5 ms·

Counterpoint: The Germans previously elected the Nazis. I'm sure we'd all prefer a bit of anti-democracy here at the polls than kilotons of democracy delivered

Counterpoint: The Germans previously elected the Nazis. I'm sure we'd all prefer a bit of anti-democracy here at the polls than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years.

version_five 3y ago
That's what constitutions are for.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Agree. The structural solution is a weaker, better checked and balanced Berlin. The classic form of that solution is enhanced federalism and devolution of power. But the EU offers another path: closer political integration.
- purerandomness 3y ago
  Exactly, and because you're right, the Nazi's playbook is having some historic event - let's say, a Reichstag Fire [1] or something - disabling the constitution on day 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
- orra 3y ago
  I'll point out that banning parties who would seek to destroy democracy is part of the German constitution. Article 21. There's no irony here. What is being mooted is something deliberately introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazis and World War II, to prevent a reoccurrence. (I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The irony is that banning political parties on the grounds of threatening the German state is exactly that the Nazis did after Hitler became chancellor with the Reichstag Fire Decree. And the same thing East Germany did to cement communist control. "We have to disenfranchise you to protect democracy" is a self defeating idea.
  - version_five 3y ago
    I wasn't aware of that, my notion of a good constitution is that you should be comfortable with your worst enemy wielding the powers it grants. I'm curious what checks there are on Article 21 then. It seems like a no brainer that an unfriendly government count just declare all their opposition enemies of democracy. How is that power limited?
- undersuit 3y ago
  It's a document. It can't do anything. You have to help enforce it's content.
gameman144 3y ago
I guess the question would be whether banning opposition is the best way to quell opposition. One of the core tenets of democracy is that the people get a choice in their government. If the current government is able to rip that choice away if it's unpalatable, then that's anti-democratic in and of itself.
- jmye 3y ago
  The people also chose the government doing the banning. I don’t find this reasoning holds any water. If we all vote to ban the party some dude started to advocate for killing all left-handed people, we’re not being anti-democratic - we’re being serious people. If you think this party poses no threat, then that’s a real argument. “But it’s not fair that I can’t vote for the cannibals/Nazis/anti-democracy advocates” is unequivocally not (and it’s not more so just because you don’t think they’re actually Nazis or whatever).
  - gameman144 3y ago
    There is a difference between allowing a party and allowing an act. If a party says "drugs should be legal", it doesn't mean that drug dealers are legal today. Outlawing an action is fine. Outlawing a party who says the action should be okay is anti-democratic.
Manuel_D 3y ago
The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Nazis would later cement their power after the Reichstag fire decree, banning most attempts at opposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...
- throw9away6 3y ago
  Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…
- hollerith 3y ago
  Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.
memefrog 3y ago
If the Germans elected the Nazis maybe we should take pause and think why rather than try to ban it. Maybe the lesson should be "dont ignore the concerns of the people" rather than "banning parties is good".
- 01GOD 3y ago
  [dead]
justinclift 3y ago
> ... than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years. Why bring the US into the conversation? ;)

Counterpoint: The Germans previously elected the Nazis. I'm sure we'd all prefer a bit of anti-democracy here at the polls than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years.

version_five 3y ago

That's what constitutions are for.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Agree. The structural solution is a weaker, better checked and balanced Berlin. The classic form of that solution is enhanced federalism and devolution of power. But the EU offers another path: closer political integration.
purerandomness 3y ago
Exactly, and because you're right, the Nazi's playbook is having some historic event - let's say, a Reichstag Fire [1] or something - disabling the constitution on day 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
orra 3y ago
I'll point out that banning parties who would seek to destroy democracy is part of the German constitution. Article 21. There's no irony here. What is being mooted is something deliberately introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Nazis and World War II, to prevent a reoccurrence. (I've slightly lost the thread here, so I'm not 100% certain you're disagreeing.)
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The irony is that banning political parties on the grounds of threatening the German state is exactly that the Nazis did after Hitler became chancellor with the Reichstag Fire Decree. And the same thing East Germany did to cement communist control. "We have to disenfranchise you to protect democracy" is a self defeating idea.
- version_five 3y ago
  I wasn't aware of that, my notion of a good constitution is that you should be comfortable with your worst enemy wielding the powers it grants. I'm curious what checks there are on Article 21 then. It seems like a no brainer that an unfriendly government count just declare all their opposition enemies of democracy. How is that power limited?
undersuit 3y ago
It's a document. It can't do anything. You have to help enforce it's content.

gameman144 3y ago

I guess the question would be whether banning opposition is the best way to quell opposition. One of the core tenets of democracy is that the people get a choice in their government. If the current government is able to rip that choice away if it's unpalatable, then that's anti-democratic in and of itself.

jmye 3y ago
The people also chose the government doing the banning. I don’t find this reasoning holds any water. If we all vote to ban the party some dude started to advocate for killing all left-handed people, we’re not being anti-democratic - we’re being serious people. If you think this party poses no threat, then that’s a real argument. “But it’s not fair that I can’t vote for the cannibals/Nazis/anti-democracy advocates” is unequivocally not (and it’s not more so just because you don’t think they’re actually Nazis or whatever).
- gameman144 3y ago
  There is a difference between allowing a party and allowing an act. If a party says "drugs should be legal", it doesn't mean that drug dealers are legal today. Outlawing an action is fine. Outlawing a party who says the action should be okay is anti-democratic.

Manuel_D 3y ago

The Germans did not elect the Nazis into power. They lost in the 1932 elections by no small margin. Hindenburg got 53% of the vote, Hitler less than 37%. The Nazis would later cement their power after the Reichstag fire decree, banning most attempts at opposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_ele...

throw9away6 3y ago
Boy history loves to rhyme doesn’t it…
hollerith 3y ago
Your URL doesn't support your position (emphasis mine): >Hindenburg's reelection failed to prevent the NSDAP from assuming power. Two successive federal elections later that year left it as the largest party in the Reichstag and anti-republic parties in the majority. Under this political climate, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. >The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote, while Papen's position was undermined. Papen dissolved the Reichstag again with elections in November, in which the Nazis lost seats but remained the largest party.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Subsequent elections weren't fair elections: in February of '33 the Nazis had already started to ban and persecute competing parties. I guess if you caveat the statement by specifying that they only won unfair, rigged elections then sure that isn't wrong. > Upon Hindenburg's death in 1934 Hitler de facto assumed the presidency, which he combined with the chancellorship to become the Führer und Reichskanzler. Hitler was appointed not elected. And assumed the presidency after Hindenburg's death, not by winning an election. > The NSDAP emerged from the Reichstag elections in July as the largest party ever seen in the Reichstag and having over a third of the vote "Over a third" is nowhere near the majority. Remember Hindenburg ran as an independent and won over 50% of the vote. "Largest party" in a system with more than two parties and. And again, after February 1933 the Nazis had severely suppressed opposition parties. Subsequent elections are not fair elections, this is like saying Kim Jeong Un was democratically elected. Technically he was, with the little detail that there was just one party and one candidate to vote far.

memefrog 3y ago

If the Germans elected the Nazis maybe we should take pause and think why rather than try to ban it. Maybe the lesson should be "dont ignore the concerns of the people" rather than "banning parties is good".

01GOD 3y ago
[dead]

justinclift 3y ago

> ... than kilotons of democracy delivered by air in a few years. Why bring the US into the conversation? ;)