LEFT WING Socialism Tyranny RIGHT WING Capitalism Freedom

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We all pretty much know what Leftist or Left Wing means, and it's definition is the reason why lots of folks don't like the name, and prefer not to use it. Instead, going with their favorite, "Progressive", or (heh) "Moderate".

The confusion seems to exist with what is RIGHT WING. To me, it's also got a negative tone to it, because of the abusive mis-characterization associated with it. For example, and probably foremost, detractors like to call Hitler's and Mussolini's regimes Right-Wing, when clearly both were VERY leftist; Socialism and Fascism were the order, and Freedom within the business community was not allowed. Things were either state owned or state controlled.(sound familiar? haha) The left has liked to stick that term FASCIST to the Right-Wing, when it actually only applies to governments that are Leftist, and don't espouse Freedom for its citizens.

So, Right-Wing is the opposite of State control of everything. It represents Freedom, and the ability for the individual to run his own life. In our case here in America, within the laws established by the citizens. Capitalism is the enactment of that Freedom. With Capitalism, we produce goods and services that people need and ACTUALLY WANT-not some govt. mandated product or service that is so much BULLSH*T.

[SoonerProphet]

anarcho capitalism?

[Sooner_Havok]

To the king of c&p...


Fascism is normally described as "extreme right", but writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult. There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.

The historians Eugen Weber, David Renton, and Robert Soucy view fascism as on the ideological right. Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement. Stanley Payne states that pre-war fascism found a coherent identity through alliances with right-wing movements Roger Griffin argues that since the end of World War II, fascist movements have become intertwined with the radical right, describing certain groups as part of a "fascist radical right".

Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either", but that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". Payne says "fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center", noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right. However, he contends that German Nazism was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system.

The position that fascism is neither right nor left is regarded as credible by a number of contemporary historians, including Seymour Martin Lipset and Roger Griffin. Griffin argued, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."

On economic issues, fascists reject ideas of class conflict and internationalism, which are commonly held by Marxists and international socialists, in favour of class collaboration and statist nationalism. However, Italian fascism also declared its objection to excessive capitalism, which it called supercapitalism. Zeev Sternhell sees fascism as an anti-Marxist form of socialism.

A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether. Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists". Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation." Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful. Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was critical of both left-wing and right-wing politics, once saying that "basically the Right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while the Left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile".

Roger Eatwell sees terminology associated with the traditional “left-right” political spectrum as failing to fully capture the complex nature of the ideology and many other political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum. In some two dimensional political models, such as the Political Compass (where left and right are described in purely economic terms), fascism is ascribed to the economic centre, with its extremism expressing itself on the authoritarianism axis instead.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

crony capitalism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Barak Hussein Obama...Mmm Mmmm Mmmm!

[Sooner_Havok]

WTF? I must not be hooked up to my indoctrination chamber long enough, cause I am lost. This is the second time I have seen this Mmm Mmmm Mmmm thing.

[A Sooner in Texas]

WTF? I must not be hooked up to my indoctrination chamber long enough, cause I am lost. This is the second time I have seen this Mmm Mmmm Mmmm thing.

Stay in the indoctrination chamber long enough and Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm will be all you can say with any intelligence.

[SicEmBaylor]

We all pretty much know what Leftist or Left Wing means, and it's definition is the reason why lots of folks don't like the name, and prefer not to use it. Instead, going with their favorite, "Progressive", or (heh) "Moderate".

The confusion seems to exist with what is RIGHT WING. To me, it's also got a negative tone to it, because of the abusive mis-characterization associated with it. For example, and probably foremost, detractors like to call Hitler's and Mussolini's regimes Right-Wing, when clearly both were VERY leftist; Socialism and Fascism were the order, and Freedom within the business community was not allowed. Things were either state owned or state controlled.(sound familiar? haha) The left has liked to stick that term FASCIST to the Right-Wing, when it actually only applies to governments that are Leftist, and don't espouse Freedom for its citizens.

So, Right-Wing is the opposite of State control of everything. It represents Freedom, and the ability for the individual to run his own life. In our case here in America, within the laws established by the citizens. Capitalism is the enactment of that Freedom. With Capitalism, we produce goods and services that people need and ACTUALLY WANT-not some govt. mandated product or service that is so much BULLSH*T.

Look man, a lot of this is just flat out wrong. I can't really blame you as most people don't understand the historical context of the terms (it's of French political origin during, I think, the 1st Republic).

Let me just say this.

Fascism and Nazism are very right-wing. The problem you're having is that, as I tried explaining to you several times before, the collective political movements that fall under the umbrella of left/right wing change depending on the country and/or political system. For example, French and European monarchists were the first to be described as right-wing because in France the conservatives supported the nation's traditional political and social institutions which was the monarchy. This is why you can't universally apply terms like left/right wing -- it's totally dependent upon the time, circumstances, and the nation in question. Fascism, by European terms, was very much a right-wing movement. They were nationalists at a time when left-wing European movements were post-nationalist and focused on the individual worker -- this is what "socialist solidarity" was all about. They wanted to tear down traditional national walls in order to create one single state of socialism. The Nazi Party was originally created, at least in part, to combat the growing support of socialist/communist parties that threatened the traditional institutions of Germany. This is why the Nazi party had so much support among traditional conservative parties early on in the Weimar Republic.

Now, you're also wrong about the Nazi's outlawing private business and socializing everything -- they didn't. What the Nazis did was create state monopolies via no-competition bidding to those companies that they wanted to support. Now, what they produced was directed by the state because they were in the middle of the war, but we did the exact same thing. Business actually flourished during Hitler's reign (sans the effects of war), and the leading industrialists in Germany made a fortune.

Germany worked closely with big business not against it.

In any case, much of your analysis is simply wrong.

[soonerscuba]

Boom, head shot.

[SicEmBaylor]

To the king of c&p...

I take issue with this analysis as well. If you put Fascism and its Nazi cousin into proper national and historical context you'd find they're both clearly on the right-wing within the political traditions of those various nations.

[JohnnyMack]

SicWned

[JohnnyMack]

I'm curious. If the right-wing in this country is as you say about the ability of the individual to make his own choices, why is it that these very same people have come up with things like the DOMA and prop. 8 in California?

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm curious. If the right-wing in this country is as you say about the ability of the individual to make his own choices, why is it that these very same people have come up with things like the DOMA and prop. 8 in California?

I'll let him answer for himself, but this is the logic that finally made me realize how far conservatives have fallen from their individual liberty/limited government roots.

It's hard to come up with a compelling reason why one group of American citizens should be granted some rights while others aren't. I'm not a fan of gay marriage, but I'm even less a fan of nanny-state government.

[StoopTroup]

The funniest thing is he completely ignores you all and yet you type more than one paragraph responses. I'm guilty of it too but none of us have really been able to change a thing.

Some folks are just born with a gift of knowing it all.

Others...they realize that they have an entire life to live and learn about how to make the World a better place.

I refuse to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy by the left or the right...I think they get way to much credit and that they are less intelligent than most people on this message board.

Given the abilty to fix things...could the folks on this board do better? I think we could but I also think the RLIMC would be found in a closet wrapped in a case of duct tape.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm convinced I'm just one long-winded paragraph away from having everyone agree with me.

[Fraggle145]

What the Nazis did was create state monopolies via no-competition bidding to those companies that they wanted to support.

*cough* Haliburton *cough*

;)

[Penguin]

I'm convinced I'm just one long-winded paragraph away from having everyone agree with me.

I disagree.

[SicEmBaylor]

*cough* Haliburton *cough*

;)

There are certainly some fascistic elements to our modern economy. However, people hear that word and think I'm comparing certain politicians to Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth. The economic aspects of fascism are fairly benign. There's really nothing inherently evil about fascism. I don't agree with its tenants (I'm all about de-centralization), but fascism in and of itself isn't evil...it's just a set of social and economic policy ideas. What made Fascism evil are its leaders that used it to persecute.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

OH! I thought you said socialism TRANNY.

Well, nevermind then.

[Ike]

I'm curious. If the right-wing in this country is as you say about the ability of the individual to make his own choices, why is it that these very same people have come up with things like the DOMA and prop. 8 in California?


Because, in order to get enough people under the 'conservative' umbrella to win elections, they had to get into bed with the right wing of the church(es), and dream up some fantastical thing that married conservative economics with conservative christian domestic ideals.

Thus you get a movement that says "Get the gubmint out of MY life, but get it into everyone elses."

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Look man, a lot of this is just flat out wrong. I can't really blame you as most people don't understand the historical context of the terms (it's of French political origin during, I think, the 1st Republic).

Let me just say this.

