This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Should Extremist Parties Be Banned?
Following the slaying of two members of Greece's far-rght Golden-Dawn party (and wounding of a third) on Friday evening, the Greek government’s crackdown on the country’s 'extremist' party has revived a vexing question that seemed to have disappeared with the Cold War’s end: Is there a place within liberal democracies for apparently anti-democratic parties?
Via AP,
Police investigating the slaying of two members of the far-right Golden Dawn party and the wounding of a third say the gun used in the Friday evening attack had not been used in previous terrorist attacks.
The assailant fired 12 rounds from a Zastava Tokarev type semi-auto pistol, police say.
A police source, speaking on condition of anonymity because officers were not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation, said Saturday that a video from a nearby security camera confirmed accounts from Golden Dawn lawmakers that the assailant started firing from 15 meters (yards) away and finished off his victims from point-blank range. The gunman fired at a fourth Golden Dawn member, who managed to enter a building unharmed.
One can't help but get the sense their is a growing 'instigation' of more killing in Greece, which got us thinking of the following discussion...
Authored by Jan-Werner Mueller, originally posted at Project Syndicate,
Should Extremist Parties Be Banned?
To be sure, liberal democracies have felt threatened since communism collapsed in 1989 – but mostly by foreign terrorists, who tend not to form political parties and sit in these countries’ parliaments. So, should extremist parties that seek to compete within the democratic framework be outlawed, or would such a restriction on freedom of speech and association itself undermine this framework?
Above all, it is crucial that such decisions be entrusted to non-partisan institutions such as constitutional courts, not other political parties, whose leaders will always be tempted to ban their competitors. Unfortunately, the moves against Golden Dawn are mostly identified with the government’s interests, rather than being perceived as the result of careful, independent judgment.
On the face of it, democratic self-defense seems a legitimate goal. As US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson (who was also the chief US prosecutor at Nuremburg) put it, the constitution is not “a suicide pact” – a sentiment echoed by the Israeli jurist Aharon Barak, who emphasized that “civil rights are not an altar for national destruction.”
But too much democratic self-defense can ultimately leave no democracy to defend. If the people really want to be done with democracy, who is to stop them? As another US Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, put it, “if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It’s my job.”
So it seems that democracies are damned if they ban and damned if they do not ban. Or, in the more elevated language of the twentieth century’s most influential liberal philosopher, John Rawls, this appears to be a “practical dilemma which philosophy alone cannot resolve.”
History offers no clear lessons, though many people like to think otherwise. In retrospect, it appears obvious that the Weimar Republic might have been saved had the Nazi Party been banned in time. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, famously gloated after the Nazis’ legal Machtergreifung (seizure of power): “It will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provided its mortal enemies with the means through which it was annihilated.”
But a ban might not have halted the German people’s general disenchantment with liberal democracy, and an authoritarian regime still might have followed. Indeed, whereas West Germany banned a neo-Nazi party and the Communist Party in the 1950’s, some countries –particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe, where dictatorship came to be associated with the suppression of pluralism – have drawn precisely the opposite lesson about preventing authoritarianism. That is one reason why Greece, for example, has no legal provisions for banning parties.
The fact that Greece nonetheless is effectively trying to destroy Golden Dawn – the parliament just voted to freeze the party’s state funding – suggests that, in the end, most democracies will want to draw the line somewhere. But just where, exactly, should it be drawn?
For starters, it is important to recognize that the line needs to be clearly visible before extremist parties even arise. If the rule of law is to be upheld, democratic self-defense must not appear ad hoc or arbitrary. Thus the criteria for bans should be spelled out in advance.
One criterion that seems universally accepted is a party’s use, encouragement, or at least condoning of violence – as was evidently the case with Golden Dawn’s role in attacks on immigrants in Athens. There is less consensus about parties that incite hatred and are committed to destroying core democratic principles – especially because many extremist parties in Europe go out of their way to emphasize that they are not against democracy; on the contrary, they are fighting for “the people.”
But parties that seek to exclude or subordinate a part of “the people” – for example, legal immigrants and their descendants – are violating core democratic principles. Even if Golden Dawn – a neo-Nazi party in appearance and content – had not engaged in violence, its extreme anti-immigrant stance and its incitement of hatred at a moment of great social and economic turmoil would have made it a plausible candidate for a ban.
