Is America heading towards fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

demographically speaking, it seems that "the trend is our friend."

America is a fascist state now. Maybe not in literal terms in that we're not Italians, but we're allowing the Democrats to become the ruling class of this country and that doesn't bode well for anyone. Unless you make solar panels.

It takes real ignorance to accuse Ron Paul Libertarians of being fascists. Libertarianism is the polar opposite of Fascism. Whereas fascism is the hallmark of single party control and govt overreach into just about every facet of your life. (Very close to what Great Britain is right now.) Libertarians support a laissez-faire approach. Govt is limited in size and scope, and only given the power necessary to maintain public safety. Which was the original intent of the central govt in the first place.

And what fascist state encourages the extension of democracy, such as championing gay rights and fighting voter suppression? That's all the work of the Democrats. When have libertarians done that? It was in fact the Republicans who had actively opposed gay rights, and were behind voter suppression. I think you're confused about who is the real fascist threat.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Many libertarians have proposed the view that the Government has no business regulating marriage and sexual habits. That is purely private. The government must remain neutral on sexual and religious matters. Where libertarians differ from the pinko stinko liberal neo-fascists is that the oppose laws which punish discrimination against gays or members of some religious group. The libertarian view generally as that people have the right to determine their associations. This means if A is bigoted against B the government has nothing to say about it.

Association is purely a private matter. Governments exist only to keep the peace and defend our shores. In libertopia schooling would also become a purely private matter.

ruveyn

Governments regulate sexual habits as a quarantine in order to prevent the spreading of horrible diseases. Now this is not to say the government should over regulate. The government should not persecute polygamy if it can be shown that this method is also an effective way of a quarantine. A whole city could practice free love but this city would have be the equivalent of a prison colony in order to prevent the spread of disease.

I think the main problem with this debate is that to American Libertarians and pro-market right wingers, the political spectrum is less about left vs right and more about good vs evil with themselves at the helm of the good ship 'freedom'. Thats why we're in the ridiculous situation where in this thread, fascists, communists and liberals have been lumped together in some sort of monolithic ideological bloc. Not that far removed from the sanctimony and dogma employed by the nazis.

When you get into such absolutist dogma, it should serve as a warning flag to all allies of democracy.

I agree, but the interference of the state into sexual habits has traditionally been, and still remains, a hallmark of right wing politics.

Thats not to say that libertarians are left wing because their Austrian school economic theory pushes them beyond even hardline conservatives.

Statism is Collectivism. When that is triumphant woe unto the Individual. Collectivists of both the Left and the Right are the enemy of individual liberty.

ruveyn

Under communism the rugged individualist is merely assimilated into the collective. He remains a hero but his legacy is shared.
Thus the paradox of the collective. We are the one and we are the many. We are the beginning and we are the end. This idea that everyone is a carbon copy clone is not true under true communism.

The rugged individualist would be beaten bloody the the NKVD (or its equivalent) and shipped off to a gulag.

ruveyn

Okay, I'll give libertarians a pass on this one.
But regarding A's right not to associate with B - yes, except when A's bigotry interferes with B's social equality. Case in point; while lunch counters were privately owned, denying blacks the right to eat alongside whites essentially still kept blacks as second class citizens. Hence, the rights of black Americans to have social equality trumped the right to private association of the white business owners.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Social equality IS NOT a right. Legal equality IS a right. It is impossible for all of us who come in different sizes, shapes, temperments and abilities to be socially equal. You ought to know. If you are an Aspie you will never be socially equal to the NTs.

Where in the U.S Constitution are Americans guaranteed social equality? Answer: nowhere. The 14 th amendment guarantees us equal protection of the LAWS.

ruveyn

Tell that to the brave civil rights workers who put all on the line for equality. They fought for the right to eat at that segregated lunch counter as much as they had fought for the right to vote.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Those "brave" workers were appealing to a government that has no respect for private property.

If X owns his resteraunt, then by rights he should server who ever he feels like serviing.

The courts brought in a screwball argument that if X bought cups from out of State he was engaged in interstate commerce in the act of feeding his customers. Thus, by perversion of law, did Congress decide who X could service and X could not serve.

If we had a libertarian order, such nonsense would not occur.

Those "brave" workers fought for the POWER to deny the owner of the resteraunt the right run it as he saw fit.

ruveyn

Without that social equality, legal equality really means nothing. Being able to eat at that lunch counter makes you an equal - legal and otherwise - in the eyes of society. And that's in the end right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Tyranny is tyranny regardless of how small and private it is. A society where people become slaves to land "owners" is not a society I want to live in. Your idea of liberty is ridiculous.