Fascism and Nazism are very right-wing. The problem you're having is that, as I tried explaining to you several times before, the collective political movements that fall under the umbrella of left/right wing change depending on the country and/or political system. For example, French and European monarchists were the first to be described as right-wing because in France the conservatives supported the nation's traditional political and social institutions which was the monarchy. This is why you can't universally apply terms like left/right wing -- it's totally dependent upon the time, circumstances, and the nation in question. Fascism, by European terms, was very much a right-wing movement. They were nationalists at a time when left-wing European movements were post-nationalist and focused on the individual worker -- this is what "socialist solidarity" was all about. They wanted to tear down traditional national walls in order to create one single state of socialism. The Nazi Party was originally created, at least in part, to combat the growing support of socialist/communist parties that threatened the traditional institutions of Germany. This is why the Nazi party had so much support among traditional conservative parties early on in the Weimar Republic.

Now, you're also wrong about the Nazi's outlawing private business and socializing everything -- they didn't. What the Nazis did was create state monopolies via no-competition bidding to those companies that they wanted to support. Now, what they produced was directed by the state because they were in the middle of the war, but we did the exact same thing. Business actually flourished during Hitler's reign (sans the effects of war), and the leading industrialists in Germany made a fortune.

Germany worked closely with big business not against it.

In any case, much of your analysis is simply wrong.I wasn't addressing your definition of the original use of the term right-wing as supporting the monarchy.(assuming right-wing in your definition means conserving the traditional, or monarchy in that case)

Also, in the case of Nazi Germany, the State had control of the business community, and directed virtually everything, as you stated. That is the opposite of the Free Market Capitalism, and I'm confident you agree with that. So, while you like to pronounce me wrong, I don't really see that you disagree with what I explained about present day American Liberals wanting Socialism and Nanny Statism, while the so-called right wing wants to conserve American Constitution and the laws of the country, yielding the greatest freedom for the citizenry. This is the point of my original post. There is a significant number of republicans who are far from conservative, but that's another conversation.

It doesn't seam like we really disagree on much regarding government, except foreign and military policy, but it appears you do like to proclaim me wrong.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are certainly some fascistic elements to our modern economy. However, people hear that word and think I'm comparing certain politicians to Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth. The economic aspects of fascism are fairly benign. There's really nothing inherently evil about fascism. I don't agree with its tenants (I'm all about de-centralization), but fascism in and of itself isn't evil...it's just a set of social and economic policy ideas. What made Fascism evil are its leaders that used it to persecute.Fascism=Command and Control economy? That's what it is in one definition, anyway. That is not Right Wing in the American sense, and is what I was talking about, of course.

[SicEmBaylor]

I wasn't addressing your definition of the original use of the term right-wing as supporting the monarchy.(assuming right-wing in your definition means conserving the traditional, or monarchy in that case)

Well, this isn't my definition. That is the definition. This isn't some interpretation I pulled out of thin air. That's where, historically, the term originated. I didn't just pull that out of my *** you know. As I briefly touched on and someone reminded me to mention, the term originated in France's 1st Republic when members of the parliament that supported existing social institutions sat on the right side of the chamber while those wanting to completely scrap the existing social and political order sat on the left side. The reason I got into all of that is because you Nazi Germany as an example and tried to apply it to modern American political parlance. I'm trying to put the term into its proper context.


Also, in the case of Nazi Germany, the State had control of the business community, and directed virtually everything, as you
stated.
They didn't have control at all. They could easily have taken control, but the Nazi regime didn't nationalize every business from the ma and pa corner shop to I.G. Farben. What they did do was create state-sponsored monopolies and mobilize their economy for war-time production. Like I said, we did nearly the EXACT same thing.


That is the opposite of the Free Market Capitalism, and I'm confident you agree with that.
Yes, I agree with that. But then again we don't live in a free-market capitalist state either.


So, while you like to pronounce me wrong, I don't really see that you disagree with what I explained about present day American Liberals wanting Socialism and Nanny Statism, while the so-called right wing wants to conserve American Constitution and the laws of the country, yielding the greatest freedom for the citizenry.
I completely disagree, because as I've explained numerous times now, in American political parlance not all of the right-wing is interested conserving individual liberty and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. There are some right-wing elements that are more nationalist than others -- for example the neo-conservative movement is highly nationalistic and favors a strengthening of the central government in order to buttress their efforts at expanding American power abroad. On the other hand, the paleoconservative movement is totally the opposite and values de-centralization. On top of that you have at least a half-dozen other major elements that could be described as right-wing that aren't always compatible with one another.


This is the point of my original post. There is a significant number of republicans who are far from conservative, but that's another conversation.

See, you still aren't totally separating Republicans from conservative. You make the mistake of assuming the GOP is a conservative party; therefore, its members should generally be conservative. The two major political parties in the United States are non-ideological. The only ideological parties that exist in the US are 3rd and single-issue parties. The Republican Party, in recent history, certainly has favored more conservative principles. But those principles are more a set of broad policy points than a cohesive ideological platform. The GOP constantly changes its platform to appeal to voters -- there is no strict adherence to an ideology. That's why conservatives shouldn't put themselves in lock-step with the Republican Party. Ditto with the Democratic Party and liberals.

European Parties are the opposite -- they're almost always ideologically based movements. The UK is a pretty notable exception to that rule.


It doesn't seam like we really disagree on much regarding government, except foreign and military policy, but it appears you do like to proclaim me wrong.

We probably agree with a lot at the end point, but the problem is how we get there. Your reasoning, analysis, and history are all wrong. You know how in school when you performed a math problem and you had to show your work? Well, you manage to get the right answer but when you look at the work you did to get that right answer it makes no sense and it's totally wrong.

[SicEmBaylor]

Fascism=Command and Control economy? That's what it is in one definition, anyway. That is not Right Wing in the American sense, and is what I was talking about, of course.

The problem is you said that Fascism is a left-wing movement which it isn't and then you pointed out that it makes no sense for liberals to call conservatives Fascist when it is, in fact, a left-wing movement.

I was pointing out that Fascism is certainly a right-wing movement when you put it into its proper historical context. I further tried explaining that you can't draw direct parallels between fascism in Germany and any particular movement in the United States.

HOWEVER, having said all that, if you did try to draw a link between Fascism and the American political tradition then it would still have strong right-wing elements (nationalism, promoting American imagery and pageantry, etc.).

And no fascism does not necessarily mean command and control -- at least in the sense that I think you're thinking. It's very different than say a communist economy. The difference is that in a purely socialist or communist state the property and economy is owned by the collective. In a fascist state, the economy is merely directed by the state. This may not seem like huge difference but it is. In fact, our own economy has state directed for a very very long time. What do you think the Federal Reserve, the FTC, Dept. Treasury, etc. do? The American economy has been centrally directed for a very long time.

[TUSooner]

This is what I did not miss: The mental maturbation of Rush's Parrot.
His world is such an uncomplicated place, unlike the real one.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm curious. If the right-wing in this country is as you say about the ability of the individual to make his own choices, why is it that these very same people have come up with things like the DOMA and prop. 8 in California?

Because gay marriage is ghey. duh!

[OklahomaTuba]

HOWEVER, having said all that, if you did try to draw a link between Fascism and the American political tradition then it would still have strong right-wing elements (nationalism, promoting American imagery and pageantry, etc.).
Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.He sure goes to great length to disagree, though. He can call Nazi Germany free-market Capitalist and Fascist at the same time, and the board libs applaud.

[JohnnyMack]

Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.

Your lumping together of Fascism with Marxism is cute. Overly simplistic, but not unexpected. They're not the same thing. It'd be like saying there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Right?

[JohnnyMack]

Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u73/ohiok/funnypictures/american/Patriotism.jpg

[SoonerProphet]

social darwinism and revancist foreign policy also help distinguish the two ideologies.

[SicEmBaylor]

Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

Uh, no.....Being patriotic, waving the flag, listening to Sousa music, etc. doesn't make you a fascist. What I'm saying is that fascist movements have traditionally used those sorts of national symbols to rally the population in support of a strong centralized state. Good grief....I do all of those things listed above and I'm hardly a Fascist. Doing those things doesn't make you a Fascist, but Fascist movements have traditionally used those things for the political ends.


The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

You're lumping all of these things together. Government directed is not the same as government or collective ownership. They are two very different beasts. I'm not going to point out the differences again since I've already done that, but you're confusing government promotion and direction with government ownership and/or collective ownership.


And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.

In case you've been living under a rock for a VERY long time, government management of our economy has been going on since virtually day one. Obama increased that management to a degree, but the management part is absolutely nothing new.

[tommieharris91]

In case you've been living under a rock for a VERY long time, government management of our economy has been going on since virtually day one. Obama increased that management to a degree, but the management part is absolutely nothing new.

Yea, the gubmint has had a hand our economy since they created this thing called the dollar.

I also like how Tuba refers to W as Dear Leader.

[OklahomaTuba]

Your lumping together of Fascism with Marxism is cute. Overly simplistic, but not unexpected. They're not the same thing. It'd be like saying there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Right?So do tell, what is the difference???

Oh, wait, I got one, Marxist usually kill millions more. But does that really count????

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm not going to point out the differences again since I've already done that, but you're confusing government promotion and direction with government ownership and/or collective ownership.No, you are actually. The very definition of communism is the control of the production and consumption of goods. So tell me, how does it matters who legally "owns" the producing firms if the government is in control of those two processes to begin with????



