A democratically elected and legitimized, constitutional government does not steal from anybody, but it just collects money for the decision you had a say in. As long as you have a say in it, you have no right to refuse paying your contribution.
You have no say unless you're in the majority!
Its silly to say "oh, you have a say in it" when quite clearly the majority will vote against you. Is slavery legitimate if properly voted for, including by the slaves? The small slave population has no hope to vote away their enslavement, but by your logic, as long as they can vote against it, it's not wrong. This is absurd.
Taxes are necessary. There's no denying that. But they should be sensible and fair. We have a class that does not pay taxes but decides how much the tax payers must pay. How is this fair? The ones who do pay taxes don't get a say. They get to go through the motions of voting, but it's ultimately irrelevant that they voted, because it is impossible for their vote to impact the majority. I have no problem with high taxes if that tax is flat, because it ensures that you don't just have one segment of society (the majority) arbitrarily voting to raise taxes on the rest.
That would be treason and unpatriotic,
We're more ideological than that; American allegiance is to principle, not the Government. Blind allegiance to the Government is what leads to fascism.
because that means you cancel the contract you have with your other fellow citizens.
But severability is the whole point of the social contract. If the contract is not consensual, then the entire theory loses validity.
If you disagree, say "no" in the election.
Like saying no to slavery?
It doesn't make sense to say its just simple because it was voted for. This makes constitution protection pointless.
But don't compare this fair, free process of citizens using their freedom to tyranny, socialist dictatorship, fascism or absolutist monarchy.
Why not? Oppression isn't about whose oppressing you. Why is it that the number of oppressors matter?
The weird thing is, the difference probably isn't that big between Germany and America after all. Just for some weird reason, Americans only see it this way when it's about wars, military matters and fighting foreign enemies, but not when it's about social programs.
The only validity nationalism has (note I'm not talking about the ideological nationalism of the nazis but the structure of large countries in general) is the military power it creates. Why should so much organization be seceded to a large centralized figure? The states can most certainty run their own social programs; the federal government needs no hand in it. The only purpose they need to serve is a standing military for the common defense of the country.
Of course armed rebellion is justified in that case.
How are you going to have armed rebellion if you don't have weapons?
I just think that those Americans who don't see the difference between losing an election to the majority and "fascism" are totally delusional, dangerous nuts who should better be taken care of, because they pose a threat to the freedom of all other citizens.
Uh, I don't know what your news organizations are telling you, but there is no armed rebellion presently occurring in the United States. Some in America are concerned that armed rebellion will be needed soon, but not because they lost an election, but because the rights preserved in the constitution are slowly being chipped away. Right now we're having to argue about the preservation of the second amendment of our constitution.
No one ran against the second amendment, by the way, so I don't see what democracy even has to do with this. It was a silly conspiracy that these things were on the way.
Also, I don't believe that armed rebellion against a genuinely oppressive government is always a good choice. Sometimes, peaceful mass protests can achieve more. And often, armed rebellion will not lead to a more free government if successful toppling the old, but just replace the old fanatics with new fanatics (there are dozens of examples, from the French Revolution to the Arab Spring)
Sometimes. American Revolution is an example of a successful armed rebellion, but I certainly agree armed rebellion isn't ALWAYS the answer, but sometimes it is necessary.
When inequality becomes too big, there is no freedom anymore for those at the bottom.
Such as?
Job contracts are usually not bound to constitutional values, or are they?
A job contract cannot take away your right to free speech. You can agree to not exercise your free speech in certain circumstances or else you void the contract, but rights cannot be signed away. This is the point of "unalienable rights."
That's a silly comparison.
In what way?
Of course a successful businessman should have more authority over his business.
Unless that's voted away, of course.
But that doesn't mean he should be allowed to pollute common goods such as the environment that belongs to everybody,
The environment of what specifically? The atmosphere? Well, this has to do with the degradation of others property, not democratic say in business. The government having a say in protecting the atmosphere from pollution is not the predicate of people feeling they want it, but that the business is harming something that is not theirs. Largely, sensible air pollution measures are widely supported in America and see little opposition.
increase his wealth without being aware of the responsibility towards those who have few, or exploit his workers.
Workers can choose not to work there, or, if the exploitation is legitimate, they can unionize to apply pressure to them. There's no need to democratically vote those standards in.
No. I believe in a negative freedom from the government, and the positive freedom to influence decisions that concern us all via the government.
Positive freedoms are oppressive, because they compel others to act to provide for you. This is no different than saying the right to slave, as you must then require one to sacrifice to supply it.
