The right to racism

Those who advocate the exclusion of certain views from public debate by law and at the same time claim that it is because of the "protection of our freedom" are hypocrites - they are not interested in "our" freedom at all. They want freedom for themselves, not for others. All they want to hear is their opinion. They want no opposition because they are aware of the unsustainability of their own doctrines.

In 2009, the former Workers' Party won three-quarters of a million crowns in 1% of elections.
In 2009, the former Workers' Party won three-quarters of a million crowns in 1% of elections.

Before you start reading the article itself, I would like to point out a few things:

  1. I'm half Roma - my father is a Gypsy. I move among them often, I have many friends among the Roma.
  2. The nurse has been living for several years in a happy marriage with a man from Africa whose skin is blacker than the buttons on my keyboard.
  3. We have Slovaks, Hungarians and others in the family…
  4. I have no prejudices against any ethnicity or nationality.

Everyone has the absolute right to be a racist. There is not a single reason to fine, judge, imprison, and so on someone who is a racist.

It is not a question of the content of racist ideas - I do not defend it. It's a different principle - it is a right of opinion.

Does everyone have the right to have their own opinion and to accept other people's opinions as their own? I dare say yes. Everyone has the right to have an opinion. Everyone has the right to evaluate. There are no objective values. There are no "higher" and "lower" values. Values ​​are subjective. The values ​​that we consider "higher" are not really higher - we only evaluate them as higher. We evaluate the values, but their evaluation is of the same nature as the evaluated values. It is subjective - there is no objective measure of values.

Our opinions are also our values. We rate opinions, but their rating is the same as the opinions rated. It is subjective - there is no objective measure of opinion. There are no objectively determinable "better" and "worse" views. Therefore, no one can be judged for his subjective values.

Who determines which views are better and which are worse? All are good or all are bad! Everyone deserves everything and no one deserves anything! Everyone is good, but everyone is bad! A million people, a million views, million opinions.

Racism is an opinion, an attitude to life, just like veganism, conservatism or Marxism. There is not a single reason why we should use state power to support and combat one or another opinion. Racism is a form of subjective opinions and attitudes. If vegans, Marxists or conservatives can defend and express their views and opinions, why shouldn't racists do so?

Marxists and racists

The attitude of many Marxists is particularly interesting. They would suppress racists, even by force. "They have no right to defend their intolerant views," they often say.

But what is the Marxists about? Let's compare it with racism - racists divide the world into races and say that many races = problems and constant struggle. It will end in a future ideal world without races. Karstless society. Marxists divide the world into classes and say that many classes = problems and constant struggle. It will end in a future ideal world where there will be no more classes. Classless society.

The details can be different, technically and in principle it is the same thing. Marxists only ignore race, racists class. However, it is true that racists can at least define their races in some way, unlike Marxists and their classes.

It is mechanically about the same philosophy of combat. Some want war and the Holocaust, others a violent revolution and expropriation. Some claim that inferior races conspire against all, others that inferior classes commit exploitation on others.

And which view is better? Maybe they're both bad. Does one of these views have a greater right of defense and expression than the other opinion?

If we say that "certain harmful opinions must be excluded from freedom of speech", who will determine which opinion is harmful and which is not? What if that determinant is a racist or a Marxist? Who watches the Watchmen?

Would then be "freedom of speech"? Do we have freedom of speech, but only as long as those words are in line with what most people think? Is that "freedom of speech"? Is the freedom of speech that we can only say what is in line with current intellectual fashion?

Unpleasant and unpopular opinions need to be heard so that we can define ourselves against them and argue well against them.

Those who advocate the exclusion of certain views from public debate by law and at the same time claim that it is because of the "protection of our freedom" are hypocrites - they are not interested in "our" freedom at all. They want freedom for themselves, not for others. All they want to hear is their opinion. They want no opposition because they are aware of the unsustainability of their own doctrines.

The right to discrimination

Racism is one of many views. As long as it remains an opinion, I see no single reason to "ban" it. Suppressing freedom to protect freedom is a "sharp-faced" phrase, oxymoron. The only thing we can punish a person with are the acts that a person has done. For violence against others. However, people commonly commit violence, regardless of opinions. However, racism is only one part of a whole constellation of views that are "forbidden" in advance.

Everyone has the undisputed right to decide on their property. If I am a racist employer and I refuse to employ Roma, it is certainly my full right. The rest of you can blame me, but no one and not a state at all, he has no right to "force" the Roma or to order me to pay anyone compensation for my attitude.

Or should I pay compensation to the Socialists for considering their theories untrue and dysfunctional?