In case you've been living under a rock for a VERY long time, government management of our economy has been going on since virtually day one. Obama increased that management to a degree, but the management part is absolutely nothing new.To a degree????!!??

[OklahomaTuba]

social darwinism and revancist foreign policy also help distinguish the two ideologies.Both fit Russia and China quite well actually.

[Scott D]

this thread is good for some chuckles.

[OklahomaTuba]

this thread is good for some chuckles.I know I laughed pretty hard at a so called conservative saying Obama had only increased government management of the economy by "a degree".

I'm guessing he was asleep the day when he took over GM and fired their CEO..

[OklahomaTuba]

And I'm guessing SicEm you havn't been keeping up with what Cap and Trade would do to increase government management of the economy???

[Sooner_Havok]

SicEm, you ain't with em so your against them. Welcome to being a dirty lib. I'll send you your pamphlets and brochures later.

[SicEmBaylor]

No, you are actually. The very definition of communism is the control of the production and consumption of goods. So tell me, how does it matters who legally "owns" the producing firms if the government is in control of those two processes to begin with????

To a degree????!!??

Communism isn't the control and production of consumer goods -- it's the collective ownership of private property and state owned industry. I'm not saying they don't both involve the government managing the economy, but they do so in two very different ways and that distinction reflects an ideological difference.

Now, the reason I say that Obama has increased the government's management to a degree is because the foundation for most of what Obama has done was set by previous administrations (especially the last one). He took the next step/degree/or whatever you want to call it when he nationalized certain industries, but that's where we were going at the end of the Bush administration in any case. In terms of what he's done, it's the next step beyond what was done by the previous administration. That was my point. Not too much has changed besides the $ amount involved.

[SicEmBaylor]

He sure goes to great length to disagree, though. He can call Nazi Germany free-market Capitalist and Fascist at the same time, and the board libs applaud.

When on Earth did I say that Nazi Germany was a free-market capitalist state?

[SicEmBaylor]

I know I laughed pretty hard at a so called conservative saying Obama had only increased government management of the economy by "a degree".

I'm guessing he was asleep the day when he took over GM and fired their CEO..

BUAHAHAHA, a "so-called conservative." I KNEW that was coming.

Let me tell you a little about myself.

I'm a strict believer in the originalist intent of the Constitution right down to my desire to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. I'm a firm believer in promoting traditional American principles of individual liberty, the right of the people to choose their own government, and a belief in a very limited and responsible national government. I believe the states should be left to decide most of their own domestic policy without interference from Washington. I believe in a humble and limited international presence abroad in the mold of old-style conservatism; because, I believe a strong presence abroad is impossible without a strong central government at home. I detest taxes; I believe in a balanced-budget Constitutional amendment; I greatly value economic liberty and the liberty of the individual to the extent they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Now, what I don't do is support the Republican Party. I also don't like it when people label groups or individuals as one thing or another when they have absolutely no freaking clue what the real meaning of the word is or its historical context. I detest idiotic political debates that amount to nothing more than name calling and simplistic arguments.

Now, if all that makes me a liberal then fine, but I really don't know of too many liberals who would gut the powers of government to the degree I would. The problem is, Republicans wouldn't even neuter the government to the degree I'd like which is why I don't like Republicans.

[SicEmBaylor]

And I'm guessing SicEm you havn't been keeping up with what Cap and Trade would do to increase government management of the economy???

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of cap and trade. I've never been anything less than totally opposed -- what's your point?

[Sooner_Havok]

BUAHAHAHA, a "so-called conservative." I KNEW that was coming.

Let me tell you a little about myself.

I'm a strict believer in the originalist intent of the Constiution right down to my desire to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. I'm a firm believer in promoting traditional American principles of individual liberty, the right of the people to choose their own government, and a belief in a very limited and responsible national government. I believe the states should be left to decide most of their own domestic policy without interference from Washington. I believe in a humble and limited international presence in mold of old style conservatism; because, I believe a strong presence abroad is impossible without a strong central government at home. I detest taxes; I believe in a balanced-budget Constitutional amendments; I greatly value economic liberty and the liberty of the individual to the extent they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Now, what I don't do is support the Republican Party. I also don't like it when people label groups or individuals as one thing or another when they have absolutely freaking clue what the real meaning of the word is its historical context. I detest idiotic political debates that amount to nothing more than name calling and simplistic arguments.

Now, if all that makes me a liberal then fine, but I really don't know of too many liberals who would gut the powers of government to the degree I would. The problem is, Republicans wouldn't even neuter the government to the degree I'd like which is why I don't like Republicans.

Nope, sounds like you are now a progressive liberal.

[Sooner_Havok]

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of cap and trade. I've never been anything less than totally opposed -- what's your point?

It is simple. You say you are not a Republican. You are now a Democrat in his eyes. If you do not fall lock step inline with the Republican party, you are the enemy. Therefore, you must support everything the "enemy" supports.

As a liberal, you will be asked to turn in all your guns. I kept mine, but I think they made an exception for me.

[SicEmBaylor]

Nope, sounds like you are now a progressive liberal.

Well, you better start the paperwork because I guess I'm a liberal now.

I'm not sure what it's like on the left-side of life....can you hook me up with a hot bohemian bi-curious contortionist chick that's an expert at yoga? Preferably with red hair...

TYIA

[Fraggle145]

Well, you better start the paperwork because I guess I'm a liberal now.

I'm not sure what it's like on the left-side of life....can you hook me up with a hot bohemian bi-curious contortionist chick that's an expert at yoga? Preferably with red hair...

TYIA

You have to go to the ACORN office to get the paperwork...

And yes we have those in Red.

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me ask RLIMC and Tuba this:

When Bush signed NCLB into law giving the Federal government the strongest voice its ever had in education that's supposed to be a local and state issue...where were you?

When Bush and the GOP passed the most massive expansion of Medicare creating a whole new entitlement program....where were you?

When Bush was running up the deficit on a scale that truly boggles the mind...where were you?

When Bush created one of the largest expansions of the Federal government and created huge new layers of government bureaucracy with the creation of the Dept. Homeland Defense...where were you?

When the Patriot Act was passed giving the Federal government a huge swath of new powers that intrude on the privacy of American citizens...where were you?

When Bush did next to nothing to close the southern border...where were you?

I'll tell you where I was. I was screaming for his head to be served to the conservative electorate on a platter. I was waiting for him to be held accountable by the base for his actions. I was disappointed and that's when I became disillusioned with the mainstream movement and the GOP. They're not interested in good government -- they're interested in power.

[King Crimson]

you tried Sic. that reading a book thing is getting in the way of your interlocutors version of the history of political thought. somewhere Bobby Heilbronner is groaning at Bill Favor and Tuba.

keep in mind that when the past is subordinate to current politics we are in the land of ideology. Favor's history of political thought is a myth that rewrites the past to justify the present. the neocons really got that one right as a control mechanism....yet Fukayama was declaring the end of history at the same time on the PNAC payroll.

see?

[Sooner_Havok]

Well, you better start the paperwork because I guess I'm a liberal now.

I'm not sure what it's like on the left-side of life....can you hook me up with a hot bohemian bi-curious contortionist chick that's an expert at yoga? Preferably with red hair...

TYIA

Like Fraggle said, I think we can get you one of those. You might be surprised, a lot of us on the "left" are former conservatives and libertarians that couldn't tow the Republican party line and were labeled libs.

[Fraggle145]

I like trees, fish and lakes = lib.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

Let me ask RLIMC and Tuba this:

When Bush signed NCLB into law giving the Federal government the strongest voice its ever had in education that's supposed to be a local and state issue...where were you?

When Bush and the GOP passed the most massive expansion of Medicare creating a whole new entitlement program....where were you?

When Bush was running up the deficit on a scale that truly boggles the mind...where were you?

When Bush created one of the largest expansions of the Federal government and created huge new layers of government bureaucracy with the creation of the Dept. Homeland Defense...where were you?

When the Patriot Act was passed giving the Federal government a huge swath of new powers that intrude on the privacy of American citizens...where were you?

When Bush did next to nothing to close the southern border...where were you?

I'll tell you where I was. I was screaming for his head to be served to the conservative electorate on a platter. I was waiting for him to be held accountable by the base for his actions. I was disappointed and that's when I became disillusioned with the mainstream movement and the GOP. They're not interested in good government -- they're interested in power.

This.

And, you know what? Us 'moderates' and 'libertarians' are tired of being pushed around by the extremists on both sides.

I cant quote you exactly, but when George Washington said that a two party system is the worst thing that can happen to this country, this is exactly what he was talking about.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, I'm spent for the day.

I do want to say though that I hate fish. As a kid, I was scared ****less of the beady eyed bastards. The fish can all DIE.

That is all. Good night and good luck. :D

[Scott D]

This.

