offend). There is no qualitative difference between these ideas – but there is a complex series of ongoing discussions and nuances. Most people in developed democracies would consider the general principle of "free speech" to be essential to a functioning society; further, most would assert that this freedom includes some level of right to cause offence. Beyond this there is likely to be little agreement on the extent and restrictions of such rights – this is why nuance is so important. You may be entirely entitled to say what you wish; this right comes with the imperative that others are free to refuse to participate, and are free to object to those who support and promote speech you disagree with. This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. I'm having a hard time making sense of this. A precondition for democracy is that we submit to the democratic process. If one or more groups refuses to submit to that process (presumably because their vision is unpersuasive), it doesn't seem like an indictment of any particular democratic process. A perfectly good channel may exist for peacefully resolving conflict, but if one party to a conflict is utterly unwilling to peaceably resolve it then I'm not sympathetic to the idea that it's a deficiency in the channel. Moreover, that party may actively be sabotaging the democratic process (indeed, what is political violence in a liberal democracy but an extreme form of sabotaging the democratic process)? > This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you. I wasn't debating whether or not objection or criticism are out of bounds of free speech--they are decidedly in-bounds. I think we're agreed on that much. I'm positing that threatening someone's livelihood and access to healthcare falls well out of bounds of free speech--that a society in which this is common is not a society that possesses "free speech". So if you have a faction that advocates for speech codes and practices/condones cancellation and political violence, how can we credibly argue that that group is "fighting to restore democracy"? Aren't those behaviors among the ills associated with fascism, and if so, shouldn't we be similarly concerned about them? Or do those properties only become "evil" when arranged in the specific form that we call fascism?
apostacy 6y ago
> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. TL;DR sometimes violence is ok, if I am not satisfied with our democracy. If people use political violence it must be our fault that they are doing it, not the fault of those committing violence. I often see this trotted out when groups like BLM are committing armed insurrection, burning down court houses, police stations, etc. BLM might very well burn down the MN state capital building if Derek Chouvin gets acquitted, at which point people people who were so upset about the Trump supporters protesting in the capital building will then cheer for another capital building to be burned to the ground by mostly peaceful protesters, because that is violence that they have decided is good violence. The problem with this argument, is that you have lost the high ground. ANYONE who is unsatisfied with the government or society has the green light now to be violent. They can trot out the same definition you gave, word for word. Indeed, if White nationalists don't feel represented in government, and feel all peaceful means of expressing themselves have been exhausted, why is violence wrong for them? Would you say that in those cases we are the ones to blame, for marginalizing their voices?
- simonh 6y ago
  Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible. If it were true that democracy had been subverted, that the election had been stolen and that Trump had actually won then such action might even be justified. So then the question is, why are these claims being made and are they valid? That’s the fundamental issue the right needs to decide. Do you believe the electoral process accurately reflects the will of the people as the constitution intended, or do you not, and if not what is to be done about it. Also why wasn’t something done since 2016 when Trump made exactly the same claims of massive fraud. Why wasn't this tackled then? The division between Republicans on whether the election was fair or not is the core issue. One of these sides is correct and the other therefore are reckless, irresponsible and enemies of democracy. Is it the ones negligently and corruptly handing over power to electoral cheats that have stolen an election through massive vote fraud right under their noses; or is it the ones making baseless, unsubstantiated claims with the express goal of undermining and subverting the electoral process. Or does factional unity take precedence, and whichever of these you believe, loyalty to the side is what ultimately matters. Personally I'm a lifelong conservative, but democracy comes first and I know which side I'm on now.

throwaway894345 6y ago

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. I'm having a hard time making sense of this. A precondition for democracy is that we submit to the democratic process. If one or more groups refuses to submit to that process (presumably because their vision is unpersuasive), it doesn't seem like an indictment of any particular democratic process. A perfectly good channel may exist for peacefully resolving conflict, but if one party to a conflict is utterly unwilling to peaceably resolve it then I'm not sympathetic to the idea that it's a deficiency in the channel. Moreover, that party may actively be sabotaging the democratic process (indeed, what is political violence in a liberal democracy but an extreme form of sabotaging the democratic process)? > This is why complex issues cannot be boiled down to pithy one-liners. It would very obviously be contradictory to demand the right to free speech, while claiming it was incompatible for others to exercise that same right to object to you. I wasn't debating whether or not objection or criticism are out of bounds of free speech--they are decidedly in-bounds. I think we're agreed on that much. I'm positing that threatening someone's livelihood and access to healthcare falls well out of bounds of free speech--that a society in which this is common is not a society that possesses "free speech". So if you have a faction that advocates for speech codes and practices/condones cancellation and political violence, how can we credibly argue that that group is "fighting to restore democracy"? Aren't those behaviors among the ills associated with fascism, and if so, shouldn't we be similarly concerned about them? Or do those properties only become "evil" when arranged in the specific form that we call fascism?

apostacy 6y ago

> We can clearly observe circumstances in which the goal of political violence is to achieve liberal democracy in a situation where it is perceived to be failing. A functioning democracy is one in which political violence is rendered unnecessary by providing peaceful and effective channels for resolving political conflict. The existence of political violence effectively demonstrates the lack of a more effective channel for resolving conflict, and its existence does not say anything useful about the support (or otherwise) of those ideals by those involved. TL;DR sometimes violence is ok, if I am not satisfied with our democracy. If people use political violence it must be our fault that they are doing it, not the fault of those committing violence. I often see this trotted out when groups like BLM are committing armed insurrection, burning down court houses, police stations, etc. BLM might very well burn down the MN state capital building if Derek Chouvin gets acquitted, at which point people people who were so upset about the Trump supporters protesting in the capital building will then cheer for another capital building to be burned to the ground by mostly peaceful protesters, because that is violence that they have decided is good violence. The problem with this argument, is that you have lost the high ground. ANYONE who is unsatisfied with the government or society has the green light now to be violent. They can trot out the same definition you gave, word for word. Indeed, if White nationalists don't feel represented in government, and feel all peaceful means of expressing themselves have been exhausted, why is violence wrong for them? Would you say that in those cases we are the ones to blame, for marginalizing their voices?

simonh 6y ago
Yes you’re right, many of these people on Jan 6th believe that they had been denied their democratic rights. That’s why they were willing to directly attack and attempt to overturn the electoral process. In contrast no such extreme perception is present in the BLM movement, some are radicalised sure, but not entire protest mobs. It’s not a core belief of the movement that reform is impossible. If it were true that democracy had been subverted, that the election had been stolen and that Trump had actually won then such action might even be justified. So then the question is, why are these claims being made and are they valid? That’s the fundamental issue the right needs to decide. Do you believe the electoral process accurately reflects the will of the people as the constitution intended, or do you not, and if not what is to be done about it. Also why wasn’t something done since 2016 when Trump made exactly the same claims of massive fraud. Why wasn't this tackled then? The division between Republicans on whether the election was fair or not is the core issue. One of these sides is correct and the other therefore are reckless, irresponsible and enemies of democracy. Is it the ones negligently and corruptly handing over power to electoral cheats that have stolen an election through massive vote fraud right under their noses; or is it the ones making baseless, unsubstantiated claims with the express goal of undermining and subverting the electoral process. Or does factional unity take precedence, and whichever of these you believe, loyalty to the side is what ultimately matters. Personally I'm a lifelong conservative, but democracy comes first and I know which side I'm on now.