What you mean is “I would prefer to have a high degree of personal freedom for myself while my government supports genocide of others, rather than have less personal freedom while my government doesn’t support genocide.”
Apropos of nothing, Nazi Germany wasn’t a bad place to live if you weren’t one of the targeted groups and if you stayed in line and didn’t espouse the wrong politics. Until the war came home and the bombs started falling, anyway.
I wonder what the legal basis for this is? Is there a constitutional provision that allows banning of parties that seek to end democracy?
If so, I wonder how that would work for someone that wanted to end electoral democracy, but not for any malevolent purpose? For example, instead advocated for a different or non-electoral democratic system, but still with noble intentions? For instance, under the German system, could a party lawfully argue to a system based on sortition?
In sortition, public offices are assigned by lottery, as we handle jury selection today. It doesn’t guarantee the most competent leader will be elected, but elections also clearly don’t select for the most competent leader. The main advantage of sortition is that, unlike elections, it doesn’t select for the most power-hungry and psychopathic members of society. It’s long been said that no one who actually wants power should be given it, and sortition is a way of solving that problem.
Could someone in Germany advocate for moving to sortition, or would that violate some constitutional provision meant to protect electoral democracy?
Germany is not a total democracy, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
And so far there have only been three parties that have been been banned since 1945 and those are
NSDAP by the Allies in 1945 for obvious reasons
SRP in 1952 because they were a successor party of the NSDAP
KPD in 1956 because they wanted to abolish democracy in favour of a soviet system
Given that Germany’s democratic state supports genocide and bans anti-genocide speech, I think the KPD were probably right.
I’d rather have a damaged democracy than a totalitarian regime.
What you mean is “I would prefer to have a high degree of personal freedom for myself while my government supports genocide of others, rather than have less personal freedom while my government doesn’t support genocide.”
Apropos of nothing, Nazi Germany wasn’t a bad place to live if you weren’t one of the targeted groups and if you stayed in line and didn’t espouse the wrong politics. Until the war came home and the bombs started falling, anyway.
I wonder what the legal basis for this is? Is there a constitutional provision that allows banning of parties that seek to end democracy?
If so, I wonder how that would work for someone that wanted to end electoral democracy, but not for any malevolent purpose? For example, instead advocated for a different or non-electoral democratic system, but still with noble intentions? For instance, under the German system, could a party lawfully argue to a system based on sortition?
In sortition, public offices are assigned by lottery, as we handle jury selection today. It doesn’t guarantee the most competent leader will be elected, but elections also clearly don’t select for the most competent leader. The main advantage of sortition is that, unlike elections, it doesn’t select for the most power-hungry and psychopathic members of society. It’s long been said that no one who actually wants power should be given it, and sortition is a way of solving that problem.
Could someone in Germany advocate for moving to sortition, or would that violate some constitutional provision meant to protect electoral democracy?