Gonzo

[gonzojournals]

yep thats always worked the thousands of times its been tried in the past.

How many thousands of times has it been tried? What about the violence that has been caused by democratic countries? Just look at Latin America, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the English Civil War, Africa, etc.

Democracy is just as likely to end in violence and human rights violations as any other government--- just because it worked in the US and, after hundreds of years, in Europe you think that it is some sort of flawless, ideal system. It is just as open to abuse, but you have a bias for it.

 

[Timshel]

The restraint of government was achieved through suffrage, and that is plain to see.

No, it was achieved by the constitutional framework limiting government powers and checks and balances to divide power within the government.

However, my vision assumes that there is a government so strong that your liberties are protected because the government doesn't feel threatened by you.

Yes I understand your nonsense. You think the government will never take my liberties away because it will be strong enough to take my liberties away anytime it likes.

Freedom of speech? No problem, the government isn't threatened by you.
Freedom of assembly? Same deal.

Gay marriage? Fine with them.

Legalisation of pot? Yup.

Etc. etc.

Until my speech or assembly reaches the level that it does threaten them and they squash me. Pot and gay marriage, if they think it does not hurt their appropiation of wealth for the glory of the nation.

No one is going to take anyone's property for the glory of the nation. Just offer incentives for the proper use of that property (tax cuts and the like).
Besides, I am a supporter of National Collaborativism, not pure Fascism. Hence Mussolini with the drawn-on smiley face.

So, what you are saying is, they are going to tax (take property) and give it out to people they believe are using their property "properly?" In other words, they are going to take my property for the glory of the nation.

Who exactly will make these decisions?

 

[gonzojournals]

No, it was achieved by the constitutional framework limiting government powers and checks and balances to divide power within the government.

And where did the idea for those government checks come from? Couldn't be the slow process of English suffrage, could it? Liberty didn't expand in America as new groups were granted suffrage, did it? Oh wait.

Yes I understand your nonsense. You think the government will never take my liberties away because it will be strong enough to take my liberties away anytime it likes.

Who said they can? Do you think there will be no Constitution?

Until my speech or assembly reaches the level that it does threaten them and they squash me.

Bill of Rights, anyone?

Pot and gay marriage, if they think it does not hurt their appropiation of wealth for the glory of the nation.

I think you really focus on the "glory of the nation" too much. It isn't "glory of the nation" so much as "survival of the State"..and without a State, you wouldn't be able to get online and spout off against the State.

So, what you are saying is, they are going to tax (take property) and give it out to people they believe are using their property "properly?" In other words, they are going to take my property for the glory of the nation.

No, they are going to tax you (take monetary wealth) regardless of what you do with your property (and by that I refer more to business owners than homeowners)...guess what, R, the US taxes you, too. However, tax incentives could be offered to industries of national interest as an alternative to seizing control of industry like some sort of Marxist.

Who exactly will make these decisions?

I think that a Triumvirate-led government hasn't been tried in a long time, and that the Party could act both as a legislature and as a voting body for selecting the three Triumvirs. Insofar as voting is concerned, anyone could join the Party-- that means that even the right to vote would still be present, but would only be used by people who actually cared enough to vote.

 

[Timshel]

And where did the idea for those government checks come from? Couldn't be the slow process of English suffrage, could it? Liberty didn't expand in America as new groups were granted suffrage, did it? Oh wait.

As I stated, democracy brought liberty to all.

Who said they can? Do you think there will be no Constitution?

Bill of Rights, anyone?

And who will enforce that?

Constitutions are completely useless in collectivist societies, much less ones that view the survival of the state as the ultimate political goal. They have only been somewhat effective in individualist societies with weak federal governments.

I think you really focus on the "glory of the nation" too much. It isn't "glory of the nation" so much as "survival of the State"..and without a State, you wouldn't be able to get online and spout off against the State.

BS!

No, they are going to tax you (take monetary wealth) regardless of what you do with your property (and by that I refer more to business owners than homeowners)...guess what, R, the US taxes you, too. However, tax incentives could be offered to industries of national interest as an alternative to seizing control of industry like some sort of Marxist.

Unless the incentives don't work.

And you evade the point. Your state's survival is dependent upon infringing on individual rights. Whether the US does that or not now is not relevant. Further, you envision a bigger more powerful state than the US currently has.

I think that a Triumvirate-led government hasn't been tried in a long time, and that the Party could act both as a legislature and as a voting body for selecting the three Triumvirs. Insofar as voting is concerned, anyone could join the Party-- that means that even the right to vote would still be present, but would only be used by people who actually cared enough to vote.

WTF? Who votes now except those who want to?

Nevermind, dude I am tired of hearing your delusional spin to defend a "fascism" you make up as you go.

 

[gonzojournals]

I don't make it up as I go, you just have no understanding of Fascism. You aren't viewing it from an objective point of view, you are viewing it from some Ron Paul "any government that doesn't let me smoke pot and speed down a Robocop interstate in an anarcho-capitalist world is socialism" stance.

We are both done with this debate-- you because you have no idea what you are talking about, and me because you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Timshel]

No, I am viewing it as it is. Fascism denies individual liberty and promotes the collectivist state/nation/race as THE only political goal. You are making shit up as you go to try pretty up and disguise your despicable views.

 

[gonzojournals]

No, I am viewing it as it is. Fascism denies individual liberty and promotes the collectivist state/nation/race as THE only political goal. You are making shit up as you go to try pretty up and disguise your despicable views.

I'm not making up shit, but I am try to disguise my views, obviously. Fascism has no chance in America without a makeover.

Fascism does not deny individual liberty-- just individualism. I think it would be good for Society to be more united, and if the State can achieve that, then so be it.

 

[Timshel]

Fascism does not deny individual liberty-- just individualism. I think it would be good for Society to be more united, and if the State can achieve that, then so be it.

LOL.