Don't you think a political system that doesn't bar people from holding office who hold fascist beliefs will become fascist faster?
The dictionaries (plural) have many definitions, the first in that link being basically a bunch of different and logically separable things lumped together.
Isn't it better to sacrifice some democracy to gain better protection against genocide and loss of liberty? Because I think life and liberty are definitely more important than democracy.
For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as “corporations” in modern American vernacular and legal parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. Corporatism is not government corruption in politics or the use of bribery by corporate interest groups. The terms ‘corporatocracy’ and ‘corporatism’ are often confused due to their name and the use of corporations as organs of the state.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Being able to choose a leader to force their (and by proxy, your) views on people is power, not liberty. Liberty is control over your own life, not the lives of others.
#1 should almost always be allowed for the sake of liberty (except possibly when it comes to genocide; but that's an aside). And regardless, #2 I think is acceptable to regulate because it's about the internals of the government.
If I or someone else try to execute my view that you should die by attacking you, I think you are justified in self-defense, don’t you?
I don’t think that contradicts the general principle of liberty.
Likewise if a political movement decides that your kind should die or otherwise be oppressed.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism
fas·cism (făsh′ĭz′əm) n. 1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
(Emphasis mine)
I still don’t think having a perfect democracy is worth allowing that to happen.
To be clear, I’m not in favour of suppressing fascist beliefs. Just not allowing them to have power.
>Fascism has two components to be fascism.. 1) it must be autocratic, as meaning there is an absolute authority that cant be challenged (this may be a dictator but may take other forms)
>...
>If you enact a system of government where there there is no democratic process allowed to choose what is or is not fascist, and express that through vote, then it is autocratic in nature as it is an absolutely authority not expressed through vote
Huh?
How is a feature of a political system that doesn't allow certain political parties to have power an "absolute authority"? What do you mean by that? When I think of an "autocracy" or an "absolute authority that can't be challenged", I think of a dictatorship or other form of strong government. "Can't be challenged" to me also implies some kind of suppression of speech challenging it, which I am not implying at all.
I think that's a good idea. Let's do that.
I mean, we certainly can't agree on a definition in this thread, nor (I've noticed) anywhere.
The point I was making to @freemo was that if a candidate or party want to do sufficiently bad things (such as killing people, or preventing people from having opinions, among other things) I don’t think they should be allowed to have that power, regardless of how many other people want them to have that power, because that would be the majority oppressing and/or killing (albeit indirectly) the minority.
However, they are still allowed to hold those opinions, I just don’t think they should be trusted with power.
I don’t really care what you call it.
I wish my school had taught civics now.