I, as a racist employer, punish myself. If the Roma were able to do the same job as a white man for a lower wage, I would condemn myself with my own prejudices to higher costs and lower profits. Because of my own prejudices, I have to pay a higher salary. It is a punishment coming immediately, immediately, an absolute punishment. No one else has the right to punish me for my own prejudices.

Everyone has the right to discrimination, everyone has the right to be a racist. In the same way, everyone has the right to uphold the ideas of multiculturalism or communism. The problem is not in those ideas, the problem is in the state. As usual.

State law?

When does the problem come? At a time when the state can decide on many areas of our lives. At a time when the state can influence labor relations between employers and employees. Then comes the problem - then the racist government can confuse its personal right to discrimination with "state law."

The state has no rights against its citizens. He has no right to discriminate. The state is the institution of all citizens, be they black, white or yellow.

Only when the state is allowed to dictate to citizens when they can go or in what store who can and who can not buy, only then does the problem come. The problem is not racist doctrine, the problem is a big state.

A large state is always an institution of discrimination. He always checks one and does not check the other. Orders group A, but does not order group B.

In practice, for example, it may be progressive taxation, that is income discrimination. About state technical standards - is there a technical standard for the fork? No? Why, when on a lot of other farm standards are? About social programs - why are some entitled to them and others not? About cultural subsidies - why one theater does yes and the other does not? And why so much? About support for minorities - why is one minority yes, another no? Why does one get 1 and the other 000? About the position of state authorities - why do I have to walk 2 meters to him and the other person only 000 meters? …

I don't know what racists would do with a small laced state. It would be practically useless to them. When a large state is ammunition forging racists the way to power: the state will take care of it. And even the unpopular brown, black or yellow. When it takes care of the health, pension and quality of food in the restaurant…

And whether we like it or not, we are paying them their taxes today from their taxes. This must be one of the signs of a great state.

0 comments

  1. single - you know I know such a nice place, a roof over your head, constant protection, food 4 times a day, decent jackets with a tie at the back.
    good night.
    PS
    you are already at it by taking and advocating for …… Aha, equal to yourself

  2. I think your opinion is influenced by the diversity of your family. However, I sympathize with your opinion and I am very irritated that once the state rejects racism, most people will take it that way, because they are influenced by the media, which stuff their opinions into their heads through a box of closed dreams, which results in not forming their own opinions. .

  3. Unfortunately, many people do not realize that democracy has nothing to do with justice and justice. The essence of democracy is only the opinion of the majority (who has more votes - won) nowadays, it is quite a bent lobby and bribes, but the essence does not change. These are not the same rights for everyone, these are the rights on which most will fall. And most are just a little educated person with a below-average income who follows what the television or its surroundings tell him. Of course, one can consider one's own opinion, but without enough information, which there is no reason to look for, he still cannot make an objective decision. And that's why most of them (after the brainwashing of the desperate multiculture) came to the conclusion that racism was wrong and the end.

    An example is the name of a political party. The KSČM has been here for many years, and although many people have tried to abolish it, it will probably be here for a long time. But do you think I can start the Fascist Party? Even if my program was hugging a tree in Vysocina and drinking Becherovka with Zeman, no one would allow me the name. Why? Because we are in a democracy, and no one cares where the right is. Here one simply decides according to what she likes most, here and there limited by the constitution.

    ps I'm not a fascist, I just wanted to show my thoughts 😉

  4. That's Vít Kučík
    I read yours
    I appreciate your open head, willingness to think things through and look for answers.

    I offer you my point of view.
    Maybe it will give you some answers.

    I myself call for the highest value just human freedom (from a certain age, on the contrary, in the upbringing of children I believe in the commitment and responsibility of the parent and thus a wise dictatorship).

    I think that in an ideal liberal state, such an act could not really be prevented, and it is always possible to punish it only after the act and the victims.

    But if these necessary evils cannot be prevented, is it the ideal arrangement of society at all?

    Because I am a believer (a Christian, a believer in the authority of the Bible and its intellectual inspiration), I think and read that God once solved this problem as well.

    According to the Bible, God (the causeless cause, that is, the free mind) is good, although He knows good and evil.
    According to the Bible, God created people in his image and with free will.
    And many people ask how a good God can excite when he does so much evil.
    The same principle, God could not prevent people from choosing evil (eat the fruit, start murdering, stealing, lying, etc.) because then he would not profess freedom.
    However, for God, the freedom of his image, of creatures, was more valuable than omitting the possibility that they would turn away from harm and evil.

