Dystopian Darkness wrote:Who told you that?
Everyone who understands how fascist gov'ts differ from liberal democracies. This is Poli.Sci. 101 stuff.
In some ways a fascist State would be more effective at preventing corruption - Since corruption usually involves harm done to society and by consequence to the State, in a fascist government it would be easy to get rid of threats by simply executing or eliminating corrupt people instead of waiting for a long impossible to fulfil prosecution & trial with lots of appeals where the corrupt side has the best lawyers
And what happens in a fascist society when the gov't is the corrupt side?
explain better. You are starting on the premise that modern constitutions are correct and well written
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... d_balancesTo prevent one branch from becoming supreme, protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances", the origin of which, like separation of powers itself, is specifically credited to Montesquieu. Checks and balances allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the United States Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the federal courts. Both bipartite and tripartite governmental systems apply the principles of the separation of powers to allow for the branches represented by the separate powers to hold each other reciprocally responsible to the assertion of powers as apportioned by law.
It would be more correct to say that I am starting on the premise that modern constitutions are correct and well written enough that we can have a functional and free society, and I also accept that there will be changes in the future so there must be a system to allow for such changes.
It's the other way around. In liberal-capitalist democracies greed is what matters - Politics isn't an ideological job anymore, it's about gaining votes even if that means changing your ideological position to gather support. I don't see the greed part and how it would work according to your beliefs because, to some extent, a Fascist state is socialistic and would prevent what we modernly call the corporate dictatorship and wealth privilege by constructing a more meritocratic society and enjoying everyone's potential to contribute to the State's well being and sustainability
You are making the assumption that fascism actually behaves exactly like the theory says it should, and not how human nature actually suggests it would unfold.
People will not always act in the collective good. In fact, most people won't if they can get away with it. Fascism seems to depend on everyone wanting to always act in the collective good. This is where it fails.
----------------
Cromwell wrote:Now hold on just a second, there. That's a little bit of an oversimplification. The Grand Council of Fascism in Italy did, quite notably, serve as a check on Mussolini's power.
There were also fascists, Otto Strasser being the prime example, who were intensely critical of the Führerprinzip.
You could make the argument that liberal democracies have greater checks and balances but not that fascism is totally lacking any system of checks and balances.
Yes, it is a simplification. You are completely correct when you say that liberal democracies have more checks and balances. It is more correct to say that than to imply that one system always has a perfect system of checks and balances while the other does not, as my simplification suggests.