Critics warn of a slippery slope. Any disagreement with a government’s immigration policy, for example, might eventually be deemed “racist,” resulting in curtailment of freedom of speech. Something like the classic American standard – the speech in question must pose a “clear and present danger” of violence – is therefore essential. Marginal parties that are not connected to political violence and do not incite hatred should probably be left in peace – distasteful as their rhetoric may be.
But parties that are closer to assuming power are a different matter, even if banning them might automatically appear undemocratic (after all, they will already have deputies in parliaments). In one famous case, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the banning of Turkey’s Welfare Party while it was the senior member of a governing coalition.
It is a myth that bans turn leaders of extremist parties into martyrs. Very few people can remember who led the postwar German neo-Nazis and Communists. Nor is it always the case that mainstream parties can cut off support for extremists by selectively coopting their complaints and demands. Sometimes this approach works, and sometimes it does not; but it always amounts to playing with fire.
Banning parties does not have to mean silencing citizens who are tempted to vote for extremists. Their concerns should be heard and debated; and sometimes banning is best combined with renewed efforts at civic education, emphasizing, for example, that immigrants did not cause Greece’s woes. True, such measures might come across as patronizing – but such forms of public engagement are the only way to avoid making anti-extremism look like extremism itself.
»
- 13683 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Really off topic, but I thought this was indicative.
http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=55134
"Build a wall around the brownies and throw crumbs to the starving
analysts, just like the Israelis do to the Palestinians."
It took a lot of decades for the Isrealis to finally begin handling the palestinians the way all the arab states have, and just wall them out. The Israelis are only walling in the palestinians in the limited sense that, by walling off one segment of their borders(to keep them out of Israel), the Israelis are participating in effect to an unofficial, unspoken, and already longstanding of the same practice as carried on by the palestinians' arab neighbors, your "brown people", walling in other brown people. Israel allowed a lot of traffic across their borders to and from palestine until the Intifida and all the bombings brought them to abandon hope and outreach to this thoroughly ruined western aid-dependent perma-victim-people.
The banning of political speech leads always to totalitarian control. A case involving the Israeli government’s arrest of a Palestinian is a case in point.
Not only are Palestinian political prisoners held in jail but a Palestinian lawyer has been arrested for simply organizing a protest concerning their imprisonment.
IOW, occupation of Palestine does not satisfy a police state. Political speech against the occupation must be banned as well.
The Electronic Intifada on October 31, 2013 reported on the arrest of Anas Barghouthi, a prominent Palestinian lawyer, for “organizing demonstrations” in support of what Amnesty International calls “the human rights of Palestinian prisoners and for the peaceful expression of political views.”
“This will not end until the occupation ends,” Barghouthi commented. “They want to occupy us without our resistance...”
Reports EI:
On 23 October, Anas Barghouthi, a prominent Palestinian lawyer, was released on bail from Ofer Military Prison near the city of Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. An Israeli military court charged Barghouthi with organizing solidarity demonstrations; he faces a new hearing in November.
Barghouthi, 30, was targeted for arrest after a long record of support work as legal counsel for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli military courts and as legal defense in Palestinian Authority courts.
Israeli soldiers arrested Barghouthi on 15 September while he was traveling between Ramallah and Bethlehem, cities situated in the central region of the occupied West Bank…
Barghouthi has been charged with “leadership of a committee to organize solidarity demonstrations for Palestinian prisoners,” he said, which Amnesty International confirmed. He has also been charged with membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — a political party Israel has banned. …
Arrest
On the day of his arrest in September, Barghouthi was returning to Ramallah after visiting friends. A military jeep “stopped the car and asked for our identity cards,” he recalled. “I showed them my ID and a card proving my valid status as a practicing lawyer. But another soldier came back to the car and immediately handcuffed me.”
The soldiers proceeded to confiscate his cell phone, blindfold and interrogate him on the spot.
“They start asking me a lot of questions about who I was with. I was blindfolded and they hit me in the back. Then they took me to a small makeshift concrete room on the side of the road” near a checkpoint, Barghouthi said.
An Israeli military commander came and informed Barghouthi that he was under arrest. When he asked why, the commander told him, “you’ll find out soon.”
