#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Fascism is Good (Please read my argument)
Fascism referring to the fundamental political, economic, and societal ideology. Not the insult, or popular view of fascism.
The original doctrine or principles of fascism promote the following:
Nationalism (ex: Our nationality is #1!)
Militarism (for defense and promoting other national interests)
Command economy (capitalism with government regulation)
Capitalism mixed with socialism (ie. capitalist values mixed with socialist values)
Authoritarianism (Strong central government)
Preservation of culture (falls under nationalism)
Individualism mixed with collectivism (so basically the middle ground between communism and ancap)
Corporatism (in essence, organization of society by major interest groups. ex: labor unions)
Ex: American schools teaching English as a core subject to immigrants and citizens alike.
Militarism is necessary for defense, and protection of borders.
Ex: Government puts tariffs on foreign steel, so that national steel companies can grow.
Too much socialism doesn't allow for incentive, and too much capitalism puts too much power on the rich. A mix of these two can take the advantages of both, while taking out the weaknesses.
Individualism allows for incentive. Collectivism allows for people to work together for a common goal.
Corporatism organizes different groups of people and makes it easier to appeal to all of them.
Add New Argument |
1
point
I can agree that a degree of tyranny is a sign of a strong leader but it's about moderating it and channelling the punishment at the right people. Good examples of positive Fascism in this day and age include Brazil, New Zealand, China and quite a few efficient Sharia nations the best of which is Oman. 2
points
China isn't positive. It oppresses its own people, and others. Fascism is not kind neither is any society which promotes hard work. If a society is too kind, it is bound to fail. Kind societies create weak men. Our society today is too kind. We allow corrupt politicians to run as candidates and we are too afraid to execute our own criminals. 1
point
Fascism promotes hard work and employs legalism. That is what I meant when I said it isn't kind. You yourself said that being strict is fine as long as you target it at the right people, such as criminals. Your quote: "it's about moderating it and channelling the punishment at the right people." In the current society we support corrupt criminal politicians, and take care of our murderers. I'd rather have a government which jails these corrupt politicians and executes these criminals. 1
point
1
point
1
point
It permits Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. All three, yes including Islam, have part of their religious outlook that actively supports meditating (yes it seriously is in the Qur'an but the word meditation isn't used it's a section about spending some time to just be in tune with 'what is' and not thinking beyond it in order to be in touch with Allah's raw creation). But what about Falun Gong? This isn't the only religion suppressed. Islam isn't directly attacked, but the people of Xinjiang are suppressed. Xinjiang has a high Muslim population and they are fearing forced assimilation by the government. Tibet also has many riots. Even the Buddhists there are rioting. Many people are escaping through the Himalayas as well. ISIS is taking advantage of Muslim oppression in China, and are recruiting Muslims from Xinjiang. 1
point
No one should cower to ISIS. Unlike any other terrorist group in history (even Hezbollah and Al Qaeda), ISIS has literally no endgame other than suicide. Let me put this in another way, ISIS isn't using suicide attacks as a means to an end... They actually believe that Allah wants them to suicide... Seriously they believe it's their duty to suicide attack in and of itself. ISIS recruiting more due to an act shouldn't be reason to not do that act, they are literally scum of the Earth. I have full respect for actual terrorism when there's no other way to fight the corruption but ISIS are fucking scum, plain and simple. Yes I agree ISIS is bad, but my point was that China suppresses normal Muslims. They suppress not only ISIS, but all the Muslims. Only some of the Muslims there join ISIS, but China states that all of them are terrorists. This argument got off topic. I think it is best to leave it here. "Why did you bother to answer it?" Because this is a site where you debate, not say your opinion and not back it up. If you have opinions, that's great, but if you post them in a place specifically made for debate, expect a response. "To encourage debate among those that wanted to debate it." Yes in the first part of your post you encourage debate, but I'm talking about the second part where you simply make a statement with no intention of debating. 1
point
1
point
Morality/Ethics are a useful place to start. If you actually want to debate this then here, start with morality. You can begin there. I am a libertarian (hence a free market capitalist) on the basis of two factors: -1- Morals/ethics. I hold that freedom is an intrinsic good, that free will is absolute. What constitutes virtue is defined in terms of self-restraint relative to freedom and accountability: The ability for all to make beneficial choices is only possible if all people are equally free to make them. Of course, this includes the opportunity for people to choose to make foolish, lazy, destructive, and oppressive choices. -2- What people actually are in practice (as opposed to in the ideal.) Not all people choose to be virtuous. Some people will choose to make foolish, destructive, lazy, and oppressive choices. Personal accountability is what places short term and long term limits on what people choose to do, and can do. Good government must be founded on both these principles. Because of these two things, government should do the least possible. Because of factor 1, the more government does for people, the more it frees them from natural accountability for their actions. This results in societies increasingly composed of foolish, lazy, destructive people, where there are ever fewer virtuous people to hold things together for the common good. Because of factor 2, all governments tend toward despotism and waste, regardless of the initial form. The more power people in government have, the better they can avoid being held accountable for their choices. This builds naturally from factor 1. As a result people should have as much freedom as possible, not be at all protected from natural factors of accountability, and governments should have as little power, and do as little as possible. Morals/Ethics and realistic expectations of people are where fascism (by your purified definition) fails, and why it so quickly devolves into the brutal caricatures like Italian Fascism and Nazism. These are exactly the same aspects of life on which socialism, communism, monarchism, dictatorships, and welfare states fail. Just a clarification: So your main argument states that in free market capitalism, people are accountable for their actions, but whenever the government gets involved, they aren't accountable for their actions anymore, since the government takes care of them. Is this right? If this is the case, then in what aspects does a fascist government take care of its people, which leads the people not being accountable for their actions? And how does this lead to governments like Nazi Germany? I understand how all of this connects when talking about a socialist government, since it lacks incentive, and it allows people to not work and still get benefits, but I don't understand this works in a fascist government, since in a fascist society, people who don't work don't get benefits, so you are still accountable for your actions. 1
point
So your main argument states that in free market capitalism, people are accountable for their actions, but whenever the government gets involved, they aren't accountable for their actions anymore, since the government takes care of them. That is not my main argument, but often this is indeed the case. Consider how airlines, car manufacturers, and banks (just three examples) have been protected from the consequences of their business practices, poor quality, and inefficiency by US government bailouts. None of the bailed out companies actually had to improve in order to continue to stay in the market and prosper. Airline service has gotten even worse. Banks are still making risky and often unsound investments. American car companies are still turning out vehicles that are less popular than, and in many ways inferior to most of their Asian competition. If this is the case, then in what aspects does a fascist government take care of its people, which leads the people not being accountable for their actions? And how does this lead to governments like Nazi Germany? Fascism maintains accountability to government policies among the citizenry, companies, and businesses, but not among figures in government. At the same time, it acts as a buffer between market forces and company policies, quality, prices, etc. Hitler's Strength Through Joy program consolidated his support for strong (at first) and then dictatorial government controls by buying off the populace with Volkswagens (Hitler wanted to call them Strength Through Joy Wagons.), vacations, and government jobs at government controlled manufacturers. The nature of fascist government is that the extreme authority of government is used by the people in government as a shield from accountability. (Mussolini and Hitler were immune from court action, for example.) The command economy provides power over jobs, markets, company health/profitability that can be leveraged to favor friends, to blackmail enemies, to silence critics. This is why the hypothetical fascism you describe is not what manifested in Germany or Italy. A command economy can take this turn when it is used excessively with too much power, however when it isn't used excessively, then it won't completely put the government individuals in power. This is called a mixed economy. The corporations which are benefitted by the government in America are given benefits, but in fascism, it's the opposite. The government makes it worse for these corporations, not better. In America, the government receives benefits from the companies. Thus, they give these companies benefits in return. This is caused by lobbying which falls under individual rights, as the right to donate money to anyone you want. In a competent fascist society, the businesses would not be allowed to fund the government individuals. I understand your point on how a dictator can give power to his friends and family, but this results from too much authoritarianism. This doesn't take into account corporatism. Mussolini claims to be corporatist, but he does the bare minimum to achieve this title and the same goes to Hitler. Corporatism is a system where different groups of interest are separated and given power. These groups of interests are based on different classes, and different industries. For example: Worker unions. Without a sufficient amount of corporatism, I agree that the government gets too powerful, but when corporatism is used unlike in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy, it is much harder for the government to gain power. The government in a fascist society gains its power not from force or the people, but instead these interest groups. The reason the hypothetical fascism I describe did not manifest in WWII nations is because of the extensive power the government held from the start. 1