And, you know what? Us 'moderates' and 'libertarians' are tired of being pushed around by the extremists on both sides.

I cant quote you exactly, but when George Washington said that a two party system is the worst thing that can happen to this country, this is exactly what he was talking about.

This post and a majority of SicEm's are dead on.

****, there's a crap ton of things that I definitely don't agree with him on. But when people rely on mouthpieces to tell them how to feel about stuff on a range of 'anything' to 'everything' they don't have any perspective on a single thing at all.

At least SicEm's regurgitation of things is based more on his own individual beliefs and what he's been taught/researched on his own rather than what any talking or printed head has told him.

[King Crimson]

But when people rely on mouthpieces to tell them how to feel about stuff on a range of 'anything' to 'everything' they don't have any perspective on a single thing at all.



it gets even weirder when these people start accusing others of being brainwashed by "the media".

the all-purpose scapegoat....and the scapegoat mechanism is interesting for people who like puff their chests about being "accountable". or: that others play the blame game.

[A Sooner in Texas]

I feel strangely more intelligent for having read this thread. A definite first for SF!!!

Sorry I don't have a cute, liberal, red-headed daughter who can contort her body into all sorts of weird ways for ya, Sic. (I do have a couple of cute red-headed sons, but....no).

[soonerscuba]

I can imagine Sic'em getting angry at a rally because somebody complains about obstructionist Dems in the Senate blocking their way to originalist legislative reform.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And I'm guessing SicEm you havn't been keeping up with what Cap and Trade would do to increase government management of the economy???It's possible SicEm's version of a political fight with liberals was to vote for Obama. Never did hear for sure whether he went through with that threat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When on Earth did I say that Nazi Germany was a free-market capitalist state?You implied that business was openly pursued by the populace of Germany, and only controlled by Hitler because they were in a war. How silly. They sort of invaded the Western World.

[SicEmBaylor]

It's possible SicEm's version of a political fight with liberals was to vote for Obama. Never did hear for sure whether he went through with that threat.

I voted for Bob Barr.

I voted for 9 Libertarians, 9 Republicans (all on the state level), and 1 Democrat (Sam Houston for SCOT).

[tommieharris91]

BUAHAHAHA, a "so-called conservative." I KNEW that was coming.

Let me tell you a little about myself.

I'm a strict believer in the originalist intent of the Constitution right down to my desire to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. I'm a firm believer in promoting traditional American principles of individual liberty, the right of the people to choose their own government, and a belief in a very limited and responsible national government. I believe the states should be left to decide most of their own domestic policy without interference from Washington. I believe in a humble and limited international presence abroad in the mold of old-style conservatism; because, I believe a strong presence abroad is impossible without a strong central government at home. I detest taxes; I believe in a balanced-budget Constitutional amendment; I greatly value economic liberty and the liberty of the individual to the extent they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Now, what I don't do is support the Republican Party. I also don't like it when people label groups or individuals as one thing or another when they have absolutely no freaking clue what the real meaning of the word is or its historical context. I detest idiotic political debates that amount to nothing more than name calling and simplistic arguments.

Now, if all that makes me a liberal then fine, but I really don't know of too many liberals who would gut the powers of government to the degree I would. The problem is, Republicans wouldn't even neuter the government to the degree I'd like which is why I don't like Republicans.

So I take this to mean that you would take being called a Communist as a compliment? ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

You implied that business was openly pursued by the populace of Germany, and only controlled by Hitler because they were in a war. How silly. They sort of invaded the Western World.

Business was openly practiced. Germany didn't seize local ma/pa shops, they didn't seize small businesses, they didn't seize large industry...well unless you were non-Aryan. The point is, commerce continued with people buying, selling, and trading goods. Now, when you get into large scale national manufacturing the Nazi regime certainly directed war production but every nation involved in WWII did the exact same thing.

None of that means it was a totally free-market. Such a thing doesn't exist, anywhere. It was far from a free-market and the state did take a large role in directing the economy; HOWEVER, that is significantly different than the concept of communal property on the left. Communism is different because it eliminates the concept of personal property and in practice assigns workers and material to where the government (society) deems it most beneficial to the rest of the community. So, instead of someone deciding to open up a corner bakery -- the government would determine if such a need exists and create its own bakery and assign someone to serve as a baker and give them an allotment of baking goods. This is not what a fascist regime does. That's what I've tried so hard to get across. The difference between direction and communal ownership and the elimination of personal property is a very important difference.

[SicEmBaylor]

I really don't know what else to say other than to suggest doing a bit more research and recognizing there are a lot of subtle but important differences between fascism/nazism and communism.

Next time, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

So I take this to mean that you would take being called a Communist as a compliment? ;)

I give up. I'm a closet communist. The only problem is now we have to debate what sort of communist I am. Am I a Maoist? A Trotskyite? A Stalinist? :sigh: Around and around we go...

[King Crimson]

trotsky is the way to go.

unless you want to go Bakunin or something.

[SicEmBaylor]

trotsky is the way to go.

unless you want to go Bakunin or something.

The latter is far more appealing. I'm probably too nationalistic to be a good Trotskyite. I could see myself being somewhat influenced by Mao (that's probably the Jeffersonian in me talking).

At any rate, I really don't know because this is somewhat akin to a straight guy trying to decide what dude he'd most want to do.

[Fraggle145]

The latter is far more appealing. I'm probably too nationalistic to be a good Trotskyite. I could see myself being somewhat influenced by Mao (that's probably the Jeffersonian in me talking).

At any rate, I really don't know because this is somewhat akin to a straight guy trying to decide what dude he'd most want to do.

the red headed yoga instructor?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I really don't know what else to say other than to suggest doing a bit more research and recognizing there are a lot of subtle but important differences between fascism/nazism and communism.

Next time, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. ;)Right-wing behavior(meaning conservative) in the USA is adherence to the Constitution and the decentralization it espouses. Historical France or some other culture could well be different. You know that. You know I knew it, too. But, by splitting hairs you totally disregarded the point of the thread, which is that Socialism and Command and Control economies suck. They take away freedom, which we on the right hold so dear. There wasn't a fight, as far as I'm concerned. We talked about different things. Little doubt you will think of something else to say...

[SicEmBaylor]

the red headed yoga instructor?

I never said she had to be an instructor. I'm not a picky guy.

[CrimsonandCreamForever]

I'm not a picky guy.

heh

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When Bush signed NCLB into law giving the Federal government the strongest voice its ever had in education that's supposed to be a local and state issue...where were you?

When Bush and the GOP passed the most massive expansion of Medicare creating a whole new entitlement program....where were you?

When Bush was running up the deficit on a scale that truly boggles the mind...where were you?

When Bush created one of the largest expansions of the Federal government and created huge new layers of government bureaucracy with the creation of the Dept. Homeland Defense...where were you?

When the Patriot Act was passed giving the Federal government a huge swath of new powers that intrude on the privacy of American citizens...where were you?

When Bush did next to nothing to close the southern border...where were you?

I'll tell you where I was. I was screaming for his head to be served to the conservative electorate on a platter. I was waiting for him to be held accountable by the base for his actions. I was disappointed and that's when I became disillusioned with the mainstream movement and the GOP. They're not interested in good government -- they're interested in power.When Bush did the NCLB thing, and Medicare expansion, I was as against those things as anybody could be. Why did you ask me that, or maybe assume I was for them? I believe he was right in pursuing intel and apprehension of suspected terrorists, but am not convinced a new cabinet department(Homeland Security) was necessary. From your question about the Patriot Act, am I right to think you don't believe in a War on Terror? Well, I believe there is a war, and believe in the Patriot Act. Am I lock-step with the Republicans? How absurd, if that's what you think.

I don't think there's any civilized, peaceful way for the country to right itself outside of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. The democrats are way too corrupt, criminal and power crazed to have any chance of reform. Third party is STUPID, because espousing a third party candidate ALWAYS helps the party you oppose the most. One thing neither party wants anything to do with is border security. I don't think we will have much success shaping America up until that problem is confronted.

[OklahomaTuba]

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of cap and trade. I've never been anything less than totally opposed -- what's your point?So would you define Cap and Trade a mere "degree" increase in government control then???

[OklahomaTuba]

He took the next step/degree/or whatever you want to call it when he nationalized certain industries, but that's where we were going at the end of the Bush administration in any case. In terms of what he's done, it's the next step beyond what was done by the previous administration. That was my point. Not too much has changed besides the $ amount involved.BS. Bush was against the auto-bailouts, and the GOP voted down the first attempts at the financial bailouts. If Bush's intent was to take over the private sector as Obama seems to be trying to do, why didn't Bush do the same thing Obama did 9 months into his Presidency when the economy was collapsing from the tech bubble and 9/11????

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"Roman Polanski is being hung in effigy by the fascist Christian right, who claim he is the posterboy for what is wrong with the American left. Polanski's crime was no biggie, and if I were in his shoes, I'd hit that 13 year old too. Without hesitation. She looked older and was asking for it."
-Keith Olbermann

Hey Tuba, did you email the above quote to the pres. of NBC Sports? Shirley the network doesn't know he said that, eh?