    But if God is good, even though he knows good and evil, he must want his creation to be "good"!
    So why did he retreat from good as the highest value in favor of freedom? (he himself would rather be good than single - he would freely act badly, but he doesn't want to, because he is good)

    (the assumption is that there is good and bad and that good is desirable, appropriate, we want it, it fills us, etc., while bad is the other way around)
    (the second assumption is that one can only be good despite the possibility of evil)

    Even better - I believe that according to the Bible, it was about freedom when evil arose.
    That already in heaven one of the angels decided that he could rule just like God and accused God of usurping the government for himself and is therefore a dictator that the beings would enslave him and if they did not agree and wanted to rule themselves, he would destroy them .

    Therefore, God had to let the slander angel (= the devil) and the adversary (= Satan) and a large part of the angels (the Bible continues to refer to them as demons or evil souls) to leave freely to show for themselves where their philosophy and time and deeds really lead. show whether God is a Tyrant.

    holt this earth is now the center of this dispute (because here people have decided to obey the serpent = join the side of philosophy, where the current ruler-God does not think well of them and will rule themselves.) therefore the apostate part of the angels is on this earth and here oppression, evil, discrimination, power, law are still being addressed on earth.

    But according to the Bible, to disconnect from God means to disconnect from the source of life and it leads to death - extinction.

    For people who realize their condition and would like to return, God offered a solution (the death of Jesus for us).

    And just as in your liberal government one can only be satisfied with the fact that only after the sacrifices and the deeds there will be judgment and punishment, so I believe according to the Bible that after some time when the intentions and deeds of all will appear, God will come and execute the judgment and penalty.

    With the difference that God has caught it and will resurrect everyone to hear their judgment and feel the punishment (eternal death)

    Moreover, God can forgive and thus "completely" and "undeservedly" save those who have chosen to regret their actions and change during their lifetime.

    With the fact that in the end there will be heaven, where everyone will have freedom of choice and know good and evil, but because they will also have experience with how bad it turns out (read where the violation of God's good order leads). So if someone decides to oppose again and does not want to live like this, or even just planned to harm others and finger-pointing, they will be destroyed by God for the protection of others from the very beginning.

    justice will also be ensured (I assume that God is good and righteous, moreover, Jesus went through injustice here on earth)

    and understanding from other beings will be ensured - so there will be no fear of a despotic leader.

    Conclusion: I believe in the ideal of a wise dictatorship, but not on earth, because there is a lack of eternal life and resurrection and experience of evil, and therefore an understanding for interventions against evil.

    So the value for me is good and I would like to eliminate evil immediately.
    but I'm not fair enough to do it - and none of the people are.

    On earth with its shortcomings (who recognizes what is good, the tendency to slander that can not be refuted,)
    I therefore believe in the ideal as a state where the fundamental right to be respected and defended by all is the freedom of the individual.

    Tomáš Plechatý
    I know it's longer and I turned from the topic to philosophy or faith, but that's because for me personally it connects and is reflected in my views, for example, on the role of the state.

  5. to waffles: DUBBLE ERROR! Double mistake as embroidered! First, fascism is NOT an ideology. It's a form of anti-communism - http://www.narmyslenka.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2012010038
    Secondly, the right is the opposite of the left and not what you define here. This is goddamn nonsense, because man as an individual does not survive and is an abstract concept. There are no human beings outside of society. The left comes from the left benches of members of the French National Assembly for the so-called third state. Their motto has become FREEDOM! EQUALITY! BROTHERHOOD! - that is, liberalism, constitution and socialism. On the other hand, on the right sat the representatives of the privileged states - the clergy and the aristocracy, who proclaimed obedience to the authorities - FOR GOD, THE KING AND THE COUNTRY! Fascism is like a meatball - it is usually made from movements that espouse mainly the latter values, it only absorbed some nationally oriented socialists from the left spectrum, that's all ť

  6. I agree with every sentence you have written. Thanks, it's better in the world right now.

  7. to waffles:
    Nothing is easy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. How money is taken for ideological projects - there are countless real-world examples of this. E.g. By patrolling supermarkets, Vít Bárta created an economic base for his political adventures. Money is usually not a major problem.
    ad. "Don't people notice?" - as always, the reactions will be different. A small part of the sympathizers will openly support the project, a smaller part of the opponents will openly protest, some will oppose, but within the protection of liberties will be against restrictions, someone will warn against conspiracy "ifs" unsympathetic, but they don't want to admit it out loud… And the whole constellation of reactions, the construction will be completed step by step.
    This situation is of course just a model example…
    it's voknonaruby and Catmouse: in your opinion, "until something happens, it is not possible to intervene". My whole contribution is focused on this question. If you answer it like this, then there is no legitimate way to "stop Hitler", Pol-Pot, the Rwandan genocide, but also the manic killers of prostitutes, stalkers, domestic thugs, gang wars, street battles of political extremists, etc. It is always necessary to wait damage and casualties, even if there should be millions…?