point
Because of the vertebrate tendency toward dominance, all governments tend toward despotism and waste, regardless of the initial form. The more power people in government have, the better they can amass more power (both as individuals and as governmental institutions) and thereby avoid being held accountable for their choices. This leads to a cycle of becoming increasingly authoritarian. This happens in ALL forms of government, so the best starting point is with the weakest and most limited possible form of government. That way there is a lot of space between constituting the government and the despotism toward which it naturally drifts, and ultimately devolves. The US government has overreached the scope and power originally envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. The original structure completely lacked those parental functions of the Federal Government that we have become accustomed to since Prohibition and the New Deal. As a result citizens had far more privacy, freedom, independence, and natural accountability. Bit by bit we are losing our freedoms in the US, and there is no end in sight. The individuals most obviously responsible for the US creep toward despotism are Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Andrew Volstead, Wilson, Johnson, Reagan, and the second Bush. Our government started as a democratic republic in a free market. It has devolved to a welfare state that infantilizes the citizenry, spies on us, and insists that it owns our bodies to the degree that it has legal authority over what we consume, and can prosecute us for non-treasonous violations of US law we commit abroad. That is a pretty big shift. Consider how much more power governments of the structures you propose start with. They are just too powerful at the start. The natural drift toward despotism has fewer barriers and would more quickly arrive at the absolutism, and resulting injustice, that characterized the governments of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pahlavi, Asad, and Mao. 1
point
What form of government do you think is the best in order to avoid this? As I wrote in an earlier post, I think that ultimately all governments devolve toward dictatorships. The trick is to start with the greatest freedom and independence feasible for the citizenry, and then build into the governmental system a set of limits and controls that use the natural will to power of some individuals to foil the absolutist ambitions of others. I apologize for the length of the following answer. There is a follow-up post that continues the discussion regarding the natural drift from Freedom toward Despotism, particularly in the US. SHORT ANSWER I think the constitutional democratic republic originally "ordained and established" in the US Constitution effectively slows the drift from freedom toward despotism. The checks and balances inherent in having three branches of government uses the desire for power of people in the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches to limit the power of people in the other branches in a reasonably orderly way. LONG ANSWER -Reasoning In addition, the Federal system that devolves powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution to individuals or to the states, and in turn, devolves powers not enumerated in a state constitution to the municipalities within that state. This diffuses powers and responsibilities, and ensures that there are contests for power between levels of government, which again, naturally discourages despotism. This also helps to stabilize the nation as a whole during disasters, or in the event of invasion by making single points of failure almost impossible. Free market capitalism helps this function, and the competition inherent in free markets helps to keep single businesses or industries from garnering too much power, but enabling them to contest with government, to place economic checks on government power. Even when it seems that one company has too much power and influence, that is only for a limited time because the competition ultimately brings it down, often by invention or innovation, or by undermining the profitability of the corporate giant. For example, Standard Oil, General Electric, Sears Roebuck, Bell Telephone, Hearst Communications, have all lost their one-time monolithic power. In time, their replacements (e.g. Exxon, Amazon, Time Warner, Disney, Google, Facebook) will also lose market share, power, and influence. -US Devolvement Away from Freedom Bear in mind, the US government has drifted a long way from the original concept. Much of this is due to the shift from strict constructional interpretation of the Constitution, to a liberal constructional interpretation by some courts. During periods of liberal constructionist majorities on the US Supreme Court, precedents were established for the government to exceed the original scope of its Constitutional Mandate. As a result the US Federal Government has taken on responsibilities that originally devolved to states or even individuals and local communities. I discuss this in more detail in a clarifying post. Weak governments cannot effectively manage a country. Companies become monopolies and damage people's rights. As you said, monopolies don't exist forever, but the fact is that there are always monopolies existing, and that alone is a problem. While it is true that Google isn't going to exist forever, its impacts are still felt. It constantly censors information not in its agenda, and suppress speech. When it falls, a new monopoly will take its place and do the same. It doesn't matter if Google won't last forever. All that matters is the negative impact it has on us. Also, how do companies put economic checks on the government? And another clarification: do you think that the diffusion of power and responsibilities makes despotism almost impossible? 1
point
Do you think that the diffusion of power and responsibilities makes despotism almost impossible? "Almost impossible" might be an overstatement, but basically, yes. I think power and responsibilities tend to aggregate, so sooner or later power becomes insufficiently diffuse to prevent despotism. How do companies put economic checks on the government? The most obvious example from current politics is the interplay of government tax policy and infrastructure support with corporate investment behavior. Ultimately, tax revenue is entirely dependent on the health of companies/businesses, and whether they leave or stay and invest in and set up in a government's jurisdiction. Many municipalities and states adjust tax policies or build infrastructure in order to encourage starting businesses, or attract preexisting companies so that the companies will hire residents, and thereby broaden the tax base. Negotiations between the parties is common. For example, Amazon is currently "interviewing" cities to see where to put a new distribution center, and many cities are trying to adjust policies and plans to make them more attractive to Amazon, and better able to support the business' infrastructure needs. At the Federal level, a similar thing is happening. When corporate tax rates in the US stopped being competitive, many companies moved their operations out of the country. This reduced tax revenue, not just from company profits, but also from personal income tax of employees (because Americans lost their jobs when the companies moved.) The current push to reduce and simplify corporate income tax is to reverse the trend of companies divesting from the US and moving overseas. In this case, companies are behaving in relation to government the same way customers behave in relation to companies in a free market. Then why is diffusion of power and responsibilities throughout different institutions wrong? This is what corporatism is. It organizes different classes and industries into different institutions and gives them power. They make up the government. Fascism allows companies. It just doesn't allow companies which are destructive to the state. Also, respond to my argument about the rise and fall of monopolies. 1
point
Then why is diffusion of power and responsibilities throughout different institutions wrong? This is what corporatism is. It organizes different classes and industries into different institutions and gives them power. They make up the government. The phrase "It organizes" is problematically nebulous. What happens in practice is that some particular person or government institution categorizes and organizes according to personal preferences, interests, and beliefs which differ from those of a significant portion of the citizenry. I prefer that it happen more representatively of the broadest interests possible, which I think tends to happen most effectively, efficiently, and responsively in a limited scope (libertarian) federalist democratic republic with a free market capitalist economy. Fascism allows companies. It just doesn't allow companies which are destructive to the state. - Who exactly decides what is "destructive to the state"? - How exactly can such people be kept from conflicts of interest? - What recourse do companies have once they have been outlawed? Consider, once something has been declared "destructive to the state," speaking in favor of it is pretty directly interpretable as seditious. This makes it way too easy for even well-meaning heads of government to slide into despotic behavior. Because government is as strong as it is, and as formally organized as it is, even your limited definition of fascism is just too close to the line of inevitable despotism for my comfort. "The phrase "It organizes" is problematically nebulous. What happens in practice is that some particular person or government institution categorizes and organizes according to personal preferences, interests, and beliefs which differ from those of a significant portion of the citizenry. I prefer that it happen more representatively of the broadest interests possible, which I think tends to happen most effectively, efficiently, and responsively in a limited scope (libertarian) federalist democratic republic with a free market capitalist economy." This can only result in bias if the organizer belongs to a certain institution previously. If all the institutions got freedom to choose, then the bias wouldn't happen. This is similar to gerrymandering. The politicians organize the districts to benefit their party, but if all the parties are represented, then this wouldn't happen. Q: "Who exactly decides what is "destructive to the state"? A: The people from the institutions. Q: "How exactly can such people be kept from conflicts of interest?" A: Balance of power between the institutions Q: "What recourse do companies have once they have been outlawed?" A: Depends on the crime. Since fascism uses legalism, there would probably be a warning at first, and then no recourse at all. The company is expected to the know the laws anyways. -2
