Do you think it is your civic duty to vote

[MrNiceGuy]

That's a lot of words. Hate speech is protected speech unless it is attached to a crime. It still can have real world consequences,such as shunning, loss of customers, whatever, etc. If you (editorial you) kick the shit out of a random little old Black, Asian, Jewish (pick one) while raining down the appropriate to her Hate speech, that is a Hate crime.

Real world consquences like shunning or loss of customers has nothing to do with the first amendment, though. That's like a homeowner controlling who gets to picket on their property. It's the homeowner's first amendment right to speak or not speak on their own property.

Sure, the speech associated with a crime can always enhance or mitigate a crime, so hate speech laws do make sense - when you're referring to hate speech as "bias" speech - as in your example - the crime is punished a bit more because of the intent and motive for the crime. It's like the mitigating factor that might arise if a guy is robbing a store and and is recorded saying "yeah, let's get our kicks here man - we don't even need the money, let's just rob this guy and take his stuff and break up his store! Yeah man!" -- certainly, that's free speech, but it evinces a malicious and purposeless intent to just **** someone up, whereas if the robbery was being done while the robber was recorded as making teary eyed statements like "I'm sorry man, I really don't want to do this, but I have not choice - my kid is sick, my wife is sick, I just got fired, and I can't put food on the table - I just need a few bucks and some food to get through the week...." -- then clearly that speech could be used as a mitigating factor.

I don't disagree that speech associated with crimes can be relevant and enhance or mitigate punishments. But that in no way is a limitation on free speech.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So some say. I'm not buying it. Perhaps if there was an oval to fill in with the caption, Not Voting then I could agree.

You make an interesting point. Playing off of that --- Imagine if we did add that oval, and if the oval was "none of the available candidates," and we set a rule that if over 50% of the voters vote "none" then all the candidates are disqualified for that election, and a new election is scheduled. That would be a check against those that really control the system just putting up their controlled candidates, as they always do, and would force them to be more responsive to the people..... possibly.

 

[NWRatCon]

Wow. I took the time to read a lot of responses from people who, objectively, should not be allowed to vote.

We live in a liberal democracy. We have the ability to direct our government. In order to do so, though, we need to have two things: knowledge and the vote. Out of laziness and ignorance we have allowed our control to be eroded.

By not taking the time to understand how government actually works, we have allowed various nefarious entities to assert control over our governments - state, local and national. We can reassert that control, but only by being informed and by voting.

So, it's a choice - vote, or be controlled by others.

 

[multivita-man]

I guess, but it's easy to know ex post facto what Hitler would do. If you are saying you would be responsible for not, say, murdering or even just "silencing" someone like Hitler because of what they said or wrote before they took any action, then you are placing a very high standard on each person and you are suggesting that murder and censorship because someone espouses dangerous ideas is appropriate. That has the inevitable consequence of having that moral responsibility placed on all people, sucn that those who think YOUR ideas are dangerous and evil will claim the same obligation to stop you.

It was very clear through his speeches and his conduct that Hitler intended to violate people's civil rights and basically kill democracy - he had been thrown in jail for attempting to overthrow the government violently in 1923. Then, like now, there were people who understood what was at stake and tried to stop it, and there were those who were indifferent or apathetic, who had just as much a hand in enabling Hitler's rise and whatever else happened later as those who conspired with and supported him politically. People like Hitler, who seize the machinery of power through democratic means, cannot do what they do without a sufficient number of people simply not caring. Not caring is a deliberate decision to allow others who care more to destroy democracy.

If someone truly believes that democracy is not the best form of government, they are certainly entitled to that belief, but they should be the last to complain if they find that they're a hell of a lot poorer and a hell of a lot less free to complain about it

 

[NWRatCon]

It's bad logic. I am not morally responsible for acting in good faith and end up voting for someone who ends up using their power in bad faith. Moreover, if we act collectively, there are mechanisms to deal with that kind of person.

I am responsible if I had the chance to stop someone like Hitler, and chose to do nothing.

I disagree. You have a responsibility to be informed when voting and are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Your argument is akin to arguing that you are not responsible for the accident that followed your reckless driving because, well, you are only driving.

Is it possible that a politician was so careful and successful in desguising his intentions? Yes. Likely? Nope.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It was very clear through his speeches and his conduct that Hitler intended to violate people's civil rights and basically kill democracy - he had been thrown in jail for attempting to overthrow the government violently in 1923.

So, if someone makes speeches and engages in conduct that shows they intend to violate my civil rights (like, for example, my civil right to keep and bear arms), then I have a moral obligation or right to kill them?

Then, like now, there were people who understood what was at stake and tried to stop it, and there were those who were indifferent or apathetic, who had just as much a hand in enabling Hitler's rise and whatever else happened later as those who conspired with and supported him politically. People like Hitler, who seize the machinery of power through democratic means, cannot do what they do without a sufficient number of people simply not caring. Not caring is a deliberate decision to allow others who care more to destroy democracy.

If someone truly believes that democracy is not the best form of government, they are certainly entitled to that belief, but they should be the last to complain if they find that they're a hell of a lot poorer and a hell of a lot less free to complain about it

The best way to limit what an authoritarian can do is to limit the authority of the government, by expanding liberty. Democracy can be oppressive, a la the Tyranny of the Majority. Liberty protects the people. The more areas that the government cannot touch, the less a tyrant can do. If our free speech, free press, and free assembly, and right to keep and bear arms, are protected, and if the government's power to search, seize and arrest is limited and subject to strict due process requirements, we are far better able to protect ourselves from tyranny than if we allow the government to infringe on those rights and leave our rights up to a democratic vote. In other words, the less our rights are subject to a democratic vote, the better off we are.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So, it's a choice - vote, or be controlled by others.