  8. Ad Vít Kučík - do you assume that there are only "sheep" on the lists? They might form a defensive armed forces. I do not know how the cost-benefit analysis would be based on the person in question then?
    I think that if someone has not been "harmed" and the other has not initiated violence (there was a debate somewhere about whether threats are already violence, etc.) there is no reason and right to intervene. Today, for example, only by breaking the law without harming anyone can you be and are punished.

  9. As you write yourself, even in the current situation, you can present your intentions so "decently" that they will not be punishable by current laws. It is therefore impossible to intervene until it takes action.
    On the other hand, it is possible to draw attention to such activity, not to trade with it, to ostracize, to discriminate against it and to show it in every possible way that it does not belong to a decent society. Of course, that may not be enough, but I don't think there is an ideal solution.

  10. @ Vít Kučík

    And all this would have happened without anyone noticing and pointing it out? Where would you get the money for all this? I always think about why people imagine it so simply - "I would do this and that", as if it depended purely on the person and nothing else. As if everything you think about has to happen automatically.

  11. In general, I agree, especially the passage about the relativity of high and low ideas is nice…
    But I still have a few questions: As part of the freedom to do business, I am building a large building on my private land outside the city - a building permit is for public showers connected to an organic waste incinerator. I also own a security agency with 250 trained and armed men and I am recruiting. Within the framework of freedom of speech, I make no secret of my political conviction that Gypsies (even the half) are a waste of society, which must one day be definitively disposed of. As part of the freedom to gather information, I have compiled lists of all the Gypsies in our city, and in full compliance with the right to freedom of movement, my men are decently close to each of them when they move in public places (ie when they stick their noses out of the house). As part of my political freedoms, I invest my money in suggestive propaganda in an effort to convince the maximum of the city's citizens that Gypsies are waste and that it is a matter of civic honor to be at home, not to mix in anything, or to actively help liquidation (eg by uncovering Gypsy hideouts). . I have found that it is most effective to target a group of citizens with basic education propaganda. I have placed a counter on my website that measures the time of completion of the public shower building, which I have called the Day of Final Settlement.
    The question is - should a liberal state have the right to interfere with my rights and freedoms? Does he have to stop my activities forcibly (until I have committed no offense)? Or should I wait until I do? If the company has the right to intervene preventively, then in which specific case? Because of the construction of "showers"? Because of the lists? Because of spreading ideas and actively gaining followers? If I don't build "showers" and recruit "legally armed men", but focus only on propaganda, will it be anything else? If the propaganda does not speak directly of "waste disposal", but is more obscure and sleeker (prevention of "unjustified abuse of benefits" and "favoring antisocial groups") - should the state consider it differently? Does the liberal state have the right to interfere in my affairs by leaving the DSSS, KSM, etc. free?

  12. @ v6ak:
    This is a question of initiating violence. If someone claims that this and that race is the best, it is not violence. It's probably like Sparta is the best club. But when someone shouts that we are the best, and that is why we have to remove the others (because of the lebensraum, etc.), then it starts to smell of violence.

    @ 3,14ranha:
    The First Crusade was not a project of some absolutist states. I don't think we can talk about something like that at that time. It was more of a war adventure of several important nobles, to whom the pope justified the expedition.

  13. I wanted to ask you something like that…

    Minority protection laws may have the effect of prohibited fruit…

    In the case of employment, we agree. Any filtering of a larger group of the population (perhaps even by gender, although here in some cases the average abilities simply differ) will sooner or later lead to one filtering out capable employees.

    In the case of any racist violence, should it be an aggravating circumstance?

    But if one incites hatred against someone (not necessarily race), I don't think it makes much sense to remain inactive here. Or do you have a different opinion?

  14. In my opinion, the "contribution to the election expenses" per voter should be significantly reduced and the minimum% of the voting threshold should be reduced to 0,5% of the votes 🙂
    And reduce the "contribution to the mandate of a deputy or senator"

    It's just fun anyway .. the money is used to buy advertising, which is then collected from people as a state contribution to cover costs 😀

    Is it then a duel of political ideals or parties or PR agencies? 😀

  15. I think in vain where people get the impression only of their only correct truth. Without blinking, they are able to shout that they (if they had the power) would cancel this or that, imprison someone and give others more money. In my eyes, this is a literally shameless trampling on the rule of law and equal opportunities. Unfortunately, I meet such people (and their opinions) quite often.