“I sat handcuffed and blindfolded for around three hours at the checkpoint before they took me to a military interrogation center” at Kfar Etzion, one of Israel’s settlement colonies in the West Bank.
Before they arrived there “they drove me around for an hour,” Barghouthi added. “They took me out and walked me around blindfolded. They made me sit on the ground outside. I was very tired, and then when the blindfold was removed I was in a military clinic.”
Afterwards, Barghouthi was strip-searched, given prison clothing and put in a cell with four other prisoners.
“The first day in the cell they only gave me two pieces of tomato, a small yogurt and a small piece of bread.” Aside from that, he said, he was not fed....
It was only on the third day that he was taken to a military court and formally charged.
“It was very hard for my parents, family and friends while I was in jail, but it’s nothing compared to the thousands who are in Israeli prisons — some have been there for over thirty years,” he explained.
As of last month, there are 5,007 Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons, according to Addameer, the Palestinian prisoner support association.
Of those, 516 prisoners are serving life sentences, and another 449 are serving sentences of twenty years or more. An additional 137 are being held under administrative detention, a draconian Israeli practice of imprisoning Palestinians on “secret evidence” without charges
http://electronicintifada.net/content/palestinian-lawyer-faces-israeli-jail-organizing-demonstrations/12886
As for Palestine, “as maps below show in more detail, Arabs owned most of the land in 1945. At that time Jews owned only 7 percent, much of it acquired from Ottoman Turks with dubious claims to it.
“Zionism from its inception recognized that because native Arabs already inhabited most of the arable land, Israel could only be created by driving Arabs off their land. As the graphic below shows, through its 57 years Israel has managed to do just that. (Even more land has been confiscated since 2000.) MAPS (Palestinian loss ofland 1946 to 2000):
http://secession.net/israel-palestine-confederation.html
bomb the towns, force the residents to flee, then move into the newly-vacated homes
when the rightful owners assert their rights, the squatters (i.e. 99% of all Israelis) claim that they've owned the properties for centuries. nevermind that in some cases the architecture has the names of the rightful owners families chiseled into them.
Chase them out of towns. Move in yourself. When they object, the IDF comes in to retore the 'peace', kills a handful here and there, and the fucking jew "settlers" say, "See? We told you they were terrorists!" Rinse. Repeat. Expand the towns and chase the Pals even futher away. Rinse. Repeat.
Bomb UN Observation posts and get a free pass. Murder Turkish citizens in international waters. Target civilians at every opportunity and call 2 dozen dead children 'collateral damage' while killing one 'terrorist'. Launch rockets at ambulances. Murder the press. Bomb children's schools. Immolate populations with white phosphorous. Leave tens of thousands of mines behind in the farm fields after invading Lebanon. Launch assault on USS Liberty (and get John McCain's dad to whitewash it and change the Congressional testimony of the survivors)...ad...fucking...nauseum. If I could watch one burn every time I snapped my fingers you'd think I was a marching band of castinets.
Oh, shit, i'm now a terrorist. What the fuck was I thinking? Better to simply not think; that's EXACTLY the prescription from Dr Silverbergfeinsteinman.
According to Swiss law all comments about the tribe are subject to pre clearance by the tribe on zero hedge. You obviously didnt seek pre approval. Prepare for banishment.
Here's a novel concept:
How about following the law?
Golden Dawn, as distasteful as one may find them, were legally ELECTED by the people to represent them. Now, GD beats and intimidates illegal aliens, then arrest and charge the criminal element of GD and also arrest and deport the illegal aliens as well. Both are breaking the law. In fact, the disregard of immigration law is one of the key points that allow GD to gain so many votes in the first place.
A representative democracy that allows the law to be enforced arbitrarily or not evenhandedly will always be in jeopardy by overt or covert means.
Why make new laws if they won't enforce the ones they have?
The US is a perfect example of lawlessness by select (and elected) members.
Here's the real problem, you see.
