Would you ever vote for a fascist?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

98.47% of American voters were willing to do so in 2008.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     I'd consider it if it were something like random fascist vs. Cthulu. Otherwise, no.

Fascism =Extreme Right
Communism = EXTREME Left.

According to the lamestream thinkers, yes. I highly doubt Hitler or Mussolini would agree with someone like Ron Paul.

     Monarchism is also extreme right, but I doubt monarchists & fascists would be fans of each other.

The left-right spectrum is meaningless. It needs to be allowed to die a natural death already.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     I'd consider it if it were something like random fascist vs. Cthulu. Otherwise, no.

Fascism =Extreme Right
Communism = EXTREME Left.

According to the lamestream thinkers, yes. I highly doubt Hitler or Mussolini would agree with someone like Ron Paul.

     Monarchism is also extreme right, but I doubt monarchists & fascists would be fans of each other.

Monarchism strikes to me as an early form of socialism. Especially the feudal society.

Um, what?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Depends on the definition of fascist. I could potentially support someone like Michael Walton from dantheroman's timeline, depending on the circumstances. A more moderate communitarian or even a small-n/s "national socialist" could be amenable to my views, but an out-and-out totalitarian and/or racist would certainly not get my vote in all but the most extreme of scenarios.

So for this question, that would probably be a 'no'.

What was this Michael Walton character like? (I'm not familiar with dantheroman's timeline.)

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Depends on the definition of fascist. I could potentially support someone like Michael Walton from dantheroman's timeline, depending on the circumstances. A more moderate communitarian or even a small-n/s "national socialist" could be amenable to my views, but an out-and-out totalitarian and/or racist would certainly not get my vote in all but the most extreme of scenarios.

So for this question, that would probably be a 'no'.

What was this Michael Walton character like? (I'm not familiar with dantheroman's timeline.)

You should see it for yourself, it's quite the read.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=100688.0

Hmm, quite interesting. I skimmed through it, but I'll have to read it more thoroughly in time.

What in particular attracts you to someone like that, realisticidealist?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It is important to remember the context of the story, but I think what draws me in is the idea of someone who is devastatingly effective, seeks massive institutional change, and who makes the radical moves that I sometimes think are necessary. It is such a very rare combination, especially now when I see the actual Democratic Party as hopelessly compromised on economics, as a weak-willed shell without principles. Walton's methods are certainly very unfortunate, as are some of his social views, but I guess I believe that desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.

But isn't that a rather dangerous sentiment to hold?

Surely someone in 1930s Germany might have used the same terms bolded here to describe their support for Hitler. I know you would never endorse someone like him, but therein lies another problem with authoritarianism. People of all ideologies may clamor for a strongman to take over the government, but once he does, only one ideology will prevail while the rest will be completely shut out. That's a fundamental difference with a free system that allows input from everyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't there things of greater value than security? Would you want to live as a slave as long as your master provided you with food and protection as his property?

And what happens when the state becomes the enemy? Who will protect you then?

I think the people themselves can protect each other and keep society together far better than the guns of the state.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas makes a good point there, actually.

I would never trust the state so much that I would be willing to sacrifice parts of the democratic process in order to gain security.

The danger is simply too large that the supposedly "strong" government we vote in will never leave again.

Whoa, Franzl admitting I made a 'good point'? Color me shocked.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure we all might be tempted if we ever find ourselves in a situation with no food to eat and relentless violence all around us. But it's that desperation that a demagogue who may not truly have the best of intentions preys on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I suppose I agree with you then. The only problem is it's quite difficult to rise up against a well-entrenched authoritarian state that's gone sour.

Of course, in my view, the long-term goal of every society should be the elimination of the need for the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Admittedly I've only read the parts of that TL where Walton's name popped up, so I will take your word. I definitely will try to read the whole thing through so we can have this discussion some time though.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

I don't know, honestly. It's a really murky area, and not one I am particularly knowledgeable about. Is nationalization socialism, communism, fascism, or something else? My only real point with saying that was that Walton's actions were beyond what the typical liberal would normally seek.

Hmm, I suppose that would depend on what you specifically mean by 'nationalization'.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Yes, there is an inherent danger. I won't support someone simply because the want to and can bring change. It depends on what they want to implement. Michael Walton's economic policies are liberal, perhaps socialistic even, but in the situation presented, they are a refreshing change from the Republican hands-off approach and the Democratic let's-do-a-little-bit-but-only-enough-so-that-it-doesn't-really-do-anything approach. As a economically liberal person, this idea intrigues me in sort of a through-the-looking-glass kind of way.

Socialistic? So would you admit that there is less variance between socialism and fascism than is often admitted?

I don't know, honestly. It's a really murky area, and not one I am particularly knowledgeable about. Is nationalization socialism, communism, fascism, or something else? My only real point with saying that was that Walton's actions were beyond what the typical liberal would normally seek.

Hmm, I suppose that would depend on what you specifically mean by 'nationalization'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A state monopoly on an industry is not necessarily a feature of any sort of radical modern ideology. Rather it can be found in the mercantilism of Western Europe going back centuries prior to the rise of liberalism.


Now I of course must respectfully disagree with you on the notion that government bureaucrats could effectively run industries. May I ask why you see that as the best course of action?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I don't think effectively running the industry is the point, but rather that the profits of an American-held resource should primarily benefit Americans. It's a nationalist sentiment, I know, but in a depression, you have to first and foremost look after your own needs, and in a time when gas prices are approaching $15 a gallon, it would be awfully appealing.

But if the company is not run effectively, it will start to run losses, and then taxpayer money will have to be used to keep it operational. Then you have the people paying twice to get that nationalized oil.

There is a difference between running something less than perfectly and running it into the ground. I suppose I have faith in the government to not be that bad. I'm sure that is something that we'll have to disagree on.

Perhaps, but do consider the fact that our nationalized railroad Amtrak has never recorded a profit in it's 39 years of existence, instead being dependent entirely on taxpayer subsidies.


I think the people who work in the industry would be it's best owners and managers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but that's far easier said than done.

Also remember there may be unintended consequences to any policy. The costs of alternative energy sources available now are so prohibitive compared to the cost of oil that to force their use could dramatically raise the cost of living and impoverish millions. Think of how many different facets of American life are currently dependent on the availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels.
[/quote]

Today, it’s true, but massive investment and subsidization in this would dramatically help. Also this is taking place in the future. Regardless, the premise of this is that fossil fuels are now extremely expensive and therefore there is very little incentive to continue the current course. I think that these considerations make the outlook a lot more upbeat than you present.[/quote]

Well I guess if you have the sort of perfect storm of circumstances you've been talking about, it wouldn't be that far out of the question. But that's a pretty big if.