[Pants-of-dog]

Well, some people may reasonably expect to play some leadership role in a new authoritarian state, many as part of a new bureaucracy.
But basically it is not self interest but concern with a greater Whole--the nation or planet--that motivates some people to support an authoritarian system. And I reiterate that stronger government, able to handle problems democracy can't, is ultimately in everyone's best interest

Yes, I assume that most self styled fascists imagine themselves as part of the oppressive elite, despite any lack of success in their real lives.

And this whole idea that fascism is going to solve all the problems is a fantasy that is only possible for those who have never lived in a right wing authoritarian state. If they had lived in such a state, they would compare the reality of such a state with modern democracies, instead of comparing the omnibenevolent theoretical state of fascism with the reality of democracy. Those who have lived in such a state know quite well that fascism actually does not operate in everyone's best interest, but only in the interests of the ruling classes.

[blackjack21]

You also said that "killing homosexuals is a necessary evil", so clearly you have undecided opinions depending on how much you can get away with them, but we digress again.

I said I accept it as a necessary evil. I didn't say that's what I would do if I were the head of the fascist state.

Even if we accept your recent proposals, you still have to explain why is a fascist regime required to achieve that as opposed to a liberal regime?

The liberal regime is broken in many ways. We have a Supreme Court that acts as an avant garde for the left and a legislature that refuses to check that power. Until judges get impeached as a regular part of the political process, we will continue to see law erode.

Yeah you said that Hitler would see himself in you.

I clearly quoted Hitler with respect to arguing with people and noted that I think he'd see that when arguing with people like you, I am going through a very similar process to what he articulated in Mein Kampf. Your inclination to generalize and twist everything is just some sort of mental distortion you find humourous for some reason.

Earlier you said that Austria is a cassus belli because of Versailles, so you actually agree with me that it wasn't.

Legally, it was an act of war. There is little disputing that fact, but neither France nor the UK were prepared for war. History is very clear on that, with "peace in our time" being Neville Chamberlain's nadir.

I did not twist anything, that is what you said and I have quoted you saying it already, you also tried to link communism and the NYC gender-pronoun law:

Identity politics has its roots in Marxism.

Now having realised that your excuses are too weak to be considered valid, you are trying to deny you ever made those arguments in the first place.

I have never denied making these arguments. Considered valid? You seem to think that someone has to justify to all people a case for fascism while ignoring the fact that a primary purpose for fascism is to NOT justify the form of government to everyone concerned. Exactly what part of structure of fascism did you miss? Did you see anywhere where Hitler was trying to justify fascism to Jews for example? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with my point that no rational individual would support fascism out of self-interest.

Weimar Germany was in a state of hyperinflationary depression. Anyone desiring a stable store of wealth would find it in their self interest to support a government with stable money. One of the lasting legacies of Nazi Germany is that the Bundesbank is a perpetual inflation hawk. The Nazis brought unemployment from 5.2M in 1932 down to 1.7M in 1935. Undoubtedly, those who found jobs and a paycheck with money that could be saved saw the Nazis as in their rational self interest.

@quetzalcoatl: The reich failed basically because it was just too small to be a great hegemon.

Well, it didn't have access to global markets the way the French, British and Russian (Soviet) empires did. Even today, Germany is a huge net exporter.

[starman2003]

Yes, I assume that most self styled fascists imagine themselves as part of the oppressive elite, despite any lack of success in their real lives.

Look at the "successful" people who've run present society, like Shrub jr. Back in 2002-3 I argued strongly against the looming invasion of Iraq. But I had no power, and nor did certain academics who also opposed it. Had society been meritocratic instead of democratic, the whole mess could've been avoided. Same for a host of other problems, like deficits and environmental degradation. It's not surprising that a society which insists on marginalizing some of its brightest people is itself an awful failure.

And this whole idea that fascism is going to solve all the problems is a fantasy that is only possible for those who have never lived in a right wing authoritarian state. If they had lived in such a state, they would compare the reality of such a state with modern democracies,

Shirer noted that Germans could travel abroad and weren't concerned that they'd be infected with anti-nazism if they visited democratic countries.

instead of comparing the omnibenevolent theoretical state of fascism with the reality of democracy. Those who have lived in such a state know quite well that fascism actually does not operate in everyone's best interest, but only in the interests of the ruling classes.

Blackjack21 addressed this pretty well. Even past fascism meant a solution to unemployment, for example. Even the lower, working classes supported the regime.

[Pants-of-dog]

Look at the "successful" people who've run present society, like Shrub jr. Back in 2002-3 I argued strongly against the looming invasion of Iraq. But I had no power, and nor did certain academics who also opposed it. Had society been meritocratic instead of democratic, the whole mess could've been avoided. Same for a host of other problems, like deficits and environmental degradation. It's not surprising that a society which insists on marginalizing some of its brightest people is itself an awful failure.

This has nothing to do with what I said about self styled fascists.

Shirer noted that Germans could travel abroad and weren't concerned that they'd be infected with anti-nazism if they visited democratic countries.

This has noting to do with people in our modern era.

Blackjack21 addressed this pretty well. Even past fascism meant a solution to unemployment, for example. Even the lower, working classes supported the regime.

Again, you are comparing an ideal to our reality. Those who have lived the reality of right wing authoritarian states know it is not as you describe.

[starman2003]

This has nothing to do with what I said about self styled fascists.

It is precisely because present government is so awful that some want a much different alternative.

Again, you are comparing an ideal to our reality.

The ideal, or need for authoritarianism, was never clearer than in today's world.

Those who have lived the reality of right wing authoritarian states know it is not as you describe.

Anyone can see what it was like by reading the ample historical accounts.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is precisely because present government is so awful that some want a much different alternative.

Present government is so awful that some people want to be oppressed?

The ideal, or need for authoritarianism, was never clearer than in today's world.

This also does not address my point. You seem to have a habit of ignoring my point and responding with whatever slogan you feel like writing.

Anyone can see what it was like by reading the ample historical accounts.

Do historical accounts explain how fascist government agents arbitrarily imprison others for personal gain?

[starman2003]

Present government is so awful that some people want to be oppressed?

You ignore my posts--not present government per se but the problems it can't solve, which may threaten our existence.

Do historical accounts explain how fascist government agents arbitrarily imprison others for personal gain?

Not necessarily personal gain but the consolidation of power vitally needed to be effective.

[blackjack21]

Again, you are comparing an ideal to our reality. Those who have lived the reality of right wing authoritarian states know it is not as you describe.

Yes, but you are talking about South American states, not European ones. The big problem with South American autocracy in my view is that it historically killed off capital investment. Kleptocracies don't do well economically.

Again, you are comparing an ideal to our reality. Those who have lived the reality of right wing authoritarian states know it is not as you describe.

Some consider a PC state as oppression.

Do historical accounts explain how fascist government agents arbitrarily imprison others for personal gain?

Are we speaking of fascism or totalitarianism? The Nazis would have the state confiscate property from declared enemies. However, it a Nazi officer tried to pocket the gains personally, he could be executed for it. What frightens people about the Nazis is that they were efficient. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need to stir up fear about them 70+ years later.

[Pants-of-dog]

You ignore my posts--not present government per se but the problems it can't solve, which may threaten our existence.

I pointed out these predictions were so vague as to be useless. What more do you want me to say?

Not necessarily personal gain but the consolidation of power vitally needed to be effective.

So the historical accounts ignore the personal gain. Too bad. If they did not, maybe self styled fascists would be more realistic.

[starman2003]

I pointed out these predictions were so vague as to be useless.

No informed, reasonable person can deny democracy has failed to solve a number of serious problems, such as deficits and environmental degradation. Or that such problems could ultimately become unbearable, compelling a switch to more effective government. It's not like democracy has never been replaced in a crisis before...

So the historical accounts ignore the personal gain. Too bad. If they did not, maybe self styled fascists would be more realistic.

Historical accounts, in our society, emphasize personal gains and omit the necessity, from the point of view of the State or nation, of consolidating power. Had Stalin not eliminated all rivals, the USSR might've been rent by internal conflict, playing right into the hands of nazi invaders bent on destroying them all.

[Pants-of-dog]

No informed, reasonable person can deny democracy has failed to solve a number of serious problems, such as deficits and environmental degradation. Or that such problems could ultimately become unbearable, compelling a switch to more effective government. It's not like democracy has never been replaced in a crisis before...

Repeating your vague predictions is just repeating your vague predictions.

Historical accounts, in our society, emphasize personal gains and omit the necessity, from the point of view of the State or nation, of consolidating power. Had Stalin not eliminated all rivals, the USSR might've been rent by internal conflict, playing right into the hands of nazi invaders bent on destroying them all.

This has nothing to do with my point. You seem to have a habit of ignoring my point and responding with whatever slogan you feel like writing.

My point, that you have ignored over and over again, is that people who have lived in these states hate them because of the arbitrary nature of punishment, and how it is used to advance the private agenda of the people in power instead of advancing the state as a whole.

[starman2003]

Repeating your vague predictions is just repeating your vague predictions.

I could go into much greater detail, but just wanted to make the point that the present system is not working hence vulnerable.

My point, that you have ignored over and over again,

I have not ignored that point. I just disagree strongly.

is that people who have lived in these states hate them because of the arbitrary nature of punishment, and how it is used to advance the private agenda of the people in power instead of advancing the state as a whole.

If everybody who lived in those states hated them, they wouldn't have arisen in the first place. Of course some people hate them; all governments have detractors or opponents. The whole raison d'etre of a modern authoritarian (i.e. statist) system is to advance the state as a whole! It is our present system that hobbles the state by emphasizing the individual. As I tried to show, increasing the power of the elite can be vital for the state as a whole.

[Pants-of-dog]

I could go into much greater detail, but just wanted to make the point that the present system is not working hence vulnerable.

Considering how often you have eschewed the opportunity to be more detailed, your claim is doubtful.

I have not ignored that point. I just disagree strongly.

Not really. You have yet to address it.

If everybody who lived in those states hated them, they wouldn't have arisen in the first place. Of course some people hate them; all governments have detractors or opponents. The whole raison d'etre of a modern authoritarian (i.e. statist) system is to advance the state as a whole! It is our present system that hobbles the state by emphasizing the individual. As I tried to show, increasing the power of the elite can be vital for the state as a whole.

You have not read much on right wing authoritarianism if you think they all arose from popular grassroots movements. Many, perhaps most, were imposed at gunpoint.

And the point you have ignored yet again (despite disagreeing strongly!) is that the government agents of these states often use the lack of accountability to pursue personal agendas and force people to do awful things for them.

[starman2003]

Considering how often you have eschewed the opportunity to be more detailed, your claim is doubtful.

You don't think I've given a lot of thought as to how democracy could fall? Some of the P&D posters c 2004 could verify that.

You have not read much on right wing authoritarianism if you think they all arose from popular grassroots movements.

Did I say they all did?

Many, perhaps most, were imposed at gunpoint.

Some of the most important ones, such as the Italian fascist and nazi regimes, and various communist ones, enjoyed very substantial and enthusiastic popular support.

the government agents of these states often use the lack of accountability to pursue personal agendas and force people to do awful things for them.

No government is perfect. "Accountability" doesn't preclude abuse and corruption in our society. If you have enough money, like OJ, you can literally get away with murder. Authoritarianism can be a very effective force for justice, as it can smash criminal gangs with relative ease. Mussolini made short work of the mafia which has endlessly thrived here...
The bottom line is that authoritarianism i.e. stronger government, has much greater potential than democracy; it can do a lot democracy can't. Despite the risk of abuse, if or when future crises reach critical mass, authoritarianism simply must arise. This has happened plenty of times in the past and it's reasonable to assume it'll happen in the future.

[StormOfSeptember]

To answer the original post, yes I would live in a fascist state. Why wouldn't I? I dislike the notion of personal freedom, because frankly I think it's why society (speaking from the USA here) is falling apart so badly. I believe in this radical concept of enforcing federal laws because they are there for a reason. Nobody is an exception to those rules. It seems these days there's always a certain group(s) of people that can get away with murder and not be held accountable for their actions.

I would rather live in a society with a strong authoritarian government where people are behaving themselves than a "free" society where myself and many other people simply do not feel safe.

This is the tip of the iceberg, but I'll leave this here for now.

[Political Interest]

It depends on what is meant by a fascist state. If it is a benevolent dictatorship where dissidents are just given a slap on the wrist and maybe a stern talking to and where ethnic minorities are considered a part of the national community, I might find it tolerable. If it is a place where everyone lives in pure terror and where dissidents are taken to basements and shot and where ethnic minorities are put in concentration camps, I have no interest in living in such a country.

In the first scenario it might not be that bad. There would be good law and order. There would also be nothing inherently immoral about supporting such a system because no one would really be oppressed under it. If there are good people at the top who actually care about their citizens it could be a relatively stable society. And if they are the sorts of fascists who have an ambilavent stance on race it would be a country without the state sanctioned racism that ruined actual fascist states. What I am imagining is a fascist state without any type of racism and which would have a Brezhnev era type of attitude to dissidents, that is to say, no mass terror and not killing people for actually being a dissident. North Korea would be the exact opposite of what I imagine.

In the second scenario it would be an awful place to live. Unfortunately all the real fascist states were more like this.

What it ultimately comes down to is how the government behaves towards its own citizens and what it does abroad. If it doesn't kill or hurt anyone domestically or internationally, I will support it, regardless of whether it is democratic or not.

[noemon]

In the first scenario it might not be that bad. There would be good law and order.

That is precisely the issue because once you cross the threshold of being up to the judge to decide on whether dissenters need just a slap or torture or death and not up the system itself by securing freedom of speech, it becomes irrelevant on whether you ever become subjected to such treatment because you have essentially legitimised it both for yourself and others, depending on the whims & personalities of those making the calls.

[Political Interest]

That is precisely the issue because once you cross the threshold of being up to the judge to decide on whether dissenters need just a slap or torture or death and not up the system itself by securing freedom of speech, it becomes irrelevant on whether you ever become subjected to such treatment because you have essentially legitimised it both for yourself and others, depending on the whims & personalities of those making the calls.

Yes and this would be my biggest concern, Noemon.

However I was reading about dissidents in the late Brezhnev period of the USSR and I saw that if they were meeting in an underground study session and the police got tipped off, it would not necessarily result in being taken to a basement and shot. Some might just get expelled from university, lose their jobs or get some time in prison. Of course it was not a joke and very serious. It was still very dangerous to be a dissident, but you could be one and not necessarily fear for your life.

But remember this, even in democracies, there is still torture and extra-judicial execution.

[noemon]

Not for disagreeing with the government but for conducting violent subversive operations. In Democracies freedom of speech enables you to form groups that directly challenge governmental authority. And that is the essentially substantial difference.

[Pants-of-dog]

You don't think I've given a lot of thought as to how democracy could fall? Some of the P&D posters c 2004 could verify that.

Did I say they all did?

Some of the most important ones, such as the Italian fascist and nazi regimes, and various communist ones, enjoyed very substantial and enthusiastic popular support.

No government is perfect. "Accountability" doesn't preclude abuse and corruption in our society. If you have enough money, like OJ, you can literally get away with murder. Authoritarianism can be a very effective force for justice, as it can smash criminal gangs with relative ease. Mussolini made short work of the mafia which has endlessly thrived here...
The bottom line is that authoritarianism i.e. stronger government, has much greater potential than democracy; it can do a lot democracy can't. Despite the risk of abuse, if or when future crises reach critical mass, authoritarianism simply must arise. This has happened plenty of times in the past and it's reasonable to assume it'll happen in the future.

Your faith is your own.

It does not, however, answer my question.

---------------

To answer the original post, yes I would live in a fascist state. Why wouldn't I? I dislike the notion of personal freedom, because frankly I think it's why society (speaking from the USA here) is falling apart so badly. I believe in this radical concept of enforcing federal laws because they are there for a reason. Nobody is an exception to those rules. It seems these days there's always a certain group(s) of people that can get away with murder and not be held accountable for their actions.

I would rather live in a society with a strong authoritarian government where people are behaving themselves than a "free" society where myself and many other people simply do not feel safe.

This is the tip of the iceberg, but I'll leave this here for now.

This seems more like an answer as to why you want others to be restricted by a fascist state.

Why do you not like personal freedoms?