[SicEmBaylor]

When Bush did the NCLB thing, and Medicare expansion, I was as against those things as anybody could be. Why did you ask me that, or maybe assume I was for them?
No, I know you weren't for them. My point is that you were never on here screaming about how Bush was a socialist and destroying the country while he and the GOP were actively involved in both. I never saw you start a thread about the corruption of the GOP and the degree to which they violated the constitution they were bound by oath to uphold. That's not to mention the personal corruption far too many Republicans seemed to suffer from.

The point is: When Bush spent 8 years violating the Constitution and expanding the powers of the Federal government you weren't starting 10 gajillion threads on the subject every day. Obama comes to office and builds on the Bush Administration's economic policy and virtually no major legislative victory and you're screaming to the heavens about how socialist Obama is and how he's ruining the country. Frankly, he hasn't yet been successful enough with legislative victories to screw everything up as badly as you think he is.

The fact that I didn't see threads from you during the Bush years pointing these things out makes it pretty clear to me that it's about nothing more than partisan hackery on your part, and I have a low-tolerence for partisan hackery. It accomplishes nothing, it's intellectually lazy, and it precludes you from serious discussion.


I believe he was right in pursuing intel and apprehension of suspected terrorists, but am not convinced a new cabinet department(Homeland Security) was necessary. From your question about the Patriot Act, am I right to think you don't believe in a War on Terror?

I believe we have to defend ourselves from radical jihadists who intend to attack American citizens and interests. But, do I believe in some label as idiotic as "The War on Terror?" No. Terror is a tool -- a means of resisting when better options don't exist. You can't beat "terror" because "terror" is not an entity. It's a tactic. And, to be frank, it's sometimes a successful one which is why it's used. You can't beat a tactic -- you can only limit its effectiveness.

I believe we were absolutely right in attacking the Al-Queada and its Taliban host. Every person responsible for attacks on American citizens and interests should be killed. What I don't believe in is nation-building. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we still in Iraq? Why were we there to begin with? Like I've explained earlier, I don't believe in a global US presence. If I had it my way I'd shut down every overseas military base and recall every last soldier abroad.


Well, I believe there is a war, and believe in the Patriot Act. Am I lock-step with the Republicans? How absurd, if that's what you think.

It's not absurd because you've never indicated in any way that you aren't.



I don't think there's any civilized, peaceful way for the country to right itself outside of the Republican Party becoming more conservative. The democrats are way too corrupt, criminal and power crazed to have any chance of reform. Third party is STUPID, because espousing a third party candidate ALWAYS helps the party you oppose the most. One thing neither party wants anything to do with is border security. I don't think we will have much success shaping America up until that problem is confronted.

Nothing will change because of the attitude you have toward 3rd parties. I also find it interesting that just after trying to convince me you aren't in lock-step agreement with the GOP, you spend a paragraph telling me how doing anything but wholly supporting the GOP will lead to a scary liberal takeover. This paragraph pretty much proves my point.

[SicEmBaylor]

So would you define Cap and Trade a mere "degree" increase in government control then???

Yes, it's the continuation of where environmental policy has been going for the last decade. I couldn't possibly oppose cap-and-trade more than I do, but it's not nearly as radical as some of the alternate proposals. Cap-and-trade is actually something of an improvised middle ground between those who oppose capping emissions and those who have a much more radical agenda. This would be the part that makes it incremental increase.

If you're trying to get me to endorse cap-and-trade in some way and thus expose me as a liberal then you're going to have your work cut out for you.

[SicEmBaylor]

BS. Bush was against the auto-bailouts, and the GOP voted down the first attempts at the financial bailouts. If Bush's intent was to take over the private sector as Obama seems to be trying to do, why didn't Bush do the same thing Obama did 9 months into his Presidency when the economy was collapsing from the tech bubble and 9/11????

Bush was initially opposed to many of the bailout plans he ended up endorsing. The only reason he didn't change his mind on the auto bailouts is because his term ended.

The GOP did not collectively vote down the first bailout bill. The House opposed it -- Bush endorsed it (it was his plan) -- and a majority of Senate Republicans endorsed the plan. The RNC itself, though admittedly Bush controlled, supported the bailout plan.

The tech bubble and 9/11 had very different effects on the economy.

I don't think it was his intent to take over the private sector. I don't even believe he really wanted the bailouts, but nonetheless the end result is the same. That's exactly what happened.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, I know you weren't for them. My point is that you were never on here screaming about how Bush was a socialist and destroying the country while he and the GOP were actively involved in both. I never saw you start a thread about the corruption of the GOP and the degree to which they violated the constitution they were bound by oath to uphold. That's not to mention the personal corruption far too many Republicans seemed to suffer from.

The point is: When Bush spent 8 years violating the Constitution and expanding the powers of the Federal government you weren't starting 10 gajillion threads on the subject every day. Obama comes to office and builds on the Bush Administration's economic policy and virtually no major legislative victory and you're screaming to the heavens about how socialist Obama is and how he's ruining the country. Frankly, he hasn't yet been successful enough with legislative victories to screw everything up as badly as you think he is.

The fact that I didn't see threads from you during the Bush years pointing these things out makes it pretty clear to me that it's about nothing more than partisan hackery on your part, and I have a low-tolerence for partisan hackery. It accomplishes nothing, it's intellectually lazy, and it precludes you from serious discussion.



I believe we have to defend ourselves from radical jihadists who intend to attack American citizens and interests. But, do I believe in some label as idiotic as "The War on Terror?" No. Terror is a tool -- a means of resisting when better options don't exist. You can't beat "terror" because "terror" is not an entity. It's a tactic. And, to be frank, it's sometimes a successful one which is why it's used. You can't beat a tactic -- you can only limit its effectiveness.

I believe we were absolutely right in attacking the Al-Queada and its Taliban host. Every person responsible for attacks on American citizens and interests should be killed. What I don't believe in is nation-building. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we still in Iraq? Why were we there to begin with? Like I've explained earlier, I don't believe in a global US presence. If I had it my way I'd shut down every overseas military base and recall every last soldier abroad.



It's not absurd because you've never indicated in any way that you aren't.




Nothing will change because of the attitude you have toward 3rd parties. I also find it interesting that just after trying to convince me you aren't in lock-step agreement with the GOP, you spend a paragraph telling me how doing anything but wholly supporting the GOP will lead to a scary liberal takeover. This paragraph pretty much proves my point.It certainly doesn't prove diddly squat. Believing the republican party is basically the only realistic hope for getting the country in pretty good shape is far different from being in lock-step with all they do. (I don't think I even want to mess with going over all the previous points of your last lengthy post, at least not now)...except to say how did you expect us to defeat Al-Queda and the Taliban without being in iraq and Afghanistan?

My first concern is trying to politically defeat all the insanity that is the democrat party. Having enough people come to their senses, and see how damaging that socialism and govt. control and/or ownership of the economy that the dems espouse is will be the first thing that needs to happen.

[SicEmBaylor]

:sigh:

Alright well good luck with all that then.

[Half a Hundred]

I'm a strict believer in the originalist intent of the Constitution right down to my desire to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments.

I'll only respect this if you believe that corporate personhood needs to go as well. If so, I'll acknowledge it as a reasonable difference of opinion, and appreciate the challenge to my own positions. Then, I'll start debating policy implications.

[I Am Right]

What is corporate personhood?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:sigh:

Alright well good luck with all that then.Good luck with your third party stuff, too. If it had a snowball's chance in Cuba, I would be with ya.

[Half a Hundred]

What is corporate personhood?

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person. The idea is that it allows a corporation to be sued and to sue others, while protecting the liability of the shareholders (a shareholder can never lose more than the initial investment, no matter what happens).

The issue being brought here is that during the Gilded Era, courts decided that the 14th meant that corporations were granted equal protection, the same as any other person. This meant that they couldn't be limited in their "speech". When later courts decided that money=speech, well, you can see where that one is going.

The founders almost all generally abhorred the concept, including Hamilton, since much of the British control of North America had been exercised through corporations of a similar design.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll only respect this if you believe that corporate personhood needs to go as well. If so, I'll acknowledge it as a reasonable difference of opinion, and appreciate the challenge to my own positions. Then, I'll start debating policy implications.

You know, this is only the second time someone has brought up this issue when I start talking about repealing the 14th Amendment. To answer your question, yes I believe corporate personhood should go as well (which it would if the 14th Amendment were repealed). In any case, I believe large corporations can be as big a threat to the liberty of the individual as government can be.

I honestly have not thought through the policy implications, but they would seem to be enormous.

[SicEmBaylor]

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person. The idea is that it allows a corporation to be sued and to sue others, while protecting the liability of the shareholders (a shareholder can never lose more than the initial investment, no matter what happens).