points
This can only result in bias if the organizer belongs to a certain institution previously. If all the institutions got freedom to choose, then the bias wouldn't happen. This is similar to gerrymandering. Are you seriously posting that on this particular thread on this site? You know damned well that bias is not only founded on serving self-interest. This site is a storm of frantically typed bias, often about topics that are likely to affect nobody who is giving vent to biased views. In a fascist system, it is far too easy to codify the biases of a few individuals. In a more open system, wherein people exert pressure on the shape of the society in multiple ways (e.g., votes, spending, twitterstorms, boycotts, NRA membership, etc. ad infinitum) the biases are more likely to be diversified, dispersed, and in many ways cancel each other out before becoming policy. This is especially the case because power is so decentralized. In a democratic republic, government is not a block, but a collection of diverse and competing institutions (federal, states, cities, and their multiple bureaucracies.) Likewise, in free market capitalism, industries and their thousands of companies are similarly decentralized, as are the various trade organizations, educational institutions, etc. All these interest groups have crossovers -- people with interests in all of them, and who push for policies at multiple levels in multiple interest groups. Because multiple aspects of society are so integrated (tangled?) in modern post-industrial republics, people's interests are equally dispersed throughout multiple groups that might be mistakenly considered separate (or separable) in a corporatist model. When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. . Q: "What recourse do companies have once they have been outlawed?" A: Depends on the crime. Since fascism uses legalism, there would probably be a warning at first, and then no recourse at all. The company is expected to the know the laws anyways. What happens when institutions insist that some new technology or innovation is "destructive to the state" as a way to lock out competition? What happens when what I have written on this topic is declared "destructive to the state?" Where Fascism becomes a very bad idea is its strong centralized government. To think it would not devolve rapidly into despotism can only be based on the assumption that ALL people are more forgiving, more tolerant, less ambitious, and humbler than I think we have reason to believe. Maybe most folks have these qualities, but there are still the Mussolinis, Hitlers, Stalins. and Maos, and they are more common than we like to think. The system you propose would be a candy store for the likes of them. . For that matter, were tech companies to become a corporatist block, Microsoft, HP, CSC, and Google would run the show, and the smaller companies would have even less influence than they do in the current system. "Because multiple aspects of society are so integrated (tangled?) in modern post-industrial republics, people's interests are equally dispersed throughout multiple groups that might be mistakenly considered separate (or separable) in a corporatist model." When did I say people can't be part of multiple institutions? "In a more open system, wherein people exert pressure on the shape of the society in multiple ways (e.g., votes, spending, twitterstorms, boycotts, NRA membership, etc. ad infinitum) the biases are more likely to be diversified, dispersed, and in many ways cancel each other out before becoming policy." That is literally my point. "In a fascist system, it is far too easy to codify the biases of a few individuals. " Unless a few individuals aren't in power like I'm pushing. "What happens when institutions insist that some new technology or innovation is "destructive to the state" as a way to lock out competition?" Then the consumers can appeal. The consumers have the power to decide whether they want a product or not, and they have an institution for their different classes. In this case, only a small portion of the rich class doesn't want the opposing product, so they will be overridden. Like you said: "In a more open system, wherein people exert pressure on the shape of the society in multiple ways (e.g., votes, spending, twitterstorms, boycotts, NRA membership, etc. ad infinitum) the biases are more likely to be diversified, dispersed, and in many ways cancel each other out before becoming policy." "What happens when what I have written on this topic is declared 'destructive to the state?'" By who? I mean, Google is already censoring whoever they want because they fit into their agenda, and the consumers don't have much power to choose another company. But in the society I pose, if Google tries to appeal to the government and censor your posts, the consumers can back you up. 1
point
F, When did I say people can't be part of multiple institutions? You did not, exactly, but I thought it was implied in the proposition that corporatism separates venues of power and influence as a way to construct a system of check and balances. . Regarding "In a fascist system, it is far too easy to codify the biases of a few individuals. " You wrote Unless a few individuals aren't in power like I'm pushing. I still think that it is too much easier for a few individual to come to power in your model. I think the comparative chaos of a libertarianism-oriented democratic republic combined with free-market capitalism makes it much more difficult and much less likely that those individuals will be able to maintain any power they garner counter to the intent of the system's design. . Regarding "What happens when institutions insist that some new technology or innovation is "destructive to the state" as a way to lock out competition?" you wrote, Then the consumers can appeal. The consumers have the power to decide whether they want a product or not, and they have an institution for their different classes. The free market provides that mechanism without the intervention of an institution that may be biased to thwart the will of various consumers. . Regarding "What happens when what I have written on this topic is declared 'destructive to the state?'" You wrote By who? I mean, Google is already censoring whoever they want because they fit into their agenda, and the consumers don't have much power to choose another company. But in the society I pose, if Google tries to appeal to the government and censor your posts, the consumers can back you up. (I use Bing.) By the government that declares it illegal/destructive to the state. Google cannot imprison me. 1
point
The free market provides that mechanism without the intervention of an institution that may be biased to thwart the will of various consumers. The creator of rational market theory stood in front of a house committee in 2009 and candidly admitted he was wrong. You can't continue to argue for a theory which even the creator admits is wrong. That's absolutely stupid. Can you tell me how to bold certain text? I tried control + b, and even tried copying and pasting the bold text from your arguments but it isn't working. "You did not, exactly, but I thought it was implied in the proposition that corporatism separates venues of power and influence as a way to construct a system of check and balances. " It separates the power, but people can still be part of multiple institutions. "I still think that it is too much easier for a few individual to come to power in your model. I think the comparative chaos of a libertarianism-oriented democratic republic combined with free-market capitalism makes it much more difficult and much less likely that those individuals will be able to maintain any power they garner counter to the intent of the system's design." The separate institutions all have power. If there are only a few individuals, then they don't represent all the institutions. How will the individuals gain power? The fascist system is much different from the American system or other European systems. For example, lobbying, or "legal corruption" as I call it, is allowed in America. If someone does lobbying in fascism, he would probably get executed. "The free market provides that mechanism without the intervention of an institution that may be biased to thwart the will of various consumers." Yes, but it takes longer than in the system I propose. The damage will be done before the consumers eventually drive out the harmful corporation, and even then there is no guarantee that other companies won't find loopholes. For example, free-range chickens aren't really free-range in the way we imagine. Many companies just let the chickens out for a small portion of there lives, and get the approval to put free-range on there products. These loopholes will cause many more years of the same problem even if we drive out the non-free range products, which could have been solved by just two simple bills. "(I use Bing.)" Me too, but many people who are censored still don't switch because Google is more efficient, and even if every person who ever got censored switches to Bing, the majority of the population still uses Google, since Google only censors some people. Also, people using platforms like YouTube depend on the platforms popularity to be successful. Many people who are censored on YouTube still have no choice but to use YouTube. What are they going to do? Switch to vimeo? "By the government that declares it illegal/destructive to the state. Google cannot imprison me." The government would be able to do this under the influence of Google, but since the influence of every customer that is supporting you is far greater, the government will not do this. Also, Google can do other bad things instead of imprison you, like taking away your job, or ridiculing you in the media like it has to some people in the past. @Fascism. Can you tell me how to bold certain text? I tried control + b, and even tried copying and pasting the bold text from your arguments but it isn't working Use double asterisk before and after the desired text Example: Input- ''Use double asterisk before and after the desired text'' (instead of ' use asteric) Output- Use double asterisk before and after the desired text 2
