Agreed. But government has the right to restrict the rights of certain people, when they are legally convicted in a fair trial after they have been found guilty of a crime.
Yes, if the government can prove beyond reasonable doubt that an individual committed an act which infringed upon the rights of another, they can rightfully enact force against said person's ability to exercise his rights. True.
For example, it is a violation of the freedom of a convicted murderer when he gets life in prison.
It most certainly is. Government force against the free exercise of an individual's right. So cast by a jury of his peers with full Jury Nullification in effect. That must be the way it is done. Government is necessary, anarchy doesn't work (thanks a lot humans). However, that is no need to go hog wild. Government may act, but again restricted and under specific circumstances. Government is not a cure all.
I believe conspiring to take violent actions against a democratically elected and legitimized, constitutional republican government, with the goal of toppling it and replacing it with a tyranny, is a crime. Probably you would agree too, at some point... let's say the moment someone starts building a bomb. So maybe I'm just a bit more cautious than you.
I do not believe that someone running their mouth is a crime. I do not believe that someone preaching violent revolution is necessarily wrong either. As a result, they must be allowed to do so. Back in the 50's, anarchists in America used to be able to stand in public, on their soap boxes, and preach revolt against the government and armed uprising. I believe they should to this day be free to do so.
Well, when they say "you don't deserve freedom and your rights and they shall be removed", or the rights of someone else should be removed, AND even take actions to strife for this ideology, it's more than just me not liking them. They pose a direct threat to my freedom, which appears more imminent to me than that of a checked constitutional democratic/republican government.
They pose a direct threat when they ACT in that direction. And if they do so choose to act in a way to infringe upon mine or anyone else's free exercise of rights, we have a system set up to handle it.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't really see that problem in Germany at the moment.
You will
never see the problem at the moment. That's the point really. You do not see it coming. And freedom is snuffed out with a whimper.
The laws were even stricter right after WW2 than they are now. And the government power is still very well checked, despite these legal options against anti-constitutionalists. And we have done well in the Federal Republic in the past 63 years, without slipping into a tyranny (at least it doesn't appear to be one to me
). So I don't really see a slippery slope so far.
I wouldn't necessarily make that argument for Germany. The German people seem very wary of government power, the German government seems to have no problem wielding it. Be it guns, airsoft toys, bitching on the street, etc. y'all have unreasonable restrictions. America has unreasonable restrictions, and the government is going to have to pay attention, or they will leave us no choice but to French Revolution their asses.
Probably I'm preaching to the choir when I tell you I am more concerned about the situation in America, where it has become official policy to extralegally detain mere suspects(!), even denying them the right on a fair trial. The executive appears frighteningly unchecked. When I learnt about that, the first thing that came to my mind was Hitler's Enabling Act in 1933. (And even when you abstain from Godwining it, it still smells like abuse).
In all honesty, I do not think that the time in which the People will need to revolt is far from hand.
In Germany, it's at least not the executive that can ban political parties, but the highest court which has to respect very high legal standards and more often than not errs on the side of freedom. And you won't see any ban or conviction without a fair trial.
Look at our courts, some of the largest expansions of government power and monopoly has been accomplished through the Judiciary. We didn't quite know this at first, in the Constitution the Judiciary Branch is the shortest section. The founders didn't envision what is going on now. Judiciary is government, it must be restricted. Do not let it fool you, it is a large time constant tyranny. You will not realize it right off the bat, soon, or even in perhaps an easily identified form. But it WILL hit, and you're pretty well f'd in the a when it does.