The issue being brought here is that during the Gilded Era, courts decided that the 14th meant that corporations were granted equal protection, the same as any other person. This meant that they couldn't be limited in their "speech". When later courts decided that money=speech, well, you can see where that one is going.

The founders almost all generally abhorred the concept, including Hamilton, since much of the British control of North America had been exercised through corporations of a similar design.

To expand on this a bit, for the benefit of IAR, this ties into the 14th Amendment thusly:

Until the establishment of the 14th amendment, state law did not have to comply with Federal constitutional law. The US Constitution was viewed, correctly, as a limitation on Federal law. In other words, the Federal government was banned from establishing an official religion but the states could. Now, in practice the states never went too far off the reservation because in most cases the state constitutions were written and constructed based on the US Constitution (after the US Constitution was ratified the states had to rewrite their own). So for all practical matters it wasn't a huge issue except for that whole Civil War..err War Between the States thing. ;)

Now, corporations had already existed in the states and were regulated by the states and in some cases those state regulations violated US Constitutional protections (in their estimation), so they used the 14th Amendment to apply equal protection to a non-person.

Therefore you have a situation where US Constitutional protections, clearly intended to apply to people and not business entities, is applied to corporations.

[SicEmBaylor]

Good luck with your third party stuff, too. If it had a snowball's chance in Cuba, I would be with ya.

It's not about supporting any one party. It's about keeping the conservative movement independent enough to use other avenues for its ends than the Republican Party. Think of the GOP as the tail and the conservative movement as the head. The head should be leading the dog, but the tail has been leading the way for a long time. Its been leading for so long it has the head convinced that the direction its going is the right one.

The GOP is a non-ideological political party. As such, it's only useful so long as it commits itself to decreasing the size of government, eliminating corruption, balancing the budget, and keeping itself within its proper constitutional role. It has failed at ALL of those things. In fact, it has not only failed it has actively worked against most of those.

I will not simply support a VERY slightly better version of the alternative as if I'm locked in a blood contact with the party. They haven't done their job and they can go to hell.

[King Crimson]

this is an embarrassing thread. dumb *** X dumb *** and rah rah "them" is the brainwashed ones.

[SicEmBaylor]

this is an embarrassing thread. dumb *** X dumb *** and rah rah "them" is the brainwashed ones.

You must not have enjoyed merry-go-rounds as a child.

[King Crimson]

You must not have enjoyed merry-go-rounds as a child.

the tilt-a-whirl was my game. with the Steve Miller Band's Jet Airliner rocking.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

this is an embarrassing thread. dumb *** X dumb *** and rah rah "them" is the brainwashed ones.Not particularly a surprise comment. Anything constructive?

[King Crimson]

Not particularly a surprise comment. Anything constructive?

your understanding (using the term loosely) of political theory is amateurish and mostly a representation of your current "end of the great America" viewpoint that's Limbaugh and Glen Beck and 5 year's ago Ann Coulter.

it lacks any real commitment, based largely on a nostalgia for something that didn't really exist (the Great Reagan Utopia), and is mostly a cry baby theory. made all the more ironic since you consistently blame the liberals for every wrong in the US yet somehow implausibly advocate individual responsibility as a catch-phrase. scape-goating is such a weak argument.

does that work for you?

[OklahomaTuba]

scape-goating is such a weak argument.the irony in that post is hilarious.

[King Crimson]

the irony in that post is hilarious.

and you just doubled it up, yo.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

your understanding (using the term loosely) of political theory is amateurish and mostly a representation of your current "end of the great America" viewpoint that's Limbaugh and Glen Beck and 5 year's ago Ann Coulter.

it lacks any real commitment, based largely on a nostalgia for something that didn't really exist (the Great Reagan Utopia), and is mostly a cry baby theory. made all the more ironic since you consistently blame the liberals for every wrong in the US yet somehow implausibly advocate individual responsibility as a catch-phrase. scape-goating is such a weak argument.

does that work for you?Well, it's also not new coming from you, and my, how constructive.haha. (besides, it doesn't really make sense) What are your recommendations for a better America, big boy?

[King Crimson]

Well, it's also not new coming from you, and my, how constructive.haha. What are your recommendations for a better America, big boy?

all you have to do is repeat the words "free market" and "liberties" and "socialism" and "freedoms" to get you to wag your tail.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

all you have to do is repeat the words "free market" and "liberties" and "socialism" and "freedoms" to get you to wag your tail.This thread didn't need to be bumped.

[Sooner_Havok]

This thread didn't need to be bumped.

But all the asinine **** you post that no one cares about, that needs to be bumped. :rolleyes:

[I Am Right]

The legal fiction that a corporation is a person. The idea is that it allows a corporation to be sued and to sue others, while protecting the liability of the shareholders (a shareholder can never lose more than the initial investment, no matter what happens).

The issue being brought here is that during the Gilded Era, courts decided that the 14th meant that corporations were granted equal protection, the same as any other person. This meant that they couldn't be limited in their "speech". When later courts decided that money=speech, well, you can see where that one is going.

The founders almost all generally abhorred the concept, including Hamilton, since much of the British control of North America had been exercised through corporations of a similar design.

Does that mean I don't get a dividend?

[Half a Hundred]

^ No, a corporation's free to distribute its profits to its shareholders in whatever way is customary in this setup.

They can't buy off politicians in this setup. That's the main difference.

[49r]

This thread didn't need to be bumped.


If I believed in using sigs, this would be mine right now...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If I believed in using sigs, this would be mine right now...Boy howdy, that would be a good one!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Boy howdy, that would be a good one!or not

[SicEmBaylor]

I hate to point out the obvious, but you've bumped this thread twice since complaining about someone bumping the thread.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I hate to point out the obvious, but you've bumped this thread twice since complaining about someone bumping the thread.You don't know a complaint from a bowl of cereal! But, you were right about Homey bitchin' about tatoo toolers as medical professionals.

BTW, what happened to your toothless bears?

[pilobolus]

It amazes me how many people believe governments are defined by left and right. In reality, there are five types of government; monarchy, oligarchy, republic, democracy, and anarchy. We were intended to be a republic but unfortunately have become an oligarchy in which too few have far too much wealth, power, and influence over the rest of us.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

[SicEmBaylor]

It amazes me how many people believe governments are defined by left and right. In reality, there are five types of government; monarchy, oligarchy, republic, democracy, and anarchy. We were intended to be a republic but unfortunately have become an oligarchy in which too few have far too much wealth, power, and influence over the rest of us.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

There are a lot of things wrong in that video.

[SicEmBaylor]

You don't know a complaint from a bowl of cereal! But, you were right about Homey bitchin' about tatoo toolers as medical professionals.

BTW, what happened to your toothless bears?

They got creamed. As always.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Like Fraggle said, I think we can get you one of those. You might be surprised, a lot of us on the "left" are former conservatives and libertarians that couldn't tow the Republican party line and were labeled libs.
^^^ *ahem*

[LosAngelesSooner]

Haha, seriously????? Wow.

You think flags, Sousa marches and being proud of your country some how equals a link to fascism??? That's stupid. The NorKs have some nice parades too.

The very definition of Fascism, Marxism or whatever is a command and control economy and government. Its all about collectivism and statism.

And in case you've been under a rock, that's exactly where Dear Leader has taken us with the unconstitutional takeover of the financial sector and health care industries, and the resulting crowding out of the private sector.By the way, Tuba? You should probably change your sig. ;)

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910230019

[pilobolus]

There are a lot of things wrong in that video.

Like what?

[pilobolus]

I've "elaborated" enough in that thread, and I have no intention of posting in it again. If you want to discuss it privately then that's fine. -SicEm

In other words, you're talking out of your ***.
:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

^^^ Hardly.

[StoopTroup]

In other words, you're talking out of your ***.
:rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure your way out of your element here....LMAO!

You moving to Austin any time soon?

[JLEW1818]

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm474/jlew1818/IMG_1295.jpg

http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm474/jlew1818/IMG_1296.jpg

[LosAngelesSooner]

Those pictures express to things I feel strongly about:

#1 - Bald dudes need to quit growing goatees after they shave their heads. The chin hair does not compensate for the smooth skull and you don't look badass...even with the sunglasses and earpiece.

#2 - Thin girls in sailor outfits that show their bellies are always the first thing you'll notice in any photo...even if two Presidents of the United States are in the same photos.

Carry on...

[I Am Right]

http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/shanklin_archives/Socialism.asx

[LosAngelesSooner]

I smell Troll spam.

[StoopTroup]

There are hot cheerleaders on the field and someone takes the time to snap a few shots of some washed up old guys.

Sad.

[JLEW1818]

i took those you jackass

ha

i got more!

and a cheerleader on my face

[SicEmBaylor]

In other words, you're talking out of your ***.
:rolleyes:

:sigh:

The video tries way too hard to fit a square peg into a round hole. To start with, that political spectrum at the beginning of the video is patently absurd.

