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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

Finally. I found the right word, "oligopoly". Thanks, using the word monopoly is a hassle.

"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.

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.

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.

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.