[B0ycey]

Case closed. There is no freedom!

I give you credit, at least you are true to your belief system and did not BS.

Any law is a restriction of freedom. What about the guys who want to mass murder, are we restricting their freedom?

If socialism is elected on a mandate, then that mandate is about as free as any other mandate. Besides, does capitalism come without restrictions?

[Pants-of-dog]

His identity politics is not, for starters.

Compared to Trump or actual progressive policies , his identity politics is centrist.

Neither is his advocacy for wealth taxation and plenty of other populist policies.

Prove it.

But if we are talking economics, Trump’s economic models are much closer to traditional fascism than Sanders are to socialism. Actual socialists would not bother with a wealth tax.

Also, plenty of developed countries use health insurance (Bismarck) models and are not into national public healthcare (Beveridge) models.

Okay, So Sanders is proposing a model that is used by many developed countries, so much so that it has a name because it so conventional.

No, they were not. What are you talking about?

Considering that almost all Republicans and most conservatives supported him despite this, their actions clearly show that his supporters thought these were unimportant enough to ignore.

And the left is conditioned to immediately think "rightist!" when state oppression is discussed. It's a common political talking point.

Sure, but again, this is a whataboutism. The topic is fascism in the USA. The way conservatives in this thread have taken this thread off topic to (once again) discuss their unfounded fear of socialist authoritarians taking over the USA is evidence to support my point.

[wat0n]

Compared to Trump or actual progressive policies , his identity politics is centrist.

His are centrist compared to yours, for sure.

Prove it.

But if we are talking economics, Trump’s economic models are much closer to traditional fascism than Sanders are to socialism. Actual socialists would not bother with a wealth tax.

There aren't many developed countries with wealth taxes at all, and their use is generally advocated by leftist parties.

I agree socialists would not bother with a wealth tax, at least not in the way it's being discussed now. State ownership of the means of production is close to a 100% wealth tax for a single time, after all.

Okay, So Sanders is proposing a model that is used by many developed countries, so much so that it has a name because it so conventional.

Indeed, and in those countries those were implemented by left-wing governments for the most part. In those countries, they also won this one because the right did not move to abolish those Beveridge systems.

Considering that almost all Republicans and most conservatives supported him despite this, their actions clearly show that his supporters thought these were unimportant enough to ignore.

But not for everyone else.

Sure, but again, this is a whataboutism. The topic is fascism in the USA. The way conservatives in this thread have taken this thread off topic to (once again) discuss their unfounded fear of socialist authoritarians taking over the USA is evidence to support my point.

Well, you are accusing them of using a common form of political speech, don't you think?

[Julian658]

Any law is a restriction of freedom. What about the guys who want to mass murder, are we restricting their freedom?

As analogy the above is a very bad one. Let me help you make your point. You could have said that if I do not pay taxes I could end up in prison even though I live in a freedom loving nation. There that is a much better way to make your point.

Now to the answer: Any society that aspires to have success has a set of rules that most citizens think it is a good idea to follow. Most of the time society needs order (police), security (an army), upkeep of pubic places/ roads, firemen, help the poor, and even health care. So it makes sense for citizens to pool resources in the form of taxes to pay for these services.

However, if I am JK Rowling an I write Harry Potter books I should have the right to get the books publish and make a lot of money. If I cannot do that then there is a tyranny in place. In the same manner if I am Steve Jobs I should have the right to go into my garage and invent a new computer that will help most of humanity.

You are a massive set of contradictions! You were praising China because they found a way to do better. Yes, they do better because of capitalism. Chinese people may not be able to own land, but they have the right to own many other things and they can lease the land.
There are 4.4 millionaires in China.

If socialism is elected on a mandate, then that mandate is about as free as any other mandate. Besides, does capitalism come without restrictions?

When America was founded they had people like you in mind. They knew about the concept of rule by mob majority which is a democracy. What if the majority says left handed people are not allowed? Does that become the law of the land? Your argument has serious problems Boyce. Do you know why the founders made America a Republic. At the end of the day our rights are protected by the constitution and not by the majority mob mindset that you propose.

OK, Boyce
Carry on!
Back to the drawing board.

[B0ycey]

OK, Boyce
Carry on!
Back to the drawing board.

No need. Your reply wasn't very satisfying. Especially as you ignored what I wrote and changed my argument which is called "moving the goalposts" and poor form in debating as you are putting your words in my mouth!