The idea that the far-right wants anarchy and no government while the far-left wants absolute rule is absolute crap. I'm not going over all of that again since that's what I've been doing throughout this entire thread, but the political spectrum graphic displayed is pure bunk. To be honest, there's no real way to graphically/visually represent the political spectrum -- at times it folds over on itself and even contains multiple dimensions. A traditional 2D straight-line political spectrum is just a highly simplistic way for people to grasp basic political concepts. In any case, that graph doesn't even properly represent even the most basic political spectrum properly.

The basic types of government part is pretty much correct except for their details. They try to fit various political movements into sections where they don't belong. There was absolutely NO part of the Nazi movement that wanted anarchy -- the entire point of the Nazi movement was to bring law and order back to Germany from the chaos of the Weimar Republic. Now, there has always been a niche anarchist movement on the left, but that doesn't really fit with their absurd political spectrum in the beginning of the movie.

Even their claim that there's no such thing, in practice, as one-man rule because you're always going to have institutions like the nobility, politburo, buerocrats, etc. Well, this is also clearly wrong. They're confusing ruling with implementing. There have been many many cases in history where one man's rule is absolute, but the fact that they need a support structure to implement their rule/law does not mean they're sharing their power in a classic oligarchical sense.

Anyway, there were a couple of other things but like I said I really don't want to keep going over the same **** for the nth time.

[SicEmBaylor]

I haven't given this too much thought, but if I were to create my own basic political spectrum then I'd put absolute-authority at both the extreme left and extreme right with anarchy squarely in the center.

[SicEmBaylor]

absolute authority>----------------anarchy-------------------<absolute authority

Ultimately, the far-right and far-left result in the same thing...absolute authority in some fashion. Now how you get to that situation is completely different in each case. For example, the far-left's power and authority comes from the working class and is wielded, theoretically, to benefit the proletariat. The far-right validates its power and authority based on nationalism, shared heritage, culture, etc.

In the middle you have anarchy because as you move either direction from left/right you loosen the constraints of government each step of the way. Now, you could say anarchy itself even has its own mini-spectrum:

pure communism>---------------<pure individualism

On the left side of the anarchy spectrum, you have pure communism where there is no government and everyone works to support the collective community. On the right side, you have a situation where each individual works purely for themselves and is totally independent of any community or government.

Again, I haven't given this much thought but if I had to design my own spectrum it'd look something like that.

[StoopTroup]

Things are becoming very clear now. :D

[pilobolus]

In the video, the placement of anarchy and monarchy is purely arbitrary, for demonstration. It has nothing to do with left/liberal, right/conservative. That is the entire point of the video, it's useless to try to define governmental systems that way.

[SicEmBaylor]

In the video, the placement of anarchy and monarchy is purely arbitrary, for demonstration. It has nothing to do with left/liberal, right/conservative. That is the entire point of the video, it's useless to try to define governmental systems that way.

I beg to differ. The video clip makes it pretty clear as to what they believe constitutes the political spectrum. At the 1:40 mark they even go so far as to overlay the types of government on top of the spectrum they created to show where the types of government fit on the spectrum. This is nothing short of pure crap. They even say those who consider fascism/nazism to be far-right never define the terms! Well, read this thread and you'll see that I've defined the terms.

Just to point out another flaw, they insist that a monarchy is on the extreme left of the spectrum ignoring the fact that the very terms left/right come from the French 1st Republic when Monarchists sat on the right-wing of parliament.

The video just isn't worth much. I'd find some better way to demonstrate whatever it is you were trying to demonstrate by posting that nonsense.

Good effort though -- it's better (slightly) than some of the things I've read around here.

[SicEmBaylor]

Anyway, I've already added as much to this discussion as I can. I'm sure you'll find a point of difference, but I've gone as far with this thread as I want to go.

If I haven't elaborated enough for you by now then I guess I'm just talking out of my ***.

[pilobolus]

You are really over-thinking this and missing the entire point of the video, that the entire right/left issue as we have been conditioned to perceive it is irrelevant. It's the hegelian dialectic. One agenda formulated behind closed doors by the elite and pushed by two marginally different parties with the leaders mere ceremonial figureheads who give the illusion they wield power. Hence, we have devolved from a republic as the constitution intended, into an oligarchy.

[LosAngelesSooner]

absolute authority>----------------anarchy-------------------<absolute authority

Ultimately, the far-right and far-left result in the same thing...absolute authority in some fashion. Now how you get to that situation is completely different in each case. For example, the far-left's power and authority comes from the working class and is wielded, theoretically, to benefit the proletariat. The far-right validates its power and authority based on nationalism, shared heritage, culture, etc.

In the middle you have anarchy because as you move either direction from left/right you loosen the constraints of government each step of the way. Now, you could say anarchy itself even has its own mini-spectrum:

pure communism>---------------<pure individualism

On the left side of the anarchy spectrum, you have pure communism where there is no government and everyone works to support the collective community. On the right side, you have a situation where each individual works purely for themselves and is totally independent of any community or government.

Again, I haven't given this much thought but if I had to design my own spectrum it'd look something like that."Pure Communism" (which has NEVER been realized in the way that Marx hypothesized) is not "anarchy." It's extremely orderly and has a very established set of rules and laws. So I would not categorize it in part of the Anarchy section you're proposing.

[SicEmBaylor]

"Pure Communism" (which has NEVER been realized in the way that Marx hypothesized) is not "anarchy." It's extremely orderly and has a very established set of rules and laws. So I would not categorize it in part of the Anarchy section you're proposing.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference in the degree to which a pure communist society is organized as compared to that of the individual. I didn't put a whole lot thought into this like I said.

However, in a sense I would say it still belongs there. I'm not entirely sure I'd go so far as to say a purely communist society is governed by a set of rules and laws. Where do those rules and laws come from? In order to be decreed you'd have to have a social structure which wouldn't exist in a purely communist society. I would say that rather than be a set of strict rules and laws -- I'd say it's more a set of commonly accepted protocols and expectations. Anarchy doesn't necessary have to be the total lack of societal organization -- I consider it simply the lack of institutionalized law and order and/or the lack of a government/social structure.

In any case, I would say pure communism is organized anarchy (it sounds like an oxymoron but it really isn't) which puts it on the left-side of the anarchy scale.

Like you said though there's has never been and will never be a purely communist society. Just as there will never exist a situation in which all individuals are totally independent on the right side of the scale. Man is both inherently social and inherently greedy (I don't mean that in a negative way necessarily) making any state of anarchy impossible.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh, and I just now noticed the cheerleaders. God, I'm full of fail.

Question, are those cheerleaders actually members of the academy or did they come from somewhere else? Because, I'm not sure those are regulation cadet uniforms. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

What is the difference if the law is established and enforced by all, as opposed by a select group? How is one more chaotic than the other if the rules are equally defined and enforced?

In a bee hive, if a bee gets a disease, all the bees ostracize the sick bee. They kick it out of the hive. This is organization...and an example of their rules being enforced (bee death panel, if you will ;))

So if the community has set rules...and those rules are enforced by the collective (resistance is futile) then how is that anarchy?

[Frozen Sooner]

SicEm is sorta correct. In the Communist endgame, the state withers away and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is established-basically, no central authority because people just do what they're supposed to do.

[SicEmBaylor]

What is the difference if the law is established and enforced by all, as opposed by a select group? How is one more chaotic than the other if the rules are equally defined and enforced?

In a bee hive, if a bee gets a disease, all the bees ostracize the sick bee. They kick it out of the hive. This is organization...and an example of their rules being enforced (bee death panel, if you will ;))

So if the community has set rules...and those rules are enforced by the collective (resistance is futile) then how is that anarchy?

There isn't much of a practical difference. The only difference is that is that set laws and rules require a social structure to both create and then enforce those laws. That's a bit different than a collective group agreeing, for example, on how to divvy up communal tasks.

But you're right there's not much of a difference. That's why, like I said earlier, it's so hard to plot these concepts on a straight political line or spectrum.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well, CLEARLY you don't know what you're talking about...ya dirty Lib.

;)

[StoopTroup]

SicEm has a boyfriend...how quaint.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Don't get jearous, ST. ;)

[TAFBSooner]

I'm convinced I'm just one long-winded paragraph away from having everyone agree with me.

Mwa Ha Ha!!!

I learned better several years ago. :O

It's not in the logic. Logic is available to us all. It's about how you answer the question, "Do you look at the level of the society or the person?"

The correct answer, of course, is "Yes."

PS - why no Obama and Palin smilies? Bush and Kerry are so five years ago.

[StoopTroup]

Don't get jearous, ST. ;)

I'm not. There's no chance SicEm will get laid.

[LosAngelesSooner]

True dat. I ain't puttin' out no matter HOW many degrees he gets in his 34 year college career. :D

[TAFBSooner]

When Bush signed NCLB into law giving the Federal government the strongest voice its ever had in education that's supposed to be a local and state issue...where were you?

When Bush and the GOP passed the most massive expansion of Medicare creating a whole new entitlement program....where were you?

So Bush was a socialist?