Zero Hedge: Greek Neo-Nazi Party Surges To Third In Polls, As Anti-Bailout Syriza Back On Top
September 09, 2012 -- While there is still some debate whether the proper alternative nomenclature of the Greek ultranationalist party Golden Dawn is "neo-nazi", there is no debate that the party, which is a manifestation of every broken Greek hope and dream, after posting a shocking result in the recent Greek parliamentary election which saw it coming in fifth and entering parliament after, continues to soar in popularity and is now the third most popular party in Greece with 12% of the vote. Above it are only two other parties: the conservative New Democracy which won the June elections with 29.6% of the vote, which is now down to 28%, and on top, in an ominous development for EUR-bulls, is the anti-bailout and anti-memorandum leftist coalition Syriza, which has threatened to end the bailout, and effectively to take Greece out of the Eurozone, setting off the much dreaded dominoes.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/greek-neo-nazi-party-surges-third-polls-anti-bailout-syriza-back-top
Shit, I thought Lou Rawls said that...and who the fuck gives a fuck what some supreme said?
And he used democratic or democracy 17 times in this P.O.S. post. The volume of mindless content herein is frightening.
Democracy is “mob rule” by the majority, who trample the rights of the 49%. It is a transitory left-of-center political system that always evolves toward oligarchy, rule by elite few, the most common form of government throughout history and today, You can witless this happening right now in the United State_, whose elephant/jackass sock puppets have abandoned the "rule of law" limiting their power.
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (James Madison)
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. (John Adams)
The framers of the United States Constitution were students of histrory. They understood the dangers of a democracy, which is why you will not find the word used anywhere in any of the country’s founding documents. As Mr. Dough observed, the word is (mis)used 17 times in this post, revealing the author’s ignorance of political systems. Watch “Overview of America” on YouTube, pal, to understand political & economic systems and how they interact. Hint: The free enterprise economic system can only exist under the rule of law in a republic.
It is the pseudo-liberals who are the extremists. The Nationalists are people sick and tired of the genocidal campagins against them. What we have is not democracy, but fake democracy, always the choice is between people with the same fundamental agendas.
All parties are becoming extreme. Some in their policies and others in their incompetence
So Golden Dawn is extremist?
Are they more extremist than the current US administration?
The US is becoming more and more like North Korea day by day but somehow still has the title of the world's greatest democracy. LOL.
At the behest of the TROIKA Greece is trying to kill off the Golden Dawn Party which although seems to have some extreme philosophies, nevertheless has cleverly tapped the angry mood of Greeks.
The Greek Parliament is now even in the process of passing anti racist laws which will impose heavy jail sentences on anyone who tries to distribute foods to ONLY needy Greeks and excludes illegal immigrants.
This is clearly aimed at Greek Golden Dawn which did exactly that.
The two governing parties know that many of their disgruntled voters have flocked to Golden Dawn and that if this continued they would lose power and therefore the massive state funding they receive, this would send them broke as they both owe around 230 million euro to the banks which is secured only by future funding to the year 2020. LOL.
.
Dont forget the greek establishment is aware that once golden dawn gets into power they have repeatedly sworn to put most of the Previous government leadership in prison.
Brilliant suggestion.
No doubt that the folks running the show can be trusted to only ban the "extremist" parties.
For example, many of the current Emperor's supporters refer to the Republiturds as "extremists." It would be great if they could simply ban them. Then you'd go from a one party monopoly with two public faces to a one party monopoly with one public face, and we'd only have to be subjugated by the Demorats.
Much better.
In the movie "Brazil" Robert DeNiro's character was labeled a 'terrorist' by the government simply because he offered to fix Jonathan Pryce's character's air conditioning unit rather than his being forced to wait 2 weeks for a government agency worker to come and fix it.
As a parody, that movie is as brilliant as Swift. The opening scene shows lines of hundreds of govt workers pushing file-filled carts up and down towering aisles of file cabinets. Apparatchik A puts one file from his cart into a cabinet drawer. Apparatchick B (behind him) removes the file and puts it into a cabinet on the other side of the aisle, and so on with C and D, E and F, etc.
By the way, when the govt workers finally do come and fix the AC, the repair job looks like Rube Goldberg's worst nightmare.
+1 Thanks for reminding me how good that movie is.
Check out "Branded" playing on Netflix, after watching it, the Kardashians always on TV makes sense, as well as those 10X a day "earth island" radio commercials.
'
''
'
'
The short answer is "Yes." We must allow extremist parties to exist, even flourish, else what do we become but like them, in our attempt to silence their voice?
If we, as a civilization go down that road of extremism, on either path, then we will simply have to learn the lessons again.
