Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Outlaw particular political positions
Germany outlaws parties sympathetic to Nazism, so the US should outlaw groups that promote social conservatism. The reason is that social conservatives unjustly infringe on the freedom of others, like Nazis.
We can also:
- Outlaw the KKK and all other racist groups and fascist groups.
- Outlaw the confederate flag, and arrest anyone carrying it.
- Outlaw all far-left crazy Marxists, and purge academia of them.
Godwin's Law.
Well, if you're taking the stance that any sort of political stance which infringes on the freedom of others is bannable... pretty much the advocacy of any stance of government would be bannable. Hell, by that logic, we could ban the logic that created the institution allowing us to ban the logic!
You should not outlaw them, let them participate! Like rotten fruit, they die off.
What you do need is a system that gives these extremes no chances to make it non-democratic. That is very difficult, almost impossible, as we allow a great deal of corruption today but its our only chance.
\o
One example, The Belgian "green" party ruled a few years and became very little.(because ofc they s*****) The extreme right party was not allowed to participate and grew to huge proportions. No matter extreme left or right or whatever, there are countless examples like this.
Pretty sure he's talking about the individuals. That being said, a book can't actually exist without a writer. So if, in the future, a Marxist decided to write a Marxist book, under a strict interpretation of the OP, the book would not be banned, but the writer could be classified as a Marxist, probably using the book as evidence against him. Not exactly the best incentive program for writing.
Yes, I'm proposing the censorship of individuals and material threatening to the liberty of individuals. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it's sometimes a practical necessity. Although, I'm open to hearing alternative suggestions. Perhaps it would be wise to place additional restrictions on religious participation in politics? Maybe force Catholic institutions to separate from the Vatican?
No. You have to address the contradiction before you get the advantages of your proposal. Otherwise, your proposal falls apart, and you can't claim those advantages.
EDIT: Oh, and... whoops! So apparently he does extend his argument to works on the issue, rather than simply the individuals.
This month is banned book month at the public library. Surprising to say, there are alot of them. Some dont even know why. example slaughter house five, by kurt vonnegut.
Words are very powerful either through writing or speech can sway ideas , plant little seeds of inspiration, or devious mischief however you see it.
But to out right ban ? No. It takes the whole "don't worry we know whats best for you" to a whole other level.
what, they banned slaughterhouse 5? What country are you in?
I forget the novel where Vonnegut was a character and he gave the penis stats for all the male characters in his novel but I dont think it was Slaughterhouse 5
oh you mean it was banned somewhere
Justinian I,
Your proposal isn't exactly liberal.
One might consider it rather culturally (socially) conservative. Your idea would be hypocritical, outlawing the idea of itself.
I suggest we outlaw Justinian I!
Yes, I'm proposing the censorship of an individual and material threatening to the liberty of individuals. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it's sometimes a practical necessity. Although, I'm open to hearing alternative suggestions. Perhaps it would be wise to place additional restrictions on Justinian's participation in politics?
confederate flag is pretty though
The USA would be better today if it remained a federative polity, rather than the corrupt, unchecked federal behemoth it is today. Many of the South's leaders were fighting to check the federal government's power. They believed that slavery was a moral evil. They wrote about these things at the time.
Many fly the Southern Cross to signify that they're against our corrupt, intrusive bullshit government which is oppressive at home and aggressive abroad.
Justinian I doesn't know about history, he just wants to repeat it.
justinian is just afraid of the nika revolt happening again but this time doesnt have his smoking hot wife theodora to save his ass
EDIT: OMG, oops! Um... Justinian... I sort of accidentally hit the "Edit" button when I was supposed to hit the "Quote" button. Sorry! Feel free to write-in what you posted here, or some facsimile thereof. Again, sorry for the error... completely unintended! 
@Justinian
It's not just a principle issue. There's absolutely no reason why, in the world where we're deciding that particular political ideologies should be banned because they threaten the liberty of people, that just about any ideology that exists could not fall under the umbrella. In effect, you just wrote some government organization a blank check to ban whatever the hell they want on the grounds that it infringes upon the liberty of others.
Newsflash: Every aspect of government is an "infringement on the liberty of others." If a government bans rape, that is inherently an infringement of a person's "right" to choose whether or not to rape someone. We accept that principle, though, because we believe that rape is a bad "right." So unless you can have that debate about what is a good "right" or what is a bad "right," you don't have a definition of a "right." Unless, of course, if you want to go with the "there are inalienable rights" doctrine... in which case you have a whole new category of hypocrisy to deal with. 
Are you seriously saying that the right to debate out and understand the very issues upon which we define our nation is a less important right... than the right to have sex with someone without worrying about their menstrual cycle?
Well we outnumber Justinian.
We will have to note his desire to outlaw us, and outlaw all he loves and cherishes (severely) that conflicts with our values.
So... reverse Roe v. Wade and we'll be good?
Oh, and I should note: The Nazis weren't banned because they infringed on people's liberties. That stance completely marginalizes a couple little important details about that portion of history (most notably, the fact that World War 2 and the Holocaust happened). That's not a threat to liberty. That's a threat to life on a scale unseen in human history. Your stance trivalizes both WW2 and the Holocaust.
they were banned for being popular and against the Four Powers and the conquering Four Powers decided they weren't gonna put up with that shit twice
they being a different breed that kicked themselves for not waging preemptive war to interfere with domestic politics soon enough.
I miss them
the United States must be preserved
even if it only controls DC and Indian reservations, like the Pope in the Vatican
this is a moral necessity
if we totally destroy the United States of America for the sake of greater standard of living, wealth, and prosperity, then we are no better than animals
also, if we keep a rump USA then nobody inherits the federal debt.
it remains with the extant US govt, and the 50 states can form whatever setup they like without any obligations at all
also that rump US keeps the permanent seat on the UN Security Council
so if we have 5 confederacies of 10 states and the USA at DC, that's 6 votes at the UN, and potentially 6 votes in the Security Council
joy
--yes we can
Norway did it, it used to be under the Swedish King
So did Iceland
and Ireland
and Italy
and Belgium
and Poland
and Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Slovakia
and them yugoslav states
Zarf BeebleBrix, I demand your immediate resignation! Oh wait, we couldn't possibly care about any insane thing he had to say. Nevermind the above. I meant "thanks."
There is nothing hypocritical about the concept of inalienable rights. Bloody commie.
The Yell,
Succession? I'm in.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Outlaw particular political positions
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.