points
1
point
F, It separates the power, but people can still be part of multiple institutions. I remain unconvinced. Although the power is vested in the institutions, the institutions are controlled and directed by people. Even were per se lobbying illegal, the inclusion of some individuals in multiple institutions, some of whose purpose is to check and balance the power of other institutions would make it inevitable that those individuals would align their policy goals in the context of one institution with their outcome goals in other institutions. I think it would compound the same sorts of conflicts of interest inherent in the US' lobbying system. "(I use Bing.)" Me too, but many people who are censored still don't switch because Google is more efficient Honestly, I cannot tell much difference between the two. The main reason I switched is the firing of James Damore, the employee who distributed the memo critiquing Google's politically discriminatory and racist/sexist hiring and promotion policies. When I read the memo, I was amazed: he was fired for being not quite leftist enough. The memo was moderate, based on research and clear logic, and had a tone that was both open to disagreement and oriented toward positive cooperative change. The fact that anybody at the company could find it offensive clearly indicated a company whose culture is bent on squashing any ideas that do not wholly support the company's worldview, and discounting or burying any information that demonstrates serious flaws in that worldview. The fact that he was summarily fired for not drinking the Kool-Aid indicates that the ethics of the company do not support freedom of thought or information. It would make no sense for me to depend on a search engine that would doubtless include those same biases. "The free market provides that mechanism without the intervention of an institution that may be biased to thwart the will of various consumers." Yes, but it takes longer than in the system I propose. One of the strengths of Libertarianism and Free Markets is that the timeline is unpredictable. Sometimes consumer controls take a while, and sometimes they work quickly. The lack of direction means that there is nobody speeding up or slowing down the changes and controls. Fascism just puts too many eggs in the government basket for me to trust in the ability of anyone to delay or slow the inevitable drift toward absolutist authoritarianism. Some of the problem is how many pies the government fingers are in. I value freedom much more than order, and I favor maximum practical limitations on government. I am also an adult, so I favor a government that lets me be responsible for the way I live my life. I think there are very few things adults need others to do for them. We do not need other people to guarantee us jobs or food or medical care, or to direct us how to organize our businesses, or how or whether our businesses must make associations. What adults need is government (at all levels) that provides the basics that benefit every individual in the collective, and then gets out of our way. - Infrastructure (including K-12 education) - Border Security - Military protection - Administration of public lands - Any treaties/trade agreements necessary for interaction with foreign entities - The bare minimum legal framework to ensure honest and non-destructive business practices - Emergency services (firefighters, law enforcement, courts, disaster services) The less government does for people, the more power people have over our own lives, and the more freedom we have to live how we want. 0
points
The phrase "It organizes" is problematically nebulous You do realise that every time anybody who has studied English reads one of your sentences, they burst out laughing, right? It's like when you approach a girl and try to show off. You think you're being cool, but she instantly friendzones you because she realises desperation is causing you to try too hard. You do not need to use the word "problematic" before "nebulous" because being nebulous is problematic by definition. -3
points
-US Devolvement Away from Freedom Bear in mind, the US government has drifted a long way from the original concept. Much of this is due to the shift from strict constructional interpretation of the Constitution, to a liberal constructional interpretation by some courts. During periods of liberal constructionist majorities on the US Supreme Court, precedents were established for the government to exceed the original scope of its Constitutional Mandate. As a result the US Federal Government has taken on responsibilities that originally devolved to states or even individuals and local communities. In my view, the following were the four most impactful movements by which the US made substantial leaps toward (not to) the ultimate despotism, away from the original freedoms the citizens had. - 1 - The pre-Civil War denial of State's Rights, and the subsequent strengthening of more centralized power at the Federal level. This movement began with the fight over nullification, and ended with the Civil War, and the defeat of the Confederacy. - 2 - The establishment of the welfare state, by FDR, and the radical expansion by LBJ. When the US government took on the unconstitutional role of caretaker of individual citizens in need, it supplanted responsibilities that were originally held by individuals, organizations like churches, and municipalities. With this encroachment on responsibilities, the Federal Government garnered the ability to turn masses of citizens into dependents. By thus undermining the independence of a substantial percentage of US citizens, the government undermined the power of the electorate by weakening the ability of citizens (as individuals and masses) to push back against government overreach. All government has to do is tie a limitation of a right to a bribe in the form of a '"social benefit" to buy the votes or quiet the dissent of elements of the populace. - 3 - The establishment of Emergency Powers for the executive, started with Lincoln, who usurped unconstitutional powers for the Executive Branch by using the Civil War as an excuse. Congress formally limited this power in 1933 with the Emergency Powers Act, by giving Congress the power to cancel a presidential emergency declaration. This is an example of one branch of US Government limiting another, and inching the US back from the brink of despotism. Even so, the taking of Emergency Powers radically reduces the recourse of citizens against violations of individual rights during ongoing, and often perpetual emergencies. As a result of these and other movements, the people of the US are less free and independent than at the establishment of the US Constitution in 1889. This drift away from individual freedom is likely to accelerate, but there could be a counter movement. This is not only in the US; we are also seeing centralization of power, and curtailing of rights and freedoms in Canada and Europe through tools like - Consolidation of the European Union - Imposition/adoption of common/international currency (Euro) - Anti-hate speech regulations - Limitations on Google search results - Legally required speech (gender pronouns in Canada) - Loss of gun ownership - Extra-judicial legal authorities (Canadian Human Rights Commission, university tribunals, etc.) that are not limited by the same rules and protections as actual courts - Etc. Giving companies power takes away freedom. For example, google is against net neutrality. The reason this exists in the first place is because of a company's right to show its customers whatever it wants on the internet. This isn't a liberal value, it is a conservative value, however it is ultimately affecting conservatives negatively because Google and many other media companies are liberal. Giving these companies the right to block things on the internet is supported by conservatives, and in turn, affecting them negatively. The majority of people in the US want more gun restrictions, however, it is not happening. The fact that the US doesn't have these policies shows how it doesn't give rights to its people by not following their opinion. In a republic, the power of the government comes from the people. The government doesn't pass these laws because organizations which want to make money off of customers bribe the government officials to do whatever they want. This comes from the company's right to do lobbying, but in reality, it is just legal corruption. This is true despotism. In corporatism, the government cannot do this. The separate institutions cannot bribe the government. The power of the institutions are evenly distributed, with checks and balances. The laws which take away rights from people in Europe and Canada are caused by the people. It is not the government's fault the people didn't want freedom of speech, it's because of the people who are afraid of words. I personally think they are idiots, but that is a different debate. That is a debate about the education system. States rights is basically corporatism, except based on location, not class and industry. The denial of State's Rights shows why corporatism needs to be emphasized. 1
point