Over and over and over…
•?•
V-V
The political spectrum is from 100% or totalitarian gubbermint (left) to 0% gubbermint or anarchy (right), with a republic constitutionally-limited under the rule of law to protecting men's rights in the center. Hitler and Stalin were both on the extreme left.
Right now, ALL ruling parties worldwide are extreme or far left. When you reside on the far left, everything looks "extreme right".
What about extremist lobby groups?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-buys-the-us-congress-sabotaging-the-...
Let me guess - part of banning 'extremist' groups, apart from those who actually promote or advocate violence (a separate matter, I would imagine), is banning groups deemed extremist by groups which, already holding tremendous power, and the capacity to help engender wide-scale, massive violence - don't want their extremism challenged, or even discussed?
It's not, at all, that I support Golden Dawn's extremism. From doing a quick google search, I'm sure I wouldn't vote for them. But it's also clear "who" is leading the charge against them, and that does give me pause. For those same people are absolute zealots in their promotion of state violence on behalf of Israeli "security".
Who will guard the guards themselves?
IF by extremist you mean any party that is "progressive", "green", welcomes illegal aliens, unions, queers, lesbians, transgender freaks,promotes welfare, food stamps, disability, affirmative action and sees no problem with electing a muslim loving half breed Kenyan, then YES!
Nationalistic parties that seek to regain control for the majority population are only "extreme" in comparison to the bastard parties that have led to the need for a Nationalistic party.
You are hereby appointed to the "committee to certify parties as extremist and subject to banishment"
Congratulations. Here is your decoder ring.
If there was such a thing as "democray"- and what exists, always and everywhere is a nanaged democracy that's merely a mask for ther oligarchy, then this post might have some merit.
The reason we hear so much whining about democracy from the elites is that it's the system under which the peasants will put up with the most looting.
Is the LAX gunman dead or alive?
This kind of article is pathetic! AFTER the international banksters have ALREADY more than 99% destroyed democracy, the symptoms of that show up in goofy, but dangerous, political parties, who blame superficial causes for the deeper problems. In general, money is measurement backed by murder. Those murders got done through the maximum possible deceits, which resulted in financial systems operating on the basis of the maximum possible frauds. As debt slavery systems automatically run away to become debt insanity systems, dangerous goofball political parties become more popular, because the vast majority of people still do not have a clue about what has really happened to them, but yet, will agree with goofy bullshit.
The good theories about democracies operating through the rule of law to govern themselves actually get destroyed by the covert application of the methods of organized crime, to systematically take control over the government. Since the vast majority of so-called "citizens" do not understand that, and do not want to understand that, instead, we get the rise of the popularity of dangerous goofball political parties, that a larger number of people are able to understand, and towards which they are being driven by the desperation caused by the runaway debt insanity systems, which were inherent in the development of the basic debt slavery systems that the international banksters made and maintained.
Here is a typical series of videos, to set up the problems,
and then the range of typical bogus "solutions" offered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_uLwHFR2aA
The Best Kept Secrets of The Dollar
...AH, quite tragically, AS the currently established
crazy systems drive themselves into their collapse,
the stupidest alternatives have the same chance
to advance themselves as more intelligent ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeSz3lT4mqs
Economic Collapse & The Rise of Fascist & Racist Elements
While I believe that the established systems shall collapse,
I do NOT necessarily believe things shall then get better!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?uLwHFR2aA&v=_fpEwul07ps
The Death Throes of the United States
That Storm Clouds Gathering series of videos are produced
by grossly irrational, optimistic, reactionary revolutionaries.
After there is any group that does not agree with
the impossible ideal of 'universal nonaggression,'
then we are ALL back inside of runaway insanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnzT0mVjovY
Economic Collapse -
American Riots Will Be The Worst In The World
For sure, "the debt and death" numbers ARE NUTS!
For sure, the frustration, and anger, that would
be provoked when people are forced to change
is off the scale of anything before in history!!!
Ah, but that video too was same old
reactionary revolutionary optimism.
I am not prepared for the future,
and, I do not believe anybody is!
Keep at least a dozen mason jars curing and you'll be ok.
You'll need it for your blood pressure.
"Should extremist parties be banned?"
Is the Communist Party an extremist party?
GD has their Horst Wessel(s).
