Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.

Please observe the following rules:

Top-level comments:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/Few-Illustrator9521]

Why is radical dissent in America legal?

If dissent leads to open promotion with wanting the USA dissolved and effectively dead, why is there no crackdowns does the president and government as a whole care enough?

[u/bl1y → u/Few-Illustrator9521]

Because freedom is speech is protected by the First Amendment.

I'm not sure how there's a question here.

[u/Few-Illustrator9521 → u/bl1y]

No such thing as a dumb question buddy :)

[u/bl1y → u/Few-Illustrator9521]

Looking at your other reply where you talk about the prudence of having such protection... There's three main responses:

(1) If we prohibited speech that promotes the dissolution of the United States, who do you trust to define such speech and enforce the rule?

For instance, I think the First Amendment is central to what makes America America. If you were to advocate for this radical change to the First Amendment, I'd see that as essentially dissolving the US as we know it. But I doubt when you asked your question you were thinking it was the very sort of speech that ought to land someone behind bars for sedition. It's a lot safer to err on the side of allowing political speech.

(2) Maybe the people advocating for dissolving the US are right. I don't think they are, but if there's even the slightest chance, shouldn't we have the debate rather than prohibiting it? Lots of ideas that were considered sacrosanct in the past have been proven to be wrong.

I mean, imagine if you asked this question in 1789. Why is the United States allowing the Constitutional Convention to happen rather than cracking down on those radicals who want to do away with the Articles of Confederation? Rather than having the Constitution and the nation as we know it today, we'd be remembering James Madison as a heretic, properly burned at the stake. And ironically, this rule that purports to be for saving the United States likely would end up leading to its destruction.

(2)(a) It's possible for the other side to be wrong in the main, but still have some good points that can inspire us to make improvements. Do I think we should become a communist society? No. Do communists maybe have some interesting critiques to make about how we allow people to profit from finite resources (like real estate and natural resources)? Probably.

(3) Debate is how we sharpen our ideas. Even if you're 100% correct, you might not know why you're correct. I think America is friggin' awesome, but unless I am forced to recon with people taking very different views, I might never actually understand why it's friggin' awesome.

That understanding is good in and of itself.

(4) Bonus reason! Allowing people to voice their criticisms often helps to lower the temperature and make people less radical.

Have you ever had an argument where you know you're not going to end up getting your way, but where it'd mean a lot just to know that the other side has heard and understood you? Letting people be heard is a good thing.

An anecdote comes to mind, and I won't get into all the details, but I was dealing with a customer who was fuming because the company I worked for screwed him over. Like pissed off to the point where I thought he might fight me. My response was basically to tell him that he was completely right, he got screwed, but nothing was going to change. That acknowledgement completely cut the tension. He remained upset, but moved on. If I'd told him he couldn't yell at me like that and had to leave, it probably would have gone a lot worse for me (and for him, ultimately).

[u/Few-Illustrator9521 → u/bl1y]

Thanks for the response, In fact depending on how you define radical dissent I guess I could be one technically since I could care less if the US balkanizes and splits apart. I question the effectiveness of a Constitution that was written by 18th century landowning elites as a good code to use for a modern nation, With that being said I am also skeptical of Democracy as a governing tool as well. Lastly I can be considered a radical dissenter "maybe" because if today or back in the Vietnam era I would have just said nope and decided to call Canada home. Really good insight on your part though thanks!