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman



Consent is manufactured - https://www.supersummary.com/manufacturing-consent/summary/

 

[multivita-man]

So, if someone makes speeches and engages in conduct that shows they intend to violate my civil rights (like, for example, my civil right to keep and bear arms), then I have a moral obligation or right to kill them?

I never said that. My point is that, in a democracy you have a moral obligation to oppose them through proper, legal civic action.

The best way to limit what an authoritarian can do is to limit the authority of the government, by expanding liberty. Democracy can be oppressive, a la the Tyranny of the Majority. Liberty protects the people. The more areas that the government cannot touch, the less a tyrant can do. If our free speech, free press, and free assembly, and right to keep and bear arms, are protected, and if the government's power to search, seize and arrest is limited and subject to strict due process requirements, we are far better able to protect ourselves from tyranny than if we allow the government to infringe on those rights and leave our rights up to a democratic vote. In other words, the less our rights are subject to a democratic vote, the better off we are.

Some of what you write above is probably true, but it has the feel of something that has made its rounds on social media, inaccurately attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine and posted at one point or another.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I never said that. My point is that, in a democracy you have a moral obligation to oppose them through proper, legal civic action.

So your allegation about Hitler was that people who disagreed with him had an obligation to oppose them through proper, legal action? Ok.

Some of what you write above is probably true, but it has the feel of something that has made its rounds on social media, inaccurately attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine and posted at one point or another.

Alexis de Tocqueville. https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/lesson-two-tyranny-majority

 

[NWRatCon]

I never said that. My point is that, in a democracy you have a moral obligation to oppose them through proper, legal civic action.

The topic of the thread. It could also include prosecution, as appropriate.

Some of what you write above is probably true, but it has the feel of something that has made its rounds on social media, inaccurately attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine and posted at one point or another.

Most of what he writes is to support authoritarianism, and this is no exception. Overt concern about "tyranny of the majority" as an excuse for eliminating the rights of those he opposes. It's a theme. "Rights for me, but not for thee."

 

[multivita-man]

So your allegation about Hitler was that people who disagreed with him had an obligation to oppose them through proper, legal action? Ok.

Had enough people done so, he would never have seized power. I'm not going to advocate political violence as a means of preempting something that could easily be resolved through civic duty.

Alexis de Tocqueville. https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/lesson-two-tyranny-majority

Cool, but whatever.

 

[jpevans]

Real world consquences like shunning or loss of customers has nothing to do with the first amendment, though. That's like a homeowner controlling who gets to picket on their property. It's the homeowner's first amendment right to speak or not speak on their own property.

Sure, the speech associated with a crime can always enhance or mitigate a crime, so hate speech laws do make sense - when you're referring to hate speech as "bias" speech - as in your example - the crime is punished a bit more because of the intent and motive for the crime. It's like the mitigating factor that might arise if a guy is robbing a store and and is recorded saying "yeah, let's get our kicks here man - we don't even need the money, let's just rob this guy and take his stuff and break up his store! Yeah man!" -- certainly, that's free speech, but it evinces a malicious and purposeless intent to just **** someone up, whereas if the robbery was being done while the robber was recorded as making teary eyed statements like "I'm sorry man, I really don't want to do this, but I have not choice - my kid is sick, my wife is sick, I just got fired, and I can't put food on the table - I just need a few bucks and some food to get through the week...." -- then clearly that speech could be used as a mitigating factor.

I don't disagree that speech associated with crimes can be relevant and enhance or mitigate punishments. But that in no way is a limitation on free speech.

You’re getting it.

 

[jpevans]

So, if someone makes speeches and engages in conduct that shows they intend to violate my civil rights (like, for example, my civil right to keep and bear arms), then I have a moral obligation or right to kill them?

The best way to limit what an authoritarian can do is to limit the authority of the government, by expanding liberty. Democracy can be oppressive, a la the Tyranny of the Majority. Liberty protects the people. The more areas that the government cannot touch, the less a tyrant can do. If our free speech, free press, and free assembly, and right to keep and bear arms, are protected, and if the government's power to search, seize and arrest is limited and subject to strict due process requirements, we are far better able to protect ourselves from tyranny than if we allow the government to infringe on those rights and leave our rights up to a democratic vote. In other words, the less our rights are subject to a democratic vote, the better off we are.

If someone killed Hitler before his rise to mass murderer. He’d be a common assassin & H would be a martyr. & the world would be a better place.
2nd paragraph mostly true. Though those rights are precarious in the upcoming election. As you stated earlier, Hitler attained his power democratically.

 

[Rumpelstil]

Do you think it is your civic duty to vote?

58 out of 82 have voted: YES!
And so did I.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

If someone killed Hitler before his rise to mass murderer. He’d be a common assassin & H would be a martyr. & the world would be a better place.
2nd paragraph mostly true. Though those rights are precarious in the upcoming election. As you stated earlier, Hitler attained his power democratically.

Hitler did not come to power democratically. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany because he was appointed to that position by Hindenburg. He forced Hindenburg to call an election, and then there was the mass violence against any groups opposing him. Even with chasing opposition out of the ballot box, the Nazis only took 43% of the national vote. Then he used violence and threats to obtain dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. It was hardly "democratic."

 

[jpevans]

Hitler did not come to power democratically. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany because he was appointed to that position by Hindenburg. He forced Hindenburg to call an election, and then there was the mass violence against any groups opposing him. Even with chasing opposition out of the ballot box, the Nazis only took 43% of the national vote. Then he used violence and threats to obtain dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. It was hardly "democratic."

Von Hindenburg thought he could control Hitler, appointed him to form a coalition government. to make a majority, because neither group had a majority.

 

[Rumpelstil]

Of course it is a civic duty.