When Bush created one of the largest expansions of the Federal government and created huge new layers of government bureaucracy with the creation of the Dept. Homeland Defense...where were you?

When the Patriot Act was passed giving the Federal government a huge swath of new powers that intrude on the privacy of American citizens...where were you?

Wait a minute. Now you're saying he was a fascist?

So George W Bush was actually the first Socialist-Fascist president - not Obama! :D

[Half a Hundred]

PS - why no Obama and Palin smilies? Bush and Kerry are so five years ago.

That's back when politics on this board were cheeky and fun shenanigans, rather than cruel and tragic, which really doesn't make them shenanigans after all.

[I Am Right]

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009


Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

[tanjou]

I'm a follower of Third World Maoism, personally.

[FaninAma]

To expand on this a bit, for the benefit of IAR, this ties into the 14th Amendment thusly:

Until the establishment of the 14th amendment, state law did not have to comply with Federal constitutional law. The US Constitution was viewed, correctly, as a limitation on Federal law. In other words, the Federal government was banned from establishing an official religion but the states could. Now, in practice the states never went too far off the reservation because in most cases the state constitutions were written and constructed based on the US Constitution (after the US Constitution was ratified the states had to rewrite their own). So for all practical matters it wasn't a huge issue except for that whole Civil War..err War Between the States thing. ;)

Now, corporations had already existed in the states and were regulated by the states and in some cases those state regulations violated US Constitutional protections (in their estimation), so they used the 14th Amendment to apply equal protection to a non-person.

Therefore you have a situation where US Constitutional protections, clearly intended to apply to people and not business entities, is applied to corporations.

You can blame Lincoln. ;)

I never have beleieved the Founding Fathers(with the possible exception of Hamilton) intended the Federal government to dominate the individual states like it does now. In fact I think most of the FF beleived that a central government that could thwart the will of the individual states was the biggest threat to the freedom of its citizens. They were right.

Centralization of power always, always leads to corruption and a loss of personal liberty.

[LosAngelesSooner]

http://www.usscatastrophe.com/store/it.lives.01.cover.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

You can blame Lincoln. ;)

I never have beleieved the Founding Fathers(with the possible exception of Hamilton) intended the Federal government to dominate the individual states like it does now. In fact I think most of the FF beleived that a central government that could thwart the will of the individual states was the biggest threat to the freedom of its citizens. They were right.

Centralization of power always, always leads to corruption and a loss of personal liberty.

I couldn't agree more with all of that. I would add that our post-WWII imperialistic foreign policy has done a lot to strengthen the power of the central government. As I've said before, you can't have a strong international American presence without a strong central government at home to support it.

Also, I think conservatives should be as leery of big business as they are of big government. Big business is often the driving force behind centralization because it's more profitable and easier for them to comply with a single Federal law/standards than 50 different laws and standards from the states. So what may be good for business isn't necessarily good for the rights of the states or the individual.

[SicEmBaylor]

You can blame Lincoln. ;)

I never have beleieved the Founding Fathers(with the possible exception of Hamilton) intended the Federal government to dominate the individual states like it does now. In fact I think most of the FF beleived that a central government that could thwart the will of the individual states was the biggest threat to the freedom of its citizens. They were right.

Centralization of power always, always leads to corruption and a loss of personal liberty.

I couldn't agree more with all of that. I would add that our post-WWII imperialistic foreign policy has done a lot to strengthen the power of the central government. As I've said before, you can't have a strong international American presence without a strong central government at home to support it.

Also, I think conservatives should be as leery of big business as they are of big government. Big business is often the driving force behind centralization because it's more profitable and easier for them to comply with a single Federal law/standards than 50 different laws and standards from the states. So what may be good for business isn't necessarily good for the rights of the states or the individual.

[RedRum]

You can blame Lincoln. ;)

I never have beleieved the Founding Fathers(with the possible exception of Hamilton) intended the Federal government to dominate the individual states like it does now. In fact I think most of the FF beleived that a central government that could thwart the will of the individual states was the biggest threat to the freedom of its citizens. They were right.

Centralization of power always, always leads to corruption and a loss of personal liberty.

360,000+ dead men in blue uniforms may disagree with you.

[SicEmBaylor]

360,000+ dead men in blue uniforms may disagree with you.

260,000 brave patriots in gray would agree.

[Chuck Bao]

I couldn't agree more with all of that. I would add that our post-WWII imperialistic foreign policy has done a lot to strengthen the power of the central government. As I've said before, you can't have a strong international American presence without a strong central government at home to support it.

Also, I think conservatives should be as leery of big business as they are of big government. Big business is often the driving force behind centralization because it's more profitable and easier for them to comply with a single Federal law/standards than 50 different laws and standards from the states. So what may be good for business isn't necessarily good for the rights of the states or the individual.

I have never thought of it like that. I completely agree with both points.

Good post and spek.

[RedRum]

260,000 brave patriots in gray would agree.

This place is crazy

[LosAngelesSooner]

260,000 traitorous racist rebel scum in gray would agree.Fixed for accuracy.

[Half a Hundred]

Now, let's be accurate here - most of those soldiers weren't fighting for the right to keep and own slaves. They were fighting for the right of their social superiors to keep and own slaves, and not upset the social order. Which really makes it more pathetic, if you think about it - most Southern soldiers really didn't have a dog in the fight.

[King Barry's Back]

There are certainly some fascistic elements to our modern economy. However, people hear that word and think I'm comparing certain politicians to Nazis. Nothing could be further from the truth. The economic aspects of fascism are fairly benign. There's really nothing inherently evil about fascism. I don't agree with its tenants (I'm all about de-centralization), but fascism in and of itself isn't evil...it's just a set of social and economic policy ideas. What made Fascism evil are its leaders that used it to persecute.

Interesting summary, and largely correct, but by saying that fascism is not inherently evil, I think you've missed the point.

I've never really been able to describe "fascism," and reading some of the earlier posts summarizing scholars, sounds like many specialists can't either.

You are right that many fascistic policies are relatively mainstream economic or social policies. However, what makes those policy sets be called fascism?

Seems to me that fascism is a case of "I know it when I see it," and what you see when you see fascism is the inherent evil within it. In other words, a govt pursuing mainstream social and economic policies w/o evil, would never be described as fascistic.

Case in point -- I live in Germany. Today, I drive on many of the same highways that Hitler built in the 1930s. I sit in an office built by Hitler's Wermacht in about 1938.

Had Hitler built world-class and visionary highways because he wanted to abet the economic development of Germany, and had he built this military office building because he wanted to protect the national integrity of the German borders, no one would have called him a fascist.

But he built those highways because he wanted to use them to invade his neighbors. And he built this office building as part of a massive military build up to enable him to invade his neighbors. And he wanted to invade his neighbors because he thought it was the natural right of Germans to rule over other races.

It was his end state that earned him the title "fascist."

Likewise, Mussolini probably had a fine singing voice and served excellent food and wine at his state dinners (followed by primo coffee). However, he also believed that he had been appointed to rebuild the Roman Empire, and that Italians should rule a good part of Europe.

Notice that in those scenarios, killing off the Jews (the truly evil part) is almost a sidelight.

So, perhaps the best description of fascism is not that it is or is not evil, but that it is aggressive, and based on the presumed superiority of one group over others.

Perhaps it is fair to say that fascism is not inherently evil, but is inherently aggressive, and normally violent. Hence the more recent term "Islamofascism."

Regarding the right-left spectrum -- Fascists are not free market, and neither are communists. But, in terms of economic policy, the fascists are sometimes and incorrectly described as "right wing" because they seek to protect the wealthy, industrial interests that the communists (leftists) seek to overturn (and imprison, or worse).

So in purely political terms, calling fascism a right wing movement has some merit, but it has little to do with American- or British-style conservative politics. It has more to do with modern European right-wing politics, but that's totally another thread.

[King Barry's Back]

QUOTE FROM SIC 'EM --
On the left side of the anarchy spectrum, you have pure communism where there is no government and everyone works to support the collective community. On the right side, you have a situation where each individual works purely for themselves and is totally independent of any community or government. QUOTE FROM SIC 'EM

Well, I guess you could say that, as the communists liked to argue that their ultimate goal was "pure communism" where everyone would work to the benefit of everyone else -- but frankly, the key identifying characteristic in any communist gov't that ever existed was very strict control of the means of production by a dictatorial central govt. That characteristic is basically what makes them be communist.

And, even in a world proletariat -- how are you going to know that what you are doing is in the interest of society? I'm willing to bet it's when the state tells you what is in the interest of society, and if you disagree, you are still going to prison. Or worse, but again that's the well the opposite of anarchy in any sense.

And, secondarily, we all are free in a free market economy to work for the well being of others. In fact, many free market thinkers have argued that working for the biggest salary means you are benefiting society the most. But that's a dicey question and one I don't subscribe to, as it requires that markets price inputs perfectly, and clearly our markets do not. (Commonly, CEOs, CFOs and Boards largely exist to steal from stockholders, but again, another issue.)