Lets try again. In a society we abide by the social contract. The whole concept of wealth, money, private property, possessions etc exist due to the social contract. It is a human construct that doesn't exist outside our imagination. If Socialism, and that is to say pure Socialism, you know not Social Democracy which I advocate, was elected on a mandate, the social contract changes. You can say what about my freedom, OH BUT NOT THAT FREEDOM! As much as you like. You outlaw murder, you are restricting someone freedom to kill, it really is that simple and this is no different than that. The law is a restriction of freedom. And in Socialism you would have changed private property ideals which is another restriction too. Nonetheless it doesn't stop Musk from inventing. And in Socialism, there is nothing stopping people from earning different wages anyway. But he won't own his factories. I suspect he will have to lease them out and pay a premium on his profits, very much like how China operates today.

OK julie
Carry on!
Back to the drawing board.

[Julian658]

No need. Your reply wasn't very satisfying. Especially as you ignored what I wrote and changed my argument which is called "moving the goalposts" and poor form in debating as you are putting your words in my mouth!

Lets try again. In a society we abide by the social contract. The whole concept of wealth, money, private property, possessions etc exist due to the social contract. It is a human construct that doesn't exist outside our imagination. If Socialism, and that is to say pure Socialism, you know not Social Democracy which I advocate, was elected on a mandate, the social contract changes. You can say what about my freedom, OH BUT NOT THAT FREEDOM! As much as you like. You outlaw murder, you are restricting someone freedom to kill, it really is that simple and this is no different than that. The law is a restriction of freedom. And in Socialism you would have changed private property ideals which is another restriction too. Nonetheless it doesn't stop Musk from inventing. And in Socialism, there is nothing stopping people from earning different wages anyway. But he won't own his factories. I suspect he will have to lease them out and pay a premium on his profits, very much like how China operates today.

OK julie
Carry on!
Back to the drawing board.

The problem with your argument is that if society outlaws left handers or homosexuals those that are affected are simply out of luck and oppressed. You continue to push the same argument without thinking about the consequences.

Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation, as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life. To explore this concept, consider the following inalienable rights definition.
https://legaldictionary.net/inalienable-rights/

You are proving my point over and over again by showing that socialism indeed needs an authoritarian system where natural human rights are taken away (see your own words above). Murder is not a natural human right. Whatever your democracy decides has to be constitutional.

OK, try again.

[B0ycey]

You are proving my point over and over again by showing that socialism indeed needs an authoritarian system where natural human rights are taken away (see your own words above). Murder is not a natural human right. Whatever your democracy decides has to be constitutional.

OK, try again.

If the people vote for it within a mandate, that cannot be authoritarian by definition Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation. They have JUST ASKED FOR IT BY VOTING FOR IT!

Rights have nothing to do with it, they would have actually voted for an amendment to change the social contract and that is all that matters when claiming authoritarianism. And laws restrict freedoms not rights as rights are a human contruct within a social contract. You are not born with a constitution you are born with free will. And that is igoring the major issue you have that in your constitution there is nothing in it saying Socialism is banned.

And finally natural rights are rights not dependent on a government. The ability to prevent murder requires a punishment and laws. Explain that contradiction as the government operates law and order, justice and imprisonment and as such is required for the right to live?

OK try again

[Anna Green]

If Biden was an ice cream flavor he would be bland vanilla. If Trump was an ice cream flavor he would be maple weasel or strawberry skunk.

[Torus34]

It seems like we're getting a bit far afield from the possibility of populist authoritarianism [perhaps another way to describe fascism,] taking hold in the United States of America and, in the process, doing serious damage to the institutions which have maintained the US as a democratic republic for over two centuries.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Patrickov]

The way conservatives in this thread have taken this thread off topic to (once again) discuss their unfounded fear of socialist authoritarians taking over the USA is evidence to support my point.

Fascism's rise in Europe has always been "merely" a response of the rise of socialism, or more accurately, Leninism and Stalinism.

For America's case, the attack from leftards as well as world dictator wannabes like China caused their conservatives to go further to the right.

It is just Newton's Third Law.

[B0ycey]

It seems like we're getting a bit far afield from the possibility of populist authoritarianism [perhaps another way to describe fascism,] taking hold in the United States of America and, in the process, doing serious damage to the institutions which have maintained the US as a democratic republic for over two centuries.

You haven't given us your opinion on this. Besides, you could argue that economics and policy are the reason for populism in any case.

[Julian658]

If the people vote for it within a mandate, that cannot be authoritarian by definition dumbass. They have JUST ASKED FOR IT BY VOTING FOR IT!

Rights have nothing to do with it, they would have actually voted for an amendment to change the social contract and that is all that matters when claiming authoritarianism. And laws restrict freedoms not rights as rights are a human contruct within a social contract. You are not born with a constitution you are born with free will. And that is igoring the major issue you have that in your constitution there is nothing in it saying Socialism is banned.