Giving companies power takes away freedom. For example, google is against net neutrality. The reason this exists in the first place is because of a company's right to show its customers whatever it wants on the internet. This is why the free market is important. Customers can use competing search engines instead. Ultimately, those companies that best serve their customers needs/desires will prosper, and those companies that fail to meet customer needs will not prosper, until such time as they "improve." The free market is basically an economic republic. People vote with their dollars for companies that represent and support their interests. This does not only include product quality, price, etc., but also company policies and practices, sponsorship/support of other entities, etc.. The government doesn't pass these [gun restriction] laws because organizations which want to make money off of customers bribe the government officials to do whatever they want. This comes from the company's right to do lobbying, but in reality, it is just legal corruption. This is true despotism. In this case, I am not sure that companies are bribing nearly so much as organizations such as the NRA are exerting political pressure. Moreover, much of this is the result of Second Amendment interpretation. Our current gun laws are a compromise between radically different views on what constitutes undue limitation on Constitutional rights. Because the government (at Federal, state, and local levels) has instituted various controls, it has been responsive to the gun control. Because with most, but not all controls, government has sided with the vast majority of Americans on all sides, it is not reasonable or accurate to characterize the government as unresponsive or unrepresentative of the any of the citizenry. Because in the case of some restrictions, government is erring on the side of freedom (less restriction) it is hard to make the case that it meets any criteria for despotism. Despots reduce freedom; they don't protect it by limiting restrictions on individual citizens. States rights is basically corporatism, except based on location, not class and industry. The denial of State's Rights shows why corporatism needs to be emphasized. THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT. Well done! Basically this makes the European Union corporatist. Do you think the EU qualifies as fascist? "This is why the free market is important. Customers can use competing search engines instead. Ultimately, those companies that best serve their customers needs/desires will prosper, and those companies that fail to meet customer needs will not prosper, until such time as they "improve." The free market is basically an economic republic. People vote with their dollars for companies that represent and support their interests. This does not only include product quality, price, etc., but also company policies and practices, sponsorship/support of other entities, etc.. " The problem with this is that Google is a good search engine, but it is against net neutrality. If someone was asked to use yahoo search instead of Google search because Google is against net neutrality, they won't agree because is just not a good search engine. The monopolies take advantage of their good products, and impose whatever they want to impose on customers. Another example is Google's YouTube. YouTube has been censoring many videos it considers to be outside of its agenda, but these people who are getting censored have no choice. Google is literally the internet to most people. The people outside of YouTube's agenda are far fewer in number than the people who fit in it, so even if these people boycott YouTube, there are still many other people who will still let YouTube be in power. Once Google's product is no longer the best, it will cease to exist as the monopoly, but what's the use? Another monopoly will take advantage and the cycle repeats. I agree that my gun restriction example was not the best, since it is also under the influence of Constitutional interpretation, but there are many other examples. Many people want healthier cafeteria food for example, but the government is not imposing this in public schools. If you look at the amount of money donated on both sides of the policy, the side which didn't support this regulation received much more funding. This is because fast food companies want to make profits. "THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT. Well done! Basically this makes the European Union corporatist. Do you think the EU qualifies as fascist?" No the EU isn't corporatist because it doesn't give the different classes and/or industries power, nor do any of its countries. The EU is definitely not fascist since it doesn't have the other fascist characteristics. 1
point
Once Google's product is no longer the best, it will cease to exist as the monopoly, but what's the use? Another monopoly will take advantage and the cycle repeats. Google is not a monopoly. Google still has a lot of competition. For the record, when I entered "alternative search engines" in a Google search field, it kicked out 41,300,000 results. The first page had links to the following sites. - Say goodbye to Google: 14 alternative search engines - Escape Google With These 12 Search Engine Alternatives - 40 Advanced and Alternative Search Engines - 100+ Alternative Search Engines You Should Know True Google has the greatest market share, but people still have choices. That choice is what matters. Not all customers want the same things, and people are perfectly capable of prioritizing what they want most, and thinking and choosing for themselves. - Some may want net neutrality, and some may not. - Some may want an "effective" search engine (Google) that censors or prioritizes results based on company political and economic goals (which means the company intentionally undermines its own effectiveness). - Others may want a "less" effective search engine that does not censor or intentionally prioritize counter to customer interests. This ability to choose is what makes it more likely that Google will be limited in its scope than if some corporatist/fascist (your definition) referee were to step in because that referee may choose based on his/her/their interests, not based on the interests of the majority of citizens or customers as defined by those citizens/customers. There is no reason to believe that some government institution can or will represent my interests better than I can. The monopolies take advantage of their good products, and impose whatever they want to impose on customers. Let us leave Google and discuss true monopolies, and let's include trusts in the discussion as well. First, there is a difference between monopolies/trusts of different types of products. - 1 - Luxuries and convenience items: These are immaterial to the discussion because people can simply buy a different luxury or convenience item, or suffer no harm by doing without. If there were only one source for diamond ring in the world, it would not matter. People could buy sapphire rings, or buy bracelets, or do without jewelry. There could be no actual harm to the public. - 2 - Raw materials and equipment for manufacture of other products: This is where there have traditionally been the most instances of monopolies/trusts. Very often the use of patents is how the monopolies have gained government protection of their rights to monopolize. The problem is that the customers of such monopolies have traditionally adjusted design or production methods to sidestep the monopoly. This way, in addition to the competition arising in response to the high profits available to monopolistic suppliers to industries, the monopolies' customers often are the businesses which actively develop the alternatives that compete with and break the monopolies and trusts. - 3 - Necessities: Here we are talking primarily about food, energy/water utilities (in local markets) and particular medicines. - Obviously food production and delivery is so diffuse that monopolies are functionally impossible. - Local energy/water utilities are one of the few places I think there is a useful function for government. Ideally these utilities are part of the government owned infrastructure. In the event, however, of privatization, government control/regulation of such entities is reasonable, but should not include discouragement of competing privately owned utilities. . Some of the problem is that when people are talking about monopolies/trusts, they are thinking in terms of products and services, not in terms of functions. Even if Google were a monopoly (for searches and email), people would still have all sorts of other competing options: - Libraries - Bookstores - Magazines - Newspapers - Television - Movies - Snail Mail (Postal service/UPS/FedEx, etc.) - Telephones, Mobile phones, in-person conversations. We just do not need government to arbitrate our choices and conveniences. Citizens are not children. We do not need government to behave like a mommy and organize our economic and social lives for us. 1
point
Google is not a monopoly. Google is part of an oligopoly, so the difference is academic. It doesn't make much difference to ordinary people whether one aristocratic entity rules over them or several. Google still has a lot of competition. You are wrong. Competing with Google necessitates a comparable level of resources. It's what they call a Catch 22. Let me reword what Google is. Google is an oligopoly. My argument was centered around this fact. The fact that there are other companies which compete with doesn't make the problem solved. Most customers want net neutrality, but it isn't happening because Google is an effective search engine. So why have the choice between effective search engines and net neutrality, when you can have both? Most customers want both, but we are not getting that choice. The simple solution to this, is to give the different classes institutions which they all get power in. "There is no reason to believe that some government institution can or will represent my interests better than I can." Unless you are a part of that institution. "- 1 - Luxuries and convenience items: These are immaterial to the discussion because people can simply buy a different luxury or convenience item, or suffer no harm by doing without. If there were only one source for diamond ring in the world, it would not matter. People could buy sapphire rings, or buy bracelets, or do without jewelry. There could be no actual harm to the public." This would not be an option since diamond rings are culturally more significant to other jewelry. The people cannot just give up their culture. These companies exploit the people's culture, and still make a profit. Plus, why is does it not matter that the common population doesn't have conveniences? Standard of living is more important than GDP. Also sometimes convenience items are important economically. For example, a person without a phone is at a disadvantage against a person with a phone, since the person with a phone can communicate with his employer easier. "- 2 - Raw materials and equipment for manufacture of other products: This is where there have traditionally been the most instances of monopolies/trusts. Very often the use of patents is how the monopolies have gained government protection of their rights to monopolize. The problem is that the customers of such monopolies have traditionally adjusted design or production methods to sidestep the monopoly. This way, in addition to the competition arising in response to the high profits available to monopolistic suppliers to industries, the monopolies' customers often are the businesses which actively develop the alternatives that compete with and break the monopolies and trusts." Yes this is true. It can be argued that these