If you give one the right to something, someone else must sacrifice that thing. This is not only oppressive but self defeating, as such a right is not unalienable, as the inability to provide it would require the government to violate its own standard.
I guess most Americans do as well, to varying degrees. The only difference is that we draw the lines slightly differently and get called "socialists" or "fascists" for it by Americans. And sometimes, vice versa.
The government supplying things that benefit you is not necessarily wrong. What's wrong is equating these things to rights. It's completely absurd.
Above, you said in some cases, it should be authoritatively imposed. IIRC, you named the examples of murder and rape.
Yes, COMMON good. Meaning, when it is for all in the country, not for some.
Of course "being left alone" is an important side of freedom. But I also believe in the other side, the positive freedom to gather and debate as a society, and then agree on decisions that affect us all, via the democratic process. Being left alone is not enough, because in the extreme case, that means anarchy and law of the stronger/tyranny of the strong.
The right to democracy is already defeated by constitutional limits. This is not positive right but a function of the form of government.
That's one of the few things that appear to be rather similar in America and Germany. As far as I know, both libel and slander and calls for murder are illegal in both our countries. We just differ about the legal details, what kind of action constitutes such a crime and which does not.
Actually its not illegal in America. I was being sarcastic. You can't restrict certain forms of speech; this makes freedom of speech pointless.
Libel isn't a criminal offense but a civil one. A threat of murder is considered a wrongdoing on another individual. These are examples of exercising your freedoms to violates others, which is not a limitation of the freedom itself. You're allowed to speak of whatever you wish, and gather however you wish, so long as these are not violating the rights of others.
Yes. But you agree on the contract of society, the Constitution. That makes sure that your voice is heard and you are free to raise it. If you don't like it, of course you should be free to leave.
My point is that democracy has absolutely nothing to do with freedom.
What has democracy to do with the legal system? Ironically, it seems that the American legal system is more democratic than the German, as you still use "civil lynch mob" juries to determine the outcome of criminal cases.
My point. You hate democracy so much, you don't believe we should elect people's guilt? They consented to the contract, after all!
Uhm no. Not in the slightest.
Fascinating. Where does your ideology originate from then?
Actually, no. The Nazi Party never received more than 34% of the votes in free elections. The Nazis came to power, because monarchist-conservative President Hindenburg abused a loophole in the Constitution to appoint Hitler Chancellor, although his party did not have a majority in the parliament.
The Nazi party DID have a majority in the reichstag after the re-elections. Hitler won about 36% of vote against Hindenburg and came in second in the presidential election. Hindenburg was the only man who could win against him in the election. He was democratically elected and appointed the Nazis. Even if he hadn't, Hitler would have just won the next election anyways, as he had a sizable majority over the KPD opposition. Also, the nazis were the second largest political group in the reichstag even prior to the re-election. To argue that the nazis didn't have democratic backing is absurd.
Hitler was very popular prior to WW2. He was Time's man of the year even.
The "handguns against Hitler" argument, when advanced in seriousness, just makes me to want to bang my head against the wall.
You should get that looked at.
Weimar did not fail because too few people had guns, but because too many had: Monarchist Free Corps had guns, Nazi militias had guns, communist wannabe-revolutionaries had guns. They all had guns, but it didn't mean they protected freedom or the Republic. Imagine. Weimar did not fail because the people had too few guns, but because the free, republican government was too shy to use their's against certain elements of the people.
No. The Weimar failed because it no longer had popular support. It was really the fault of the poor handling of WW1, which put the Weimar in a lose-lose scenario. The public opposition to weimar is what damned it. Guns had nothing to do with it.
If most Germans had had guns around ca. 1938, my guess is that most wouldn't have used it against the government either. They'd more likely have used them against the few remaining representants of "the enemy" (WW1 allies and "their system", Jews, commies, etc).
Most Germans DID have guns. Only the people the Nazis were actually killing were restricted from them.
Since most people were conscripted, naturally gun ownership was high.
No, he was not, see above.
Yes he was, see above.
Hitler came to power not via free election, but because the Constitution had loopholes and because too few people cared for the Republic. And because those who did, when they were still running the free government, were not decisive enough to battle anti-Constitutional enemies of freedom, such as the Nazis.
People caring for the republic is a democratic issue.
Again, yes. See above.
Constitutional values such as basic civil and human rights trump democracy. I never said anything else.
Well, unless their freedom you don't agree with, like the right to keep and bear arms.
See above. Calling for murder is not free speech, but abusing free speech to violate the freedom of others.
Hate speech is not equivalent to calling for someone's murder.