Golden Dawn is a nationalist Greek party. It is against zio-plutocratic (Fed) international finance and illegal (diviso et impero) immigration. It's police protection was pulled by the government for the convenience of assassins. Check out the Golden Dawn New York Division site
http--xaameriki.wordpress.com
Seems like the Cyprus bail in and the suppression of legal political are trial balloons. What would happen in the dear old USA if an opposition party gained support and was Serious.
What would happen in the dear old USA if an opposition party gained support and was Serious.
Ron Paul - tons of money, inoffensive, practical... shunned, silenced, ignored. GD is going to have to go about exactly backwards of the way the national socialists came to power. So will we.
No, extremist parties and movements should not be banned.
If the extreme element is sick and destructive, then it must be fought, not banned. If the extreme element represents a new future, then it must be supported.
What a bunch of extreme whackos those early Christians were.
On the other hand, those guys in Greece who get their kicks beating up foreigners need to be whacked back--hard.
In America there was no vote to freeze state funding or even private funding of opposition parties, the IRS simply did it, at least in Greece they pretended to vote, and illegal immigration is a form a violence and use of physical force, exactly the same as a large asshole cutting line at the grocery store.
Immigration isn't about "human rights" it's about cheap labor exploitation and selective invasion for political purposes, and of course treason.
In the elections of 2009 Golden Dawn had 0.29% of the votes in the general elections. Since then people had fed up with the bullshit and the corruption of this government. Don't forget that the parties in the governing coalition are the only parties which have been in charge since the "restoration of democracy" in 1974. People know who to blame. Even that racist party is cleaner than those in charge.
Like our fearless leader says - one mans extremist is another mans freedom fighter! That said, as long as I get to determine what is extreme (Tea Party, Christians, Rethuglicans, Pro Lifers etc.) I'm OK with outlawwing them!
This is an incredibly stupid article. In particular it's amusing that the author quotes Goebbels to try to support his position, then immediately admits that the quote doesn't really support his position. But he's succeeded in inserting the specter of Nazis into the picture - mission accomplished!
If a majority of the electorate are against democracy, the democracy isn't going to survive regardless of what they ban. If the majority of the electorate is for democracy, the anti-democracy parties aren't going to gain power.
Ban socialists and communists!
How about Islamists?
I get your point. The big problem is who decides what is extremist and where does it stop?
Only if those parties are named Democrat, or Republican. Those two have gotta go.
" Is there a place within liberal democracies for apparently anti-democratic parties? "
That is really a funny question, as democratic parties have been undemocratic, lately.
"For starters, it is important to recognize that the line needs to be clearly visible before extremist parties even arise. If the rule of law is to be upheld..."
What rule of law? No banker is in prison for committing massive felony financial fraud.
"It will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy that it provided its mortal enemies with the means through which it was annihilated.”
Fascism is one form of slavery.
Socialism is one form of slavery.
Democracy is one form of slavery.
The only worthy goal is to eliminate all forms of slavery and aggression upon individuals. The specific soundbite excuses for slavery and aggression are irrelevant.
One might imagine that slavery under various forms of democracy will be less malevolent, but evidence is mixed and completely beside the point. The only valid point is, each individual owns himself, his property, his time, and the consequences of his actions (all consequences - positive, negative and debatable).
I don't hold out much hope for the masses to abandon their voluntary servitude, no more than their abandonment of religious beliefs, but it might be possible to convince them to allow others to be free of their moral dictates.
If you live in a rural setting, this might be of interest:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/520706/how-to-build-a-plant-xylem-w...
I agree, the masses are hopeless. Furthermore, the masses won't willingly let others avoid enslavement, especially if they're productive.
The only hope for producers is... stay out-of-sight to remain out-of-mind, and thereby mostly avoid being overtly abused.
That is indeed a very interesting article. And yes, I do indeed live in what most people would definitely call a "rural setting" (about 25 people within 125km of me, nobody within about 80km, no access to my place by land-vehicle, essentially invisible from above, and virtually complete self-sufficiency).
I sure wish I could make my own ICs though. Then I'd feel a lot more self-sufficient.
"about 25 people within 125km of me, nobody within about 80km"
What I liked most about parts of the Outback in Australia. The pink galahs were nice, too.
With atmospheric water generation and photovoltaics, it would be a place where I could live.
dup