monopolies actually did more good than harm, since they result in more efficient ways to profit for smaller companies. However, sometimes the new methods are also monopolized. "- 3 - Necessities: Here we are talking primarily about food, energy/water utilities (in local markets) and particular medicines. - Obviously food production and delivery is so diffuse that monopolies are functionally impossible. - Local energy/water utilities are one of the few places I think there is a useful function for government. Ideally these utilities are part of the government owned infrastructure. In the event, however, of privatization, government control/regulation of such entities is reasonable, but should not include discouragement of competing privately owned utilities." Yes I agree with this. However, I think the food companies should also have regulation like the infrastructure. For example, the government should not allow the company to put harmful chemicals in the food. "Some of the problem is that when people are talking about monopolies/trusts, they are thinking in terms of products and services, not in terms of functions. Even if Google were a monopoly (for searches and email), people would still have all sorts of other competing options: - Libraries - Bookstores - Magazines - Newspapers - Television - Movies - Snail Mail (Postal service/UPS/FedEx, etc.) - Telephones, Mobile phones, in-person conversations. We just do not need government to arbitrate our choices and conveniences. Citizens are not children. We do not need government to behave like a mommy and organize our economic and social lives for us." These all don't have the same advantages of search engines, so it would be a major step backwards to standard of living. 0
points
F, This would not be an option since diamond rings are culturally more significant to other jewelry. The people cannot just give up their culture. These companies exploit the people's culture, and still make a profit. You know that culture changes in response to practical needs. You know that culture responds to people pushing for or against various new or old ideas, values, and products. You also know that people engage in all sorts of countercultural behaviors. The diamond engagement ring is a perfect example of this. People have only been giving the diamond ring to pledge engagement to be married for a century and a half, and for far less among the middle class. There have been periods when diamonds were less popular for this, and people preferred other gemstones. What you insist is "culture," is really just marketing. To be fair, most of what culture boils down to is marketing of one sort or other. That is why culture changes so constantly-different people market different products, behaviors, and values. Voluntary actions (like buying a diamond ring or some other piece of jewelry) are by definition not coerced. So long as people have options, they are responsible and accountable for their choices, even if they have a cultural predisposition. Yes culture changes if it's too expensive, but at what cost? The companies which took advantage dealt significant damage. Plus just because new culture arises because the old one was too expensive, doesn't mean the problem is solved. The new culture can receive the same treatment as the old. Also refute my other points. 0
points
Hi @xMathFanx/MarcusMoon. Bear in mind, the US government has drifted a long way from the original concept. Much of this is due to the shift from strict constructional interpretation of the Constitution, to a liberal constructional interpretation by some courts You just had to try to sneak the word "Liberal" in there, didn't you? This seems to be a classic pattern in the United States. The far right Nazis screw everything up and then they insist to everyone it was the Liberals. The best one in recent years has been the 2008 global recession, where the Republicans tried to blame Obama for something which began before he even took office. The establishment of the welfare state, by FDR There was a guy who actually had the right idea. He proposed a 100 percent tax on the top income bracket, to stop this perpetual situation where the rich use their power and influence to bullshit the poor into believing they are free and live in the best country on Earth. He even managed to get it through at 94 percent. Unfortunately, since then, dishonest unscrupulous bastards like you have pulled it down to under 30 percent. 2
points
You just had to try to sneak the word "Liberal" in there, didn't you? This seems to be a classic pattern in the United States. When talking about Constitutional law and interpretation, the words liberal and conservative have specific and very different meanings than in the context of politics, social mores/values, or economics. The following is an oversimplification, but since you have little or no understanding or experience in US law, politics, and culture, it should give you a grasp of what the word means in this context. Liberal Constitutional interpretation means the view that the Federal Government can legally do anything the text of the Constitution does not specifically prohibit. This is opposed to conservative or strict Constitutional interpretation, which means the Federal Government can legally do only those things the text of the constitution specifically says it can do. While there TENDS to be correlation between the constitution-related meanings and political meanings of liberal and conservative, it is by no means absolute. It is possible to be politically, economically, or socially conservative, yet favor a liberal interpretation of the Constitution. By the same token, often the most socially liberal people favor the most conservative interpretations of the Constitution. 0
points
Hi @Amarel. When talking about Constitutional law and interpretation Firstly, please will you stop capitalising random words. You do this on all of your accounts and it's very off-putting. You also seem to include many incorrect words in your sentences. I would guess that you are using some kind of predictive text. If so, please turn it off. the words liberal and conservative have specific and very different meanings than in the context of politics, social mores/values, or economics. The words "liberal" and "conservative" are political words, not legal words. They describe two capitalist political ideologies. Are you genuinely stupid? The following is an oversimplification, but since you have little or no understanding or experience in US law, politics, and culture I wish you wouldn't keep making these vague attacks against me every time I have the audacity to correct you about something. You simply can't resist attacking me because that is what fascists do and that is why people don't like fascists in the first place. You do not care about who is right and who is wrong; you do not care about who lives and who dies; all you care about is forcing your authoritarian narrative onto people. Liberal Constitutional interpretation Even implying that all Liberals view the constitution the same way is retarded. You know that, right? Well, clearly no you don't, do you? @Amarel. You are just utterly comical. 1
point
I wish you wouldn't keep making these vague attacks against me every time I have the audacity to correct you about something. The criticisms are not vague. You make statements that broadcast your ignorance of both the English language, and the United States, including approaches to interpretation of the US Constitution. (One such gem is "The words liberal" and "conservative" are political words, not legal words.") Being as you have said you are not American and that you have never been to the US, it is understandable that there are many things you don't know about the US and Americans. What is astounding is that you attempt to speak authoritatively about things of which you are so obviously ignorant, which you so clearly do not understand, and which you have admitted are outside your experience. . all you care about is forcing your authoritarian narrative onto people. Had you bothered to read any of the things I have written, particularly on this thread, then you would know how inaccurate this statement is. If you actually did bother to read any of the things I have written, then we both know that either you do not know what fascism is, or that you are intentionally misinterpreting what you read. . Even implying that all Liberals view the constitution the same way is retarded. I did no such thing. 1
point
The SS was too authoritarian. It micromanaged the economy. Of course command economies are efficient, but they are also wasteful at times. National Socialism is good, but it is just too authoritarian. I prefer a less authoritarian form of fascism, but that is just my opinion. -5
points
The only thing SS did wrong was not just ship the Jews out maybe instead killing them Trying to take over the world was a pretty big faux pas, as well. I am just saying... . Regardless of those two massive screw-ups, the nature of socialism (nationalist or not) has some big problems. - 1 - Socialism is intrinsically immoral. Socialism is a mechanism by which people who don't produce value use the government as a way to steal what they need from people who do produce value. The word for people being required to work to support people who do not work is SLAVERY. - 2 - Socialism demotivates both the net producers and the net consumers. If you don't get to keep what you earn, why bother to work harder? If you will get what you need even if you did not earn it, why bother to work at all? - 3 - Socialism infantilizes the entire population. When the government guarantees personal needs will be met, it is stepping into the precise role that parents occupy for children. That is just plain embarrassing. Adults who do not support themselves should be ashamed of their weakness and inadequacy to do so. - 4 - This erosion of personal independence from government leads inevitably to reduced individual freedoms. My parents always said, "as long as you live under my roof and eat my food, you will obey my rules." The same principle applies to governments that support their citizens. Remember, the first country the Nazis took over was Germany. Hitler used socialism to buy off and weaken the German people so it would be easier for him to conquer Germany, and enslave it to commit the Holocaust and try to take over the world. -2
points