    As schizophrenia, such people may be annoyed by the same state interventions against themselves that they themselves would promote in places of power.

  16. to sum it up, the history of racism also shows that the state only solves the problem in which it participates by closing down racists (just like churchil and england in general, it often had to act dictatorially in the fight against hitler)

  17. Corruptus: hehe, but it fits exactly with what the author says:
    the church (as a union of people) has committed touches in the past (but not larger than other movements, after all, the cruciate was only a response to Muslim aggression),
    but it is quite clear there that it was under the corrupt influence of politics (specifically absolutist states) -
    at the time of the Roman pogroms against Christians and recently since the Enlightenment, when the church has only a minimal involvement in politics, the number of touches has rapidly decreased, don't you think?

    after all, this is a key problem of Islam - many Muslims still believe that religion is inseparable from politics and that even politics ("war is the continuation of politics by other means") can resolve religious disputes.

    it was also a key point in the medieval disputes between the church and the states - whether kings have the right to gossip in the election of bishops and popes (to install favorites or to settle a stain on relatives)

    it is not clear how to draw the line between the possible and the ideal, in any case from an ideal point of view, the suppression of mere opinions is perversity, only providing a stepping stone to the real oppressors (who guards the guards?)
    Many historians believe that a plan for a "final solution" would not have been possible without a German sense of diligence and powerful bureaucracy (which determined who would be executed), its "industrial" design was chosen to disrupt the common sense of executioners as little as possible, and "racist" society in general, if they had to execute Jews and Poles one by one and by hand, it would be difficult to make such crazy numbers (not only because of the lack of time, but also the lack of individuals capable of such abominations)

  18. @ kaktusák - the stronger a central organization, the more left-wing ideology. The greater the emphasis on the freedom and individuality of the individual, the more right-wing.

    Fascism is an ultra-left ideology.

  19. Corruptus: You cry well, but on the wrong grave.
    waffles: No, fascism is a right-wing ideology, more precisely a conservative one.

  20. Corruptus: Democracies have also murdered and yet we will not ban them. These are currents of thought which, at their core, do not contradict these human freedoms, which has become apparent during their development.

  21. @Corruptus: The question is even more paradoxical. Fascism is a left-wing ideology, not ultra-right, so the question is, "Why ban left fascism, but not left-wing communism?"

  22. to kaktusak: Well, yes, but why is the ultra-right look forbidden and the ultra-left is not?

  23. to Merr: the church, more precisely the Roman Catholic Church, made several crusades, burned many innocent people as witches and committed a number of other crimes, yet it was never banned. So why ban others?

    to Kruton: How many people are thinking about killing their boss, mother-in-law, neighbor, etc. If I think about killing more than 2 people, I am committing mass murder. If I think about killing the same number of Roma (Jews, blacks, Japanese, Irish, Martians, communists, etc.), I do nothing but mass murder. If I tell someone about both or write about it on the Internet, is there a difference? Not for me, 3 people will die anyway, it doesn't matter why they died, they're just dead. Nevertheless, according to the law, they will convict me of another time, why?

  24. The Communists do not want a violent revolution. This was considered in 1848, when the humiliated supplements of the oppressed were solved by absolutist monarchs mostly with the help of the army. Our Victorious February proves that in the conditions of bourgeois democracy it is possible to assert the interests of workers legally.
    The class division of society objectively exists in capitalism. It can be eliminated through social and economic reforms.
    Racism is a consequence of the right-wing view. You of color are mostly poor. According to right-wing ideology, it's because you can't compete, you're stupid, lazy, incompetent. The left says the problem is in capitalism, not race.
    Everyone has the rights they can enforce. This includes the right to so-called private property, which is enforced in the same way as a progressive tax. When the state is weak, the powerful use other means to advance their interests (such as the mafia). Therefore, a strong state is better able to face such efforts.

  25. Freedom of speech (movement, action, etc.) must protect itself. Racism and therefore all other "sorting" theories attack these rights in some groups and are therefore wrong. The memento is a historical experience.

  26. And it is precisely because of such attitudes that European civilization has little. If freedom is the highest value of liberalism, then I must believe in this value and not relativize it, with other values ​​(eg the gassing of minorities) having the same (subjective) value. The whole development in the first half of the 20th century and the ensuing war was a problem of liberalism, that it did not deal with an attack on liberal values.

Comments are off.