[Rei Murasame]

Right. Thanks for providing evidence that the vast majority of people do not support fascism or authoritarianism, and those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions.

So we agree then, that people don't change the status quo unless they awaken to the crisis and accept that action must be taken. Fascism is really good at taking action.

Did you know that - based on US State Dept documents as far as I recall - the USA had no plans to help develop South Korea? The USA's plan for South Korea was to let it be an agrarian backwater full of 70% peasants, which they would then build bases on. They would then stare across the border at North Korea and China indefinitely from that position, defending liberal-capitalism while fucking South Korean peasants in brothels.

Park Chung-hee actually took America by surprise when he staged a coup and decided to put an end to that miserable setup, establishing state corporatism, getting actual jobs for people, and building up an industrial sector.

So when you say, 'those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions', you are paying our camp a huge compliment, because all of Asia and most of Europe and Africa and South America are a mass of exploited people who are living in extremely horrible economic conditions.

To focus on the Asia point, Michel Aflaq put it best, so I can now cover Iraq and still be talking about the East in general at the same time since he speaks broadly here:

In the West, when the exploited classes revolted against their exploiters, the revolution remained within the confines of narrow material interests; the Western masses did not oppose the imperialist exploitation of the oriental peoples.

Contrary to what took place in the West the revolution of the oriental peoples is predominantly characterised by an emancipating and humanitarian feature because it rises against imperialism, which involves all kinds and forces of injustice.

While injustice in the West does not affect more than certain classes, the orient is nothing but whole peoples suffering injustice. The Arab nation is one of these oppressed peoples. In its experience there are the seeds of a new message addressed to nations and to humanity and not only to social classes.

The Arabs have a great freedom. It is the source and guarantee of all the partial freedoms: it is the nationalist freedom, which secures for the salvation from enslavement and allows them to rescue the wealth of their land from the plunder of the foreigners and their minds and talents from suffocation and distortion. It is the kind of freedom, which allows them to take their destiny into their hands once more.

The problem of the high cost of living will not be resolved except in the light of the socialist principles ardently and faithfully called for by our Party.

It will not be solved except through the nationalisation of the foreign companies and putting them under state ownership, thus saving the people from other exploitation of their vital needs such as water, electricity and communication, and by distributing the state owned lands among small farmers, rescuing them from the feudalists who draw off their blood and drain their efforts and give them a life close to nakedness and hunger for their continuous travail in the summer heat and the cold of winter.

It will not be solved except by forcing the big feudalists and capitalists to do justice to labour, limiting the oppression created by ownership and capitalism and granting the peasant and worker their natural rights in a dignified and human life.

Of course, the liberals call the Ba'athists, some of the "darkest figures in history", and so on:
Ridiculous History Channel Summary with creepy music
[youtube]MUglHRO-uk8[/youtube]
Leaving aside the creepy music and sensationalist liberal and Zionist bleating in that video, it's still worth a watch, the basic facts are true-ish. Just what the History Channel thinks is bad, I think is good. Aflaq appears several times in the video.

Further reality:

Saddam Hussein with female students in 1970s.

[Nadje] Al-Ali’s analysis of the changing dynamics of women’s oppression under the Baath Party emphasises the pivotal role of the state. She acknowledges that many women benefited from the party’s policies, particularly before the war with Iran. “Our society will remain backward and in its chains unless women are liberated, enlightened and educated,” declared Saddam Hussein. The state pumped money into childcare; it encouraged women to study, and enter professions such as medicine and engineering. Unlike many women in Britain today, middle class Iraqi women in the 1970s and 1980s could expect to receive full pay while on maternity leave and benefit from an extensive system of state-subsidised nurseries.

Several of Al-Ali’s interviewees were shocked to discover how Western women continue to struggle with balancing work and childcare. Yet, as Al-Ali shows, the Baath Party’s commitment to advancing women’s economic and social rights was driven by the same kind of pragmatism that pushed the British ruling class to encourage women here to join the workforce during the Second World War. Iraqi women were badly needed to fill gaps in the labour market during the oil boom of the 1970s. Once political and economic conditions changed, the Baath Party’s commitment to “state feminism” weakened.

War with Iran increased the double burden of work and childcare, as women replaced men absent at the front while Saddam Hussein exalted mothers and called their wombs into service to replace losses on the battlefield. State propaganda was awash with images of women whose honour needed to be protected from the enemy. Saddam Hussein was even reputed to be the author of a series of bodice-ripping novels playing on this theme, which was published complete with pictures of swooning damsels in distress.

The final years of Baath Party rule also saw the promotion of tribal law codes that reversed many of the reforms improving Iraqi women’s legal rights. Islamist opposition parties increased their support, and Iraqi women began to re-adopt the abaya, a traditional women’s cloak that covers the head and body. Al-Ali acknowledges that in Iraq, as in Muslim societies elsewhere, re-veiling was a complex phenomenon in which women’s personal choice played a significant role. (Arlene Macleod’s book Accommodating Protest: Working Women, the New Veiling and Change in Cairo discusses this issue in Egypt, while Linda Herrera’s article, “Downveiling: Gender and the Contest over Culture in Cairo”, in Middle East Report 219 discusses recent trends.)

But the most important factor in the dramatic decline in Iraqi women’s social, political and economic position over the past two decades has been the assault on Iraq by the Western powers, led by the US and Britain. Sanctions gutted the Iraqi public sector, the main employer of Iraqi women, and destroyed the state welfare system, which provided healthcare, public transport and education. As a result, women’s participation in the workforce collapsed from 23 percent in 1991 to 10 percent in 1997. With public sector salaries below subsistence level, marriage, not education, appeared to be the only way to secure Iraqi girls a decent future.

Since 2003 the occupying forces have not only failed to rebuild the economy and welfare system; they have killed and injured hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and their children. Millions of Iraqi women remain trapped in their homes as a result of the spiralling violence. They live in fear not only of the occupying forces but also of violent crime, the militias attached to the sectarian parties that the occupation have strengthened, and radical Islamist groups.

Al-Ali is relatively pessimistic about the possibility of rebuilding Iraqi society if the occupiers withdraw. She paints a grim vision of life for Iraqi women at present—caught between the occupation and radical Islamism.

I would also add that aside from this issue, the Ba'ath Party actually did quite a lot in Iraq, it seized the oil interests and nationalised them. It then set up something he called, "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq". The government there had universal schooling up to the highest level of education, and it was running one of the best national healthcare systems in that region.

Before Saddam appeared, 66% of Iraq was basically peasants in the countryside. Saddam embarked on modernising the countryside by mechanising agriculture, providing subsidies to farmers, distributing land to people, etc.

A Mongol invasion in the early 13th century ended Iraq's flourishing economy and culture. In 1258, Genghis Khan's grandson Hulagu sacked Baghdād and destroyed the canal system on which the productivity of the region had depended.

[...]

The rich alluvial soil of the lowlands and an elaborate system of irrigation canals made Iraq a granary in ancient times and in the Middle Ages. After the irrigation works were destroyed in the Mongol invasion, agriculture decayed. Today, about 13% of the land is considered arable. Unlike the rain-fed north, southern Iraq depends entirely on irrigation, which is in turn heavily reliant on electricity and fuel supply to run the pumping networks. There are similar difficulties with the spring crop of vegetables in the south, also entirely dependent on irrigation. Over half the irrigated area in southern Iraq is affected by water-logging and salinity, diminishing crop production and farm incomes. Agriculture is Iraq's largest employer and the second-largest sector in value.

Under various agrarian reform laws—including a 1970 law that limited permissible landholdings to 4–202 hectares (10–500 acres), depending on location, fertility, and available irrigation facilities—about 400,000 previously landless peasants received land. Agrarian reform was accompanied by irrigation and drainage works, and by the establishment of cooperative societies for the provision of implements and machinery, irrigation facilities, and other services.

Image links embedded by me from elsewhere, as they are not present in the source.

He also tried to homogenise Iraq, something which fell apart after his government was toppled.

The issue with Kuwait in 1991 was that Saddam was well aware that what the UK had done was simply to draw a little line around a place where there were lots of oil wells and called it "Kuwait". Saddam wanted to actually take that territory back into Iraq proper, and he wanted - this may have been far off in his mind - in a wider sense to someday destroy Saudi Arabia's regime and later go on to spread Ba'athism throughout the region so that it could be united politically and economically (I guess that would not be in the USA's interest). It didn't work out for him. It's unfortunate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Name one. Come now, you do love to ask others to provide evidence - you may as well hold yourself to your own standards.

Do you guys think you're being witty when you ask me to provide evidence for common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.[2]

Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[dubious – discuss] which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.[2]

There you go.

In accordance with the legal code of the system he oversaw. He was subject to the rule of law. Wasn't that your initial claim? That this did not occur?

He ignored the Grand Council's order to step down. To me that looks like a refusal to follow the law.

And he was arrested for it - the triumph of rule of law.

Who cares? An authoritarian gov't arrested a political opponent (while simultaneously screwing Italy over even more), and for once it happened to follow one of their laws. How does this somehow make authoritarian gov'ts accountable?

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

So we agree then, that people don't change the status quo unless they awaken to the crisis and accept that action must be taken. Fascism is really good at taking action.

We are discussing rule of law and accountability. being ready to oppress people at a moment's notice does not support any idea that fascists are somehow open to accountability.

Did you know that - based on US State Dept documents as far as I recall - the USA had no plans to help develop South Korea? The USA's plan for South Korea was to let it be an agrarian backwater full of 70% peasants, which they would then build bases on. They would then stare across the border at North Korea and China indefinitely from that position, defending liberal-capitalism while fucking South Korean peasants in brothels.

Park Chung-hee actually took America by surprise when he staged a coup and decided to put an end to that miserable setup, establishing state corporatism, getting actual jobs for people, and building up an industrial sector.

So when you say, 'those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions', you are paying our camp a huge compliment, because all of Asia and most of Europe and Africa and South America are a mass of exploited people who are living in extremely horrible economic conditions.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

By the way, if you were correct, then fascist gov;ts would be loved throughout the developing world. That's not happening.

To focus on the Asia point, Michel Aflaq put it best, so I can now cover Iraq and still be talking about the East in general at the same time since he speaks broadly here:
....
It didn't work out for him. It's unfortunate.

I notice that every time I bring up a criticism of fascism, you immediately try to deflect by posting long rants about whatever strawman you are calling liberal capitalism. Please try to stay on topic.

[Fasces]

Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[dubious – discuss]

To me, that's the relevant aspect of that statement. Even Wikipedia hesitates to agree with you.

He ignored the Grand Council's order to step down. To me that looks like a refusal to follow the law.

And the system removed him anyway - he was not above the law.

Do elected officials never break laws in your fantasy-land?

How does this somehow make authoritarian gov'ts accountable?

I'm going to have to go ahead and get your definition of accountable here.

[ThereBeDragons]

Do you guys think you're being witty when you ask me to provide evidence for common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

A Wikipedia article is not a political science text. Neither is "Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State." [[EDIT]] Well, it is, but not a textbook, and I'm not certain that they wrote a definition of authoritarianism in it anyway.

Who cares?

You certainly don't seem to care, as whenever they do follow the law it's irrelevant and whenever they don't it's damning evidence.

We are discussing rule of law and accountability.

We were - and then you changed the topic to "only people in extra-shitty conditions support fascism." If you're going to start a tangent, at least have the honesty to see it through to the end.

I notice that every time I bring up a criticism of fascism, you immediately try to deflect by posting long rants about whatever strawman you are calling liberal capitalism. Please try to stay on topic.

You've shifted your claims multiple times and used astoundingly shitty non-logic in this thread. You're one to talk.

[Pants-of-dog]

To me, that's the relevant aspect of that statement. Even Wikipedia hesitates to agree with you.

If you want to defend fascism because you honestly believe that it is not authoritarian, or that you believe that authoritarian gov'ts are somehow accountable, go ahead.

History, however, disagrees with you.

And the system removed him anyway - he was not above the law.

Mu broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Would you then say that it works better than my perfectly functioning clock?

Do elected officials never break laws in your fantasy-land?

Some ideologies have systems that actually try to keep gov't accountable to the rule of law. Fascism does not.

I'm going to have to go ahead and get your definition of accountable here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountability

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.[1] As an aspect of governance, it has been central to discussions related to problems in the public sector, nonprofit and private (corporate) worlds. In leadership roles,[2] accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of "being called to account for one's actions".[3][4] It is frequently described as an account-giving relationship between individuals, e.g. "A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct".[5] Accountability cannot exist without proper accounting practices; in other words, an absence of accounting means an absence of accountability.

As I was going back through the thread to find the post where I already responded to the strawman of perfect democracies, i noticed you have edited your responses. Please understand that I will not be going back and responding to all the things you added later. If you wish me to reply to them, feel free to repost them.

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

A Wikipedia article is not a political science text. Neither is "Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State." [[EDIT]] Well, it is, but not a textbook, and I'm not certain that they wrote a definition of authoritarianism in it anyway.

That's nice. Are you going to split hairs about irrelevancies, or do you disagree with my actual point that authoritarian gov'ts are known for a lack of accountability?

You certainly don't seem to care, as whenever they do follow the law it's irrelevant and whenever they don't it's damning evidence.

The fact that follow their own laws when it suits them has no bearing on whether or not they follow the law when it does not.

We were - and then you changed the topic to "only people in extra-shitty conditions support fascism." If you're going to start a tangent, at least have the honesty to see it through to the end.

So, I am going to assume you have no problems with my argument seeing as how you are attacking my "honesty".

You've shifted your claims multiple times and used astoundingly shitty non-logic in this thread. You're one to talk.

Settle down. If I had known you were going to get worked up, I would have ignored you.

If you wish to believe I have changed my claims, go ahead. If you wish to say I have shitty logic, feel free to show me where it was "shitty". Thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

double post. Please delete.

[ThereBeDragons]

That's nice. Are you going to split hairs about irrelevancies, or do you disagree with my actual point that authoritarian gov'ts are known for a lack of accountability?

They may be known for a lack of accountability. They may be famous for it. However, "known for" and "by definition must" are extremely different statements.

Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability.

People disagreed with this statement and asked you to provide evidence. Asking for you to provide evidence (better than a Wikipedia article) for your statement is not "splitting hairs about irrelevancies." I'm sure if you retracted your statement, or revised it to "authoritarian gov'ts tend to be unaccountable," people would drop this line. As long as you hold to it, people have every expectation to demand that you support it.

[Pants-of-dog]

They may be known for a lack of accountability. They may be famous for it. That is not the point you made. What you said was: "Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability." People disagreed with this statement and asked you to provide evidence. Asking for you to provide evidence (better than a Wikipedia article) for your statement is not "splitting hairs about irrelevancies." I'm sure if you retracted your statement, or revised

"Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability."

to

"Authoritarian gov'ts tend to be unaccountable."

people would drop this line.

Feel free to provide an example of an authoritarian gov't that had an effective system of accountability.

[ThereBeDragons]

Feel free to provide an example of an authoritarian gov't that had an effective system of accountability.

Are you standing by your statement or not? Even if there has never been an authoritarian government with an effective system of accountability, that would not relieve you of the burden of supporting your claim that "Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability." There has never been a post-revolutionary government that did not repress counterrevolutionaries - but "repression of counterrevolutionaries" is not part of the definition of post-revolutionary government.

You are mad.

The height of intellectual debate.

If you wish to believe I have changed my claims, go ahead. If you wish to say I have shitty logic, feel free to show me where it was "shitty". Thank you.

Here's some:

Neither you nor Rei nor Fasces have ever lived in authoritarian nations. You folks are the only ones supporting it, therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it.

This claim was entirely untenable; the logic you supported it utterly bankrupt.

[Fasces]

If you want to defend fascism because you honestly believe that it is not authoritarian, or that you believe that authoritarian gov'ts are somehow accountable, go ahead.

History, however, disagrees with you.

History has a funny habit of being full of the unprecedented. If you want to make a claim that authoritarian systems are fundamentally unworkable, "History disagrees with you" is not an argument (even if it did, which it doesn't).

Mu broken clock tells the right time twice a day. Would you then say that it works better than my perfectly functioning clock?

Ignoring the other examples, are we? And who is to say your clock is functioning perfectly? Or even the clock I want?

Some ideologies have systems that actually try to keep gov't accountable to the rule of law. Fascism does not.

Restate your premise again. I didn't quite catch it.

In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving. [...]

Is this your complete answer?

If so, given this definition, can you explain why the King holding Mussolini accountable for disobeying the Grand Council of Fascism, and his subsequent arrest, is irrelevant?

Or why Pinochet abiding by the results of the plebiscite is irrelevant?

Or Juan Carlos by the results of the referendum?

Feel free to provide an example of an authoritarian gov't that had an effective system of accountability.

I provided three, but even if none existed, you would still have to prove "can't".

[ThereBeDragons]

So, I am going to assume you have no problems with my argument seeing as how you are attacking my "honesty".

The problem I had was that you made a statement, somebody responded with something relevant to that statement, and you claimed that they were going off-topic. That's pathetic. And so was your assumption.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you standing by your statement or not? Even if there has never been an authoritarian government with an effective system of accountability, that would not relieve you of the burden of supporting your claim that "Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability." There has never been a post-revolutionary government that did not repress counterrevolutionaries - but "repression of counterrevolutionaries" is not part of the definition of post-revolutionary government.

So, we agree that you have no example.

Definitions of authoritarianism that explicitly discuss accountability or being responsible to the populace.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian

Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism noun

I had no idea that I would be debating authoritarianism with people who were unaware of the meaning of the word.

The height of intellectual debate.

Good thing I never said that. However, cussing is not known as good debating behaviour.

Here's some:

"Neither you nor Rei nor Fasces have ever lived in authoritarian nations. You folks are the only ones supporting it, therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it."
This claim was entirely untenable; the logic you supported it utterly bankrupt.

You did not show how it was bad logic. Try again.

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

History has a funny habit of being full of the unprecedented. If you want to make a claim that authoritarian systems are fundamentally unworkable, "History disagrees with you" is not an argument (even if it did, which it doesn't).

Good thing I am not making that claim, then. What I am saying, and you have yet to disprove, is that authoritarian systems lack accountability.

Ignoring the other examples, are we? And who is to say your clock is functioning perfectly? Or even the clock I want?

So, you agree that just because an authoritarian gov't follows laws when it suits them, it does not somehow suggest that they always do.

Is this your complete answer?

If so, given this definition, can you explain why the King holding Mussolini accountable for disobeying the Grand Council of Fascism, and his subsequent arrest, is irrelevant?

Or why Pinochet abiding by the results of the plebiscite is irrelevant?

Or Juan Carlos by the results of the referendum?

The fact that follow their own laws when it suits them has no bearing on whether or not they follow the law when it does not.

I provided three, but even if none existed, you would still have to prove "can't".

I do not see how those are examples of authoritarian gov'ts following a rule of law. Unless you think that only following it when it suits them is following the rule of law.

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

The problem I had was that you made a statement, somebody responded with something relevant to that statement, and you claimed that they were going off-topic. That's pathetic. And so was your assumption.

Right. You seem to have no problems with my argument. Have a nice day.

[Rei Murasame]

We are discussing rule of law and accountability. being ready to oppress people at a moment's notice does not support any idea that fascists are somehow open to accountability.

Please define 'accountability' then. Apparently it means something different from 'rule of law'?

That's nice, but irrelevant.

Why is it irrelevant?

By the way, if you were correct, then fascist gov;ts would be loved throughout the developing world.

They are. The quote, "In heaven, Allah is your master. On Earth, it is Adolf Hitler", was a quote that appeared on placards in Iraq during the second world war. Weird how that kind of support just happens.

I notice that every time I bring up a criticism of fascism, you immediately try to deflect by posting long rants about whatever strawman you are calling liberal capitalism.

Okay:

• It is not a strawman.
• It was a response to your statements.
• It is on topic.

[Fasces]

of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.

of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Excuse me, but the definition you provided did not include "to the people" as necessary for "accountability". Institutions can be accountable to other institutions without constitutional requirements to the people.

Again, tell me why Mussolini's arrest does not suggest accountability.

What I am saying, and you have yet to disprove, is that authoritarian systems lack accountability.

And your definition of accountability has shifted.

The fact that follow their own laws when it suits them has no bearing on whether or not they follow the law when it does not.

It suited Mussolini to be arrested for breaking the law?

Regardless, this statement is nonsense. "People follow the law except when they don't."

What matters is not whether leaders break the law, but whether the institution and law is higher than the office. In the case of Mussolini, this is absolutely true.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please define 'accountability' then. Apparently it means something different from 'rule of law'?

Please read my previous few posts. I have defined it quite recently.

Why is it irrelevant?

Because you are trying to compare people nostalgically preferring an authoritarian state to a illiberal capitalist environment to my actual topic: people currently living in liberal democracies who have experience of authoritarian countries do not prefer authoritarian regimes.

They are. The quote, "In heaven, Allah is your master. On Earth, it is Adolf Hitler", was a quote that appeared on placards in Iraq during the second world war. Weird how that kind of support just happens.

Psst, Rei. It's not WWII any more. Right now, fascism is not happening in the developing world.

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

Excuse me, but the definition your provided did not include "to the people" as necessary for "accountability". Institutions can be accountable to other institutions without constitutional requirements to the people.

So, you agree that authoritarianism is not accountable to the people.

Again, tell me why Mussolini's arrest does not suggest accountability.

The fact that follow their own laws when it suits them has no bearing on whether or not they follow the law when it does not.

It suited Mussolini to be arrested for breaking the law?

Regardless, this statement is nonsense. "People follow the law except when they don't."

What matters is not whether leaders break the law, but whether the institution and law is higher than the office. In the case of Mussolini, this is absolutely true.

No. it suited the people who arrested him: those who were trying to take over his power. Are you blind to the fact that they were also power hungry?

It is not absolutely true because right after the Grand Council arrested Mussolini, they completely ignored the treaties and laws they passed in an effort to save their own skins.

[ThereBeDragons]

So, we agree that you have no example.

I am not in the position of defending any claim. We agree - I have not provided an example; my failure to provide an example, though, does not mean that I have failed to back up any previous statement that I have made. You made a claim, so people are asking you to back it up.

I assume you are referring to the following: "of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people." Even if it is not "constitutionally accountable to the people," the system may have internal checks and balances. It may be held accountable to other organizations. It does not mean that there are no "systems of responsibility."

Good thing I never said that. However, cussing is not known as good debating behaviour.

You claimed I was angry in more words.

You did not show how it was bad logic. Try again.

The premise "you folks are the only ones supporting it" can be interpreted two ways: Either it means that "you folks are the only ones (in the history of the world) supporting it" or it means "you folks are the only ones supporting it (here in Politicsforum.org)." The first interpretation is idiotic. The conclusion, "therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it" does not follow from the second.

Right. You seem to have no problems with my argument. Have a nice day.

You did not even make an argument. "This is irrelevant" is not an argument. If it constituted an argument, then my explanation of how it was not, in fact, irrelevant is a counterargument that you have ignored.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am not in the position of defending any claim. We agree - I have not provided an example. You made a claim, so people are asking you to back it up.

I assume you are referring to the following: "of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people." Even if it is not "constitutionally accountable to the people," the system may have internal checks and balances. It may be held accountable to other organizations. It does not mean that there are no "systems of responsibility."

Yes, Fasces already made that semantic point.

Please note that my original point was that there is nothing stopping the fascists from sending in jack-booted thugs to disappear you. Discussing how the fascist gov't may be accountable to a board of industry magnates or some other group has no bearing on that.

You claimed I was angry in more words.

If you are swearing at me, that is a reasonable assumption to make.

The premise "you folks are the only ones supporting it" can be interpreted two ways: Either it means that "you folks are the only ones (in the history of the world) supporting it" or it means "you folks are the only ones supporting it (here in Politicsforum.org)." The first interpretation is idiotic. The conclusion, "therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it" does not follow from the second.

So it's illogical if we assume that I meant two different hing sat two different times. If I meant the same thing in both instances, it is still a logical claim. thank you.

You did not even make an argument. "This is irrelevant" is not an argument. If it constituted an argument, then my explanation of how it was not, in fact, irrelevant is a counterargument that you have ignored.

Did you miss that bit where I claimed that authoritarian gov;ts are not accountable to the people?

[ThereBeDragons]

Yes, Fasces already made that semantic point.

I had written it out before I read his reply.

Please note that my original point was that there is nothing stopping the fascists from sending in jack-booted thugs to disappear you. Discussing how the fascist gov't may be accountable to a board of industry magnates or some other group has no bearing on that.

In the future