Trying to take over the world was a pretty big faux pas, as well. Nobody can reason with the American right because you've been taught a version of history which didn't ever happen. The Nazis had no intention of taking over the world. They didn't even want to go to war with Britain. What they wanted was exactly what you guys wanted a couple of decades later: the complete annihilation of Communism in Europe. Socialism is intrinsically immoral. This is so spectacularly absurd I am actually chuckling to myself as I write back. It demonstrates a complete absence of knowledge about society, socialism, class, morality and ideology. Socialism is a proposed academic solution to the injustice and unfairness of capitalism. Therefore, you are simply turning reality upside down again. Capitalism is unfair because the work of the majority is exploited and used to create luxury and power for the few, while all the people actually doing the work endure hardship and poverty. Socialism attempts to solve this by reversing the situation, and giving the luxuries to the people who actually have earned them. This terrifies you so much that you use the internet to write pages of utter absurdity with absolutely no truth contained anywhere within them. 1
point
You say you are a democratic socialist, but I can tell that you are really a communist. You see democratic socialism as a step towards communism and not the "final solution" if you know what I mean. In the short term you would like to see democratic socialism take over the world and in the long term your vision for the future is a communist global government. 0
points
1
point
1
point
Nom, What they wanted was exactly what you guys wanted a couple of decades later: the complete annihilation of Communism in Europe. Really? So they invaded North Africa as a way to annihilate Communism in Europe? What revisionist textbook did you get that from? Or did you just make it up and hope nobody would notice? @Fascism. I think Plato's Republic is probably the most sophisticated pro-Fascist/quasi-Fascist society arguments I have encountered where there are points in the book that gives one (a person not at all sympathetic to Fascism or quasi-Fascist society) pause because there are various good points made. I would highly recommend reading it if this is something you are deeply interested in (which it appears as though you are). Also, I would be happy to discuss Plato's Republic further if you like, I created a debate 1-3 weeks back on this matter (that didn't receive much attention). Link here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ @Fascism. What is so interesting about The Republic is that Socrates is an "elite" liberal intellectual constructing this society and arguing that it is the "Ideally Just" society while in modern times, people typically associate far-right neo-con types with those who are most sympathetic to fascism/quasi-fascism. One will find that this is not necessarily the case or correct distinction (i.e. it is not the case that the "far-right" are the only ones sympathetic to fascism and that "liberals" or parts of the left want nothing to do with it). As another point of contact on this topic (i.e. elite liberal intellectuals being sympathetic to quasi-fascist notions), I would direct you to the Crisis of Democracy authored by the Tri-Lateral Commission who were elite liberal intellectuals internationals from the US, Europe, and Japan in the early 1970's. In it, they argued that there is an excess of Democracy and need to find ways of pushing back against the new wave of public opinion from the lower formerly disenfranchised classes. In their view (very similar to that of Socrates in The Republic) is that these lower classes are unfit to make rational decisions about society that will effect all of us (not just them) and therefore should be politically/socially disenfranchised because they are bound to make all sorts wrong decisions that any sensible person/society understands that the higher classes are best fit to make all of the decisions. In The Crisis of Democracy, they made an argument that there is a serious problem with over-education amongst the populace that was newly occurring (in the early 1970's onward). Their reasoning was now that more people are getting Undergrad. level degrees, as well as Masters level, ect. that these lower classes that in truth do not possess the same high level intellect/education that the higher classes (i.e. the elite Liberal intellectuals (possibly some elite intellectuals leaning to the right as well but that point is unclear in their writing)) and should in no way be given the false impression that the lower classes (even though they are becoming notably more educated) are as qualified to make serious decisions (i.e. engage in the political process) that the elites are (i.e. the Elites should be making the rules, so to speak). I would also highly recommend reading the Crisis of Democracy as well as it is in many ways a softer modern day parallel to the type of thinking seen in Plato's Republic. Here is a link to the Crisis of Democracy: http://trilateral.org/download/doc/
I actually took a Philosophy course at Uni. centered around The Republic by Plato. My Professor, a liberal intellectual, was very sympathetic to Socrates arguments. Although I could see and understand much of the motivation behind Socrates thinking/arguments (which in some cases are quite reasonable), I more often than not took the opposing side. I was a very active participant in that class and got into a number of heated arguments with the Professor throughout the course of the semester on particular topics in the book (and the obvious implications for a modern society). So, if you do read Plato's Republic and/or The Crisis of Democracy I would be happy to engage with you at length on these important topics and think that I or both of us could potentially get a lot of good out of the exchange. You will find that some of the arguments that you hold to I am actually quite sympathetic to (to varying degrees) and even though we may be starting from very different positions, there will also be areas of common ground. -1
points
What is so interesting about The Republic is that Socrates is an "elite" liberal intellectual constructing this society and arguing that it is the "Ideally Just" society while in modern times, people typically associate far-right neo-con types with those who are most sympathetic to fascism/quasi-fascism. One will find that this is not necessarily the case or correct distinction (i.e. it is not the case that the "far-right" are the only ones sympathetic to fascism and that "liberals" or parts of the left want nothing to do with it). God, you are just.... So..... Stupid..... Just for a start, The Republic was written by Plato, not Socrates. Secondly, The Republic was written in 380 BC. Fascism was invented in 1922 AD. How is it possible for a person to be so smug, so dishonest and so stupid all at once? 2
points
God, you are just.... So..... Stupid..... Just for a start, The Republic was written by Plato, not Socrates. Next time, try reading the book before you embarrass yourself by talking about it and applying insults to others that are best kept to yourself. In The Republic Plato's ideas about society and government are presented through the conceit of conversation between Socrates and several other characters. 0
points
Next time, try reading the book before you embarrass yourself Oh, I see @Amarel. I need to read the book in order to correct you about who the author is. I wouldn't want to "embarrass myself" by correcting you. Heavens no. In The Republic Plato's ideas about society and government are presented through the conceit of conversation between Socrates and several other characters. Firstly, the word you are looking for is "context", not "conceit". Secondly, as I have already explained once to one of your many, many alt accounts, that is because Plato was a former pupil of Socrates who wrote an explanation of Socratic philosophy in the third person. It does not mean Socrates wrote or said anything in The Republic, because Socrates had been dead for twenty years when Plato wrote it. This line:- Socrates is an "elite" liberal intellectual constructing this society and arguing that it is the "Ideally Just" society Is nonsensical and false, because Socrates does not argue anything in The Republic. Plato argues it. A dead man cannot argue, you stupid twit. 2
points
I need to read the book in order to correct you about who the author is. But you do need to read the book in order to keep from looking foolish when "correcting" people who have read the book. MathFan never wrote that Socrates wrote the Republic. In fact, he attributed the book to Plato and only to Plato. He wrote "... Socrates is an "elite" liberal intellectual constructing this society and arguing that ..." because Socrates is a character in the book that Plato wrote. The character Socrates argues with other characters. Read the book; that will help you understand what MathFan was saying. . You wrote Firstly, the word you are looking for is "context", not "conceit" in response to my explanation that "In The Republic Plato's ideas about society and government are presented through the conceit of conversation between Socrates and several other characters." No, I meant conceit. A conceit is a literary/artistic device or method, or a complexly metaphorical way to express an idea. For example, Plato could have expressed his ideas as a straightforward essay, but instead he used the conceit (i.e., device or method) of a conversation to show the various ways of supporting or arguing against various propositions as to who should rule, etc.. "marcusmoon: In The Republic Plato's ideas about society and government are presented through the conceit of conversation between Socrates and several other characters. Exactly. Nomenclature: It does not mean Socrates wrote or said anything in The Republic, because Socrates had been dead for twenty years when Plato wrote it. This line:(xMathFanx)- Socrates is an "elite" liberal intellectual constructing this society and arguing that it is the "Ideally Just" society Nomenclature: Is nonsensical and false, because Socrates does not argue anything in The Republic. Plato argues it. A dead man cannot argue, you stupid twit. marcusmoon: MathFan never wrote that Socrates wrote the Republic. In fact, he attributed the book to Plato and only to Plato...because Socrates is a character in the book that Plato wrote. The character Socrates argues with other characters. Read the book; that will help you understand what MathFan was saying." Marcusmoon is exactly right. Nom, as usually, you came bursting in here, saw something you didn't like (i.e. a legendary, elite liberal intellectual constructing/arguing for a Fascist/quasi-Fascist society), your SJW sirens went off, and so began your typical "nit-picking" campaign in an attempt to discredit the larger point. This proved ineffective because I am very familiar with The Republic as I took a Uni. Philosophy course on it and have read it more than once (if you see my essay and short responses I have posted on The Republic this point would be obvious). As marcus points out, anyone who has read The Republic or is even familiar with it would understand what I and marcus are saying (which you clearly have not read it; as usual, you are commenting on topics that you have not studied at all as though you are an authority on the matter). marcusmoon (to Nomenclature): No, I meant conceit. A conceit is a literary/artistic device or method, or a complexly metaphorical way to express an idea. Marcus is correct about this point as well.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also Nom, you have previously made the unfounded accusation that marcusmoon and I are the same person as well as Amarel and others. Interestingly, I stumbled upon this the other day evidencing that you have a large number of al-accounts and have been on this forum much longer than you Nomenclature account would suggest: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ How sad Nom.. 2
points
MathFan, You made the comment to Nomenclature:...you have previously made the unfounded accusation that marcusmoon and I are the same person as well as Amarel... I hope you and Amarel do not mind that I did not bother to correct Nom on this. 1-I was flattered by the association, despite the fact that we do not always agree. 2-Nom would not have believed the denial because it means he was wrong about something and because it does not feed into his personal narrative of paranoid self-righteousness. @marcusmoon. I hope you and Amarel do not mind that I did not bother to correct Nom on this. It's cool, I didn't mind at all. I assumed you understood there was/is essentially no point in correcting Nomenclature since (due to his track record) he is going to run away with his Conspiracy Theories regardless of evidence to the contrary 0
points
MathFan, You made the comment to Nomenclature:...you have previously made the unfounded accusation that marcusmoon and I are the same person as well as Amarel... Lol. Oh just stop you deranged fascist halfwit. You are actually insulting people by presuming them to be so utterly stupid. Your posting styles are identical, right down to addressing people with the "@" sign, emboldening sections of your own text, writing the same excessively long walls of rubbish and making the same grammar mistakes. You attack the same people with the same lies, you surface in exactly the same threads, you are all on the far right and you are all dumber than a wet fence post. Your stupidity and poor grasp of deception are actually so amusing they border on the outright farcical. I mean, just this little nugget alone:- I was flattered by the association Ahaha! Seriously though, you're transparent and stupid. You've been busted just like this douchebag was busted:- The Double Identity of an "Anti-Semitic" Commenter Like many other news websites, Common Dreams has been plagued by inflammatory anti-Semitic comments following its stories. But on Common Dreams these posts have been so frequent and intense they have driven away donors from a nonprofit dependent on reader generosity. A Common Dreams investigation has discovered that more than a thousand of these damaging comments over the past two years were written with a deceptive purpose by a Jewish Harvard graduate in his thirties who was irritated by the website's discussion of issues involving Israel. His intricate campaign, which he has admitted to Common Dreams, included posting comments by a screen name, "JewishProgressive," whose purpose was to draw attention to and denounce the anti-Semitic comments that he had written under many other screen names. The deception was many-layered. At one point he had one of his characters charge that the anti-Semitic comments and the criticism of the anti-Semitic comments must be written by "internet trolls who have been known to impersonate anti-Semites in order to then double-back and accuse others of supporting anti-Semitism"--exactly what he was doing. (Trolls are posters who foment discord.) https://www.commondreams.org/ You can't hide being insane Amarel. You might think you can, but you can't. 1
point
Oh just stop you deranged fascist halfwit. All of my posts on this thread have been arguments against fascism. Either you have not read what I wrote, OR You have not understood what I wrote, OR You really have no idea what fascism is or what the word fascist means. Which of these is it? The Republic talks about the arguments of many philosophers, although Plato was the one who wrote it. Plus fascism was used before 1922. 1922 was when the term fascism was coined by Mussolini, but he didn't invent the ideology. There were some Civil Rights activists before this point who where fascist, and many other European fascist writers. Ancient Rome was fascist, and the Greeks had many fascist values. -1
points
Plus fascism was used before 1922. 1922 was when the term fascism was coined by Mussolini, No it wasn't. The earliest date you can possibly attribute to the invention of fascism is 1915, when Mussolini created the Fascist Revolutionary Party (PFR). That party was disbanded and replaced in 1921, and did not become an authentic system of government until it was applied by the Italian state in 1922. Either way it is entirely academic, because this happened thousands of years after the references your alt account made to fascism. The Roman Empire was fascist. It had all the principles of fascism. Mussolini just gave the ideology a term. That doesn't mean that no one had ever used it before. Democracy was the term coined by the ancient Greeks, but even when civilization hadn't been invented yet and tribalism still existed, primitive forms of democracy had existed, where the members of the tribe casted votes. Giving an ideology a name doesn't mean that no one ever used that ideology before. 1
point
While I don't believe that liberal democracy is the end of history, I don't think fascism is either. Let's go through your principles. Nationalism - I believe that liberal democracy does a poor job instilling and utilizing a spirit of community. However, nationalism is not the answer. We have moral obligations to the communities we live in but a nation is not that community. The truth is that the concept of a nation is usually not rooted in anything real. In America, there are at least two conflicting national identities: one in the coasts and the other in the rest, in Canada at least two: the French and the English, Spain at least two, UK at least three. Nationalism usually just takes the form of the ruling party's concept of national identity. Now, If you say that there are groups of people out there that share some level of culture and history and the borders of nation states should roughly coincide with these groups I would agree with you. Similar people have similar interest and problems and it is more efficient if they deal with those themselves. But the idea of a "national identity" is not necessary. This is just a malicious meme that depends on scapegoating out-groups and general xenophobia. What is important is shared interests, not blood and soil. Militarism - I am assuming this means an increase in the willingness to use military force from post-Cold War levels in US/Europe. This I disagree with. I really don't see how going back to pre-WWII levels of conflict in the civilized world is beneficial. I don't think we need perennial war over colonies or borders. Command economy - This is ambiguous, so I am not sure if I disagree. It looks like you are advocating for protectionism, which I don't care for. It gets in the way of efficiency. I guess it makes sense for strategic resources if you are a militaristic country always on the brink of war but I disagree with the need for militarism. Capitalism mixed with socialism - This is also ambiguous and could be used to describe most economies, so I am not sure if I disagree. Authoritarianism - I really don't see much evidence in history that authoritarianism is good in the long run. Maybe you could make an argument that authoritarianism is good for quickly modernizing a state but that is only a temporary period. Preservation of culture - This is a goal I care about as much as I care about the preservation of my genes. Which is not at all. If your view culture as a set of memes, as I do, the comparison is apt. Forgive my anthropomorphism, but you could say we are survival machines built by our genes and memes use our imitation and learning abilities to do the same for themselves. I think it is a viral and malicious idea to identify yourself with these patterns of information. Individualism mixed with collectivism (so basically the middle ground between communism and ancap) - Ambiguous, but I would agree that we could mix more collectivism into our current societies. Corporatism - I agree. This is something that countries like contemporary Germany does very well and we could learn from them. It looks like we agree on the need for an increase in collectivism and solidarity but disagree on the need to bring with that the primitive xenophobic memes associated with in-group/out-group dynamics. 2
points
While most fascist nations are not friendly towards gays, your pun makes very little sense as a counterargument to it. Fascism doesn't actually say anywhere to be homophobic, it's just that many culture who happened to be fascist happened to have a prominent religion that hates gays. A fascist is literally a bundle of sticks. It is on their flag. A "faggot" is a bundle of sticks used for burning. The reason why a homosexual might be called a "faggot" as a slur something to do with all this for sure. You can be certain though that fascists are indeed faggots. They also really hate to be called that, even though that is totally what they are.... the faggots... 1
point
"Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance... ...All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity." I believe in The Kingdom of God, the sovereignty of The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It is greater. 1
point
2
points
The bundle of sticks is a symbol. Literal - taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory So a fascist isn't literally a bundle of sticks. Plus the symbol doesn't represent the bundle of sticks as a fascist. Each stick is a separate person. The bundle of sticks is a group of people with a common goal. 3
points
0
points
1
point
It depends on what you are talking about. If by Islam you mean accepting God's sovereignty over all things, making peace with God's Kingdom, focusing your heart and mind on God, and practicing sincere charity, you are practicing good religion. If by Islam you mean submission to created things that take the place of God.... Well, you are clearly following an anti-Christ. |