And finally natural rights are rights not dependent on a government. The ability to prevent murder requires a punishment and laws. Explain that contradiction as the government operates law and order, justice and imprisonment and as such is required for the right to live? :?:

OK try again

Why did you have to use an insulting remark to make your point? That is very telling.

[Torus34]

You haven't given us your opinion on this. Besides, you could argue that economics and policy are the reason for populism in any case.

Hi!

Thank you for asking. I'm not sure if my opinion is of real value here, but I'll state it.

The United States of America has, since its inception, managed to maintain a republic form of democracy for over 240 years. This has been largely because the two major competing political parties [Ed.: These have changed from time to time,] agreed informally to abide by a set of unwritten rules. The US Constitution, as with those of other democracies, is not an iron-clad barrier to the possibility of a one party state. As has happened in other democracies, conditions can develop which lead to a take-over of the government. Such a take-over requires that first, suitable conditions must exist and, second, that there be at least one charismatic individual intent upon assuming power over the state. [There are others, but these two will suffice.]

The United States of America currently includes some of the conditions. There is the polarization between the two political parties, the almost even split between voters of each party, the grid-lock in the federal legislature and the willingness for a surprisingly large number of the voting public to accept a leader who is populist and autocratic. Some polls of American voters have tried to determine the percent willing to accept a leader who will go around the present governmental structure with its procedural barriers in order to get things done.

I consider these to be warning signs. I believe that we, as a nation, are not doing what we should in order to assist the voting public to make choices which will preserve our form of government.

That's it. Certainly not earth-shaking, nu?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[B0ycey]

Perhaps the true issue is America has only two electable parties that in policy are identical @Torus34. As both parties have sacrificed their voters for their sponsors since at least Reagan and perhaps beyond that, people are trying to figure out who to blame. They should be blaming the two parties. Instead they blame each other. Hence why we see polarisation. The more frustrated someone is, the more extreme their ideology becomes. Fascism only appears during a crisis. And as it happens, so does revolution.

[Torus34]

Perhaps the true issue is America has only two electable parties that in policy are identical @Torus34. As both parties have sacrificed their voters for their sponsors since at least Reagan and perhaps beyond that, people are trying to figure out who to blame. They should be blaming the two parties. Instead they blame each other. Hence why we see polarisation. The more frustrated someone is, the more extreme their ideology becomes. Fascism only appears during a crisis. And as it happens, so does revolution.

Hi!

Thank you for your response. I've not even a quibble with what you've posted. Revolution, btw, has been a tad quirky in some instances. It's occurred in a few cases when dictatorial restrictions were eased rather than tightened.

Regards, best to you and yours.

[Patrickov]

It's occurred in a few cases when dictatorial restrictions were eased rather than tightened.

Most notably the Soviet Union 1990 and Libya 2011.

Which is bad news to all those struggling for freedom outside the West. They probably only have the 1945 option now.

[Torus34]

Most notably the Soviet Union 1990 and Libya 2011.

Which is bad news to all those struggling for freedom outside the West. They probably only have the 1945 option now.

Hi!

Thank you for responding.

The more we Americans know about how democracies of the past have been threatened and, in some instances, overturned, the better we will be able to guard our country against attempts.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Pants-of-dog]

Fascism's rise in Europe has always been "merely" a response of the rise of socialism, or more accurately, Leninism and Stalinism.

For America's case, the attack from leftards as well as world dictator wannabes like China caused their conservatives to go further to the right.

It is just Newton's Third Law.

This stupid argument is another justification for fascism common in the USA: that leftists somehow magically force the right to ignore democracy by simply being leftists.

[wat0n]

A large portion of leftists are not democrats, so I don't know whatever you are talking about. The only remaining dictatorships in the West are all left-wing regimes that are, or claim to be, socialist. And a good number of dictatorships outside the West are also left-wing regimes that are, or claim to be, socialist as well.

[Pants-of-dog]

A large portion of leftists are not democrats, so I don't know whatever you are talking about.

Sorry, but are you talking to me?

Because this seems to be irrelevant to my point about how the right justifies its attacks on democracy by basically saying “the leftists made us do it”.

The only remaining dictatorships in the West are all left-wing regimes that are, or claim to be, socialist. And a good number of dictatorships outside the West are also left-wing regimes that are, or claim to be, socialist as well.

Most dictatorships around the world (since the dawn of Marxism) have been right wing.

And many of them have been supported by the USA.

The US government has, historically, been amenable to supporting right wing autocracy.