As they say, “everything is political”. And yes, “only the information I say is political is allowed” is quite the overreach.
Believing that you’re the only person who deserves to exist and that everyone else should be killed is still a political view, and one that must be allowed to exist in a democracy as long as you don’t actually start killing people. Odious and hateful ideas are still political ideas (see: American Democrats and Republicans arguing that the others’ ideas are odious and hateful, for example), and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.
A manipulable minority that acts on these calls to violence is enough to deeply damage a democracy.
That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.
The majority did vote for democratic parties but that isn’t enough, it has to be an overhelming majority that votes for democratic parties.
Yes, that’s a huge flaw of coalition system governments, but it doesn’t change the overall point - you either trust the people with the choice of electing their government, or you don’t. If you only trust some of the people with electing their government, you don’t have a democracy - you just have a slightly-larger-than-normal autocracy.
Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.
Also: I’d argue that representative democracies are a lot more susceptible to this kind of flaw where parties have to resort to manipulation to get the votes of people.
I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.
A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).
(Also, I’ve enjoyed this conversation so far - thanks!)
and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.
I do agree with that, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying that there is a difference between political information and calls to action. And I don’t think making that separation and acting on one but not the other is not harmful but rather helpful for democracy as it allows more people to participate, namely those that would otherwise have to fear calls for violence against them.
That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.
The point of this law is that having to deal with calls to violence towards a group will likely alter the behaviour of that group in a negative way as well as create direct risks for that group. There is a benefit towards more diversity to restrict some speech. I think this is a good tradeoff.
Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.
Nope that is basically what’s happening here, but it is not really the fault of the people that got elected. We elected a very diverse mix of parties and it is hard to make coalitions in this political climate. This has been the case for a long time but for a lot of the past decades it was enough for two parties to form a coalition for a majority. With the right-wing extremists getting this many votes this has changed towards three or even four parties being involved for majority talks. It’s just honestly a big mess leaving no-one satisfied which in turn only feeds the populists that paint the picture of germany as a failing state.
I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.
I’m not sure I’d say it is close to autocracies, it is more a plutocracy where the money gets you more political influence, similar to the times when voting rights depended on your wealth but less direct making everything looking more shady in the process. This just fuels suspicions and undermines trust in the institutions which is how you get at least minority support for parties that want to openly destroy the system.
A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).
I’m not a big fan of direct democracy on large scales mostly because I honestly don’t think I have the time and energy to have an informed opinion on everything that needs to be decided on in a functioning state. Which makes me assumes that that is probably true for at least a lot of other people too. I like the idea of randomly selected representatives that get compensated to pause their jobs for a period of a few years. It gets rid of some of the bad incentives the party systems have created with people focusing on political “careers” making themselves dependent on being popular.
As they say, “everything is political”. And yes, “only the information I say is political is allowed” is quite the overreach.
Believing that you’re the only person who deserves to exist and that everyone else should be killed is still a political view, and one that must be allowed to exist in a democracy as long as you don’t actually start killing people. Odious and hateful ideas are still political ideas (see: American Democrats and Republicans arguing that the others’ ideas are odious and hateful, for example), and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.
That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.
Yes, that’s a huge flaw of coalition system governments, but it doesn’t change the overall point - you either trust the people with the choice of electing their government, or you don’t. If you only trust some of the people with electing their government, you don’t have a democracy - you just have a slightly-larger-than-normal autocracy.
Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.
I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.
A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).
(Also, I’ve enjoyed this conversation so far - thanks!)
I do agree with that, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying that there is a difference between political information and calls to action. And I don’t think making that separation and acting on one but not the other is not harmful but rather helpful for democracy as it allows more people to participate, namely those that would otherwise have to fear calls for violence against them.
The point of this law is that having to deal with calls to violence towards a group will likely alter the behaviour of that group in a negative way as well as create direct risks for that group. There is a benefit towards more diversity to restrict some speech. I think this is a good tradeoff.
Nope that is basically what’s happening here, but it is not really the fault of the people that got elected. We elected a very diverse mix of parties and it is hard to make coalitions in this political climate. This has been the case for a long time but for a lot of the past decades it was enough for two parties to form a coalition for a majority. With the right-wing extremists getting this many votes this has changed towards three or even four parties being involved for majority talks. It’s just honestly a big mess leaving no-one satisfied which in turn only feeds the populists that paint the picture of germany as a failing state.
I’m not sure I’d say it is close to autocracies, it is more a plutocracy where the money gets you more political influence, similar to the times when voting rights depended on your wealth but less direct making everything looking more shady in the process. This just fuels suspicions and undermines trust in the institutions which is how you get at least minority support for parties that want to openly destroy the system.
I’m not a big fan of direct democracy on large scales mostly because I honestly don’t think I have the time and energy to have an informed opinion on everything that needs to be decided on in a functioning state. Which makes me assumes that that is probably true for at least a lot of other people too. I like the idea of randomly selected representatives that get compensated to pause their jobs for a period of a few years. It gets rid of some of the bad incentives the party systems have created with people focusing on political “careers” making themselves dependent on being popular.