Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 4658
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Tue Oct 20, 2020 1:35 pm

Liberal democracy work best when everyone agree and respect its rule and operate respectfully in it.
However, it is not always the case. Sometime there are some forces, internal or external, sometimes organized, sometimes radical, which would try to undermine liberal democracy system for their own benefits.
In the past century, we have seen it being done in the name of religion, in the name of equality, in the name of national interest, in the name of the people, and in the name of the race. But all of them end up being about sacrificing the interest of vulnerable groups in the society for the benefit of those who gained power under such names, as well as their allies.

These forces would exploit the liberalism in liberal democracy and push their own agenda over it in order to advance their influence and ideal, ultimately seizing the power over the entire society.
The advantage of liberalism that allow everyone to sound their voice and democracy allowing everyone to be represented in the society. But when some fractiom do not believe in theze values, and if they happens to gain some degree of influence either from internal or external source, they can flood and damage the liberal democracy system which is dependent on people respecting the system, in my view.

In such case, should we allow these fractions with authoritarian fantasy to use the liberal democracy system to spread their propaganda and gain their foothold potentially overthrowing the liberal democracy system, or should we subject them to stricter rule according to thsir own ideal and isolating rest of the society from these fraction for a more stable and functional system?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
fallap
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:36 am

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:37 pm

The internal threats against liberal democracy is negligent at best, and there are already sufficient legal measures in place that hinders people in breaking down democracy from within. Applying anti-democratic measures to fight anti-democrats were first thought of by Karl Loewenstein in the wake of Nazi Germany. But the danger is that you end up destroying what you intend on saving - liberal democracy.
Ex grease monkey buried head to toe inside an F-16M
Now studying Political Science
 
Sokes
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:35 am

I assume that's why the US allows ownership of guns.
Who has authoritarian fantasies? Are you speaking of Afghanistan, Libya, Irak and such places?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:50 am

What authoritarians often do is they accuse another person of trying to take away their authority, which is an accidental admission that they, too are authoritarians. In the US, both sides richly deserve the accusation. Most of the money and power is on one side. Meanwhile, the other side is an "authoritarian" because they win elections too, sometimes. And this story applies just as easily both ways.

I think it is actually great that both sides are rancorous and angry in the US. People get frustrated in life. It is better to have controversy than to stifle everyone under a real dictatorship.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22777
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:04 pm

In the United States, there is a very vocal and powerful faction of the Republican party who are constantly screaming that "liberals" are taking away freedoms and liberties and denying people rights. This same faction uses the words liberal, Democrat, socialist, communist, and marxist interchangeably. Also, this same faction is trying their hardest to take away rights from Americans. The right to vote, the right to marry, the right to practice their own religion. This faction simply wants power to make money for themselves. They have convinced their followers that they (the followers) will also prosper. There is zero evidence of that judging by the past 40 years under Reaganism. That is how I see it here in the United States.

EDIT:

They do not need to be legislated away. That would create a huge backlash. Instead, bring back objective news. Civics education is another way to help take away their power. Limiting money into and out of campaigns and to and from politicians across the board.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
c933103
Topic Author
Posts: 4658
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:53 am

Sokes wrote:
I assume that's why the US allows ownership of guns.
Who has authoritarian fantasies? Are you speaking of Afghanistan, Libya, Irak and such places?

I am not only speaking about any single country. See throughout the history, you can see the rise of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union as well as other communist states following it, many ultraconservative Islamic and Christian countries in the history, and many others. They all follow this same path.
There are sign and symptoms that same fractions in the United States might qualify as one of such, but obviously they're still some distance away from their goal.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:41 am

seb146 wrote:
In the United States, there is a very vocal and powerful faction of the Republican party who are constantly screaming that "liberals" are taking away freedoms and liberties and denying people rights. This same faction uses the words liberal, Democrat, socialist, communist, and marxist interchangeably. Also, this same faction is trying their hardest to take away rights from Americans. The right to vote, the right to marry, the right to practice their own religion. This faction simply wants power to make money for themselves. They have convinced their followers that they (the followers) will also prosper. There is zero evidence of that judging by the past 40 years under Reaganism. That is how I see it here in the United States.

EDIT:

They do not need to be legislated away. That would create a huge backlash. Instead, bring back objective news. Civics education is another way to help take away their power. Limiting money into and out of campaigns and to and from politicians across the board.


I agree with your criticism of Republicans and also the criticism against Democrats that you disagree with. There is nothing liberal about totalitarian Communism. An economy that is centralized within the government inevitably becomes a totalitarian state. We would rely on it for food, clothes and water. Our vote would mean nothing. Either you vote for the guys in charge, or they would take away your food - food that they prohibit you from buying or selling privately. Because business is evil, and only government is capable of being good.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sat Oct 24, 2020 12:07 pm

seb146 wrote:
Instead, bring back objective news. Civics education is another way to help take away their power. Limiting money into and out of campaigns and to and from politicians across the board.

When we were 16 we picked on a weak teacher. Today, thinking back, we dislike our behaviour. We were all brought up reasonable liberal. If environment is good, people may become liberal when the brain matures. But I believe that's not something that happens by itself. Human nature is rather dominance and submission. I speak of the 60-80% in the middle. Even the most liberal society has authoritarian characters. Even authoritarian societies ( respect the elders more than rules) have liberal members.

The Green Party in Germany consists of individualists. I don't know now, but 15 years back if the party leader of the conservative party said something, his party soldiers would most likely repeat it.

We on a.net like to discuss. Many people are followers by nature, they want to be told what to believe.

Nobody stops a newspaper to be objective. Good luck making money with such a newspaper.
Not everything is the fault of the ruling classes. A lot is human nature.

Who wants to prohibit whom to marry? I may actually support certain restrictions, so I'm curious. Can you expand, please?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22777
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:48 pm

Sokes wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Instead, bring back objective news. Civics education is another way to help take away their power. Limiting money into and out of campaigns and to and from politicians across the board.

When we were 16 we picked on a weak teacher. Today, thinking back, we dislike our behaviour. We were all brought up reasonable liberal. If environment is good, people may become liberal when the brain matures. But I believe that's not something that happens by itself. Human nature is rather dominance and submission. I speak of the 60-80% in the middle. Even the most liberal society has authoritarian characters. Even authoritarian societies ( respect the elders more than rules) have liberal members.

The Green Party in Germany consists of individualists. I don't know now, but 15 years back if the party leader of the conservative party said something, his party soldiers would most likely repeat it.

We on a.net like to discuss. Many people are followers by nature, they want to be told what to believe.

Nobody stops a newspaper to be objective. Good luck making money with such a newspaper.
Not everything is the fault of the ruling classes. A lot is human nature.

Who wants to prohibit whom to marry? I may actually support certain restrictions, so I'm curious. Can you expand, please?


In the United States, the courts ruled that the more money a person has, the more free their speech is with regard to politics. Mitt Romney, on the campaign trail years ago, famously said "corporations are people, my friend" about a similar ruling. I have recently changed my mind about taking money out of politics altogether. There should be some money for campaigning. But, it is still a problem. The 435 members of the House, once they are elected and sworn in, will have to almost immediately start raising money for their next campaign in 2022 if they want to be reelected.

Newspapers are a thing of the past. I still buy the Sunday Oregonian at the supermarket every Sunday but, like most of us, I get my information online. The outlets who want to be news, like CNN and Fox, must be held to those high standards. Outlets who want to be opinion like OAN and MSNBC, must be held to those standards.

Human nature. Some of us believe we need others to survive as a group. Others believe we can survive on our own. Still others wander along looking for someone to lead us. There are overlaps. I believe we are all strong at something but we all need each other to survive. We have to form a consensus and work together, using our own individual strengths to move forward. I believe, in the United States anyway, that we have gotten lazy. We have everything on demand. That has been whiddled down to a few giant corporations. They have their place and they are useful but, as I say, we are lazy. We say we don't want them in our lives as much but, then, we are distracted by whatever deal is being offered.

The marriage thing, there is a conversation in another thread, IIRC. Republicans want to strip marriage equality from LGBTQ people. The self-proclaimed "evangelical Christian" group of the Republican party has decided all Republicans are against marriage equality because they believe version of Christianity is under attack and will be banned or something. And the average Republican just goes along with it. Even while saying "but I support marriage equality because I don't care what adults do".
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Sokes
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sun Oct 25, 2020 12:55 am

Of course we need each other. Without division of labour Elon Musk may be on his two hectar field at the moment to tend to his potatoes, to be consumed subsistence style.
But our society has division of labour. The government allows me to have the most unconventional views. But most people don't want to hear it, however good the reasoning.

I don't know how one can oppose homosexual relationships. Earlier these people married to escape stupid questions. How unfair is this towards the women? It was the fault of society.

Even better:
In the nineteenth century homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Why then force such people in hetero relationships? Shouldn't society appreciate if people with a mental disorder don't get children? (Not that I agree with the premise. But then for those who agree, my argument should apply.)
So the full discussion is void of any logic.
Well, one can't force people to be open minded.

Religion gives meaning and is supposed to be beyond doubt. If I doubt one part, what remains of my former certainty and the meaning my life got out of it?
I believe to see the world relatively realistic means to be in doubt about each and everything. That's not something many people are willing to bear.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22777
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Should liberalism apply to force trying to undermine it?

Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:58 am

No one on the left opposes innovation. Things like building windmills cheaper or energy storage cheaper that also does not destroy the environment. Elon Musk has some great ideas. Some of us have ideas, some of us help those ideas become reality. What is wrong with those of us helping those ideas become reality want a share for our labors?

The irony of LGBTQ equality is the same people who demand we stop whining about feelings being hurt because we are snowflakes are the same people who whine about their feelings being hurt. No one can force anyone to be open minded but the law can treat everyone equally.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: davidjohnson6, DNDTUF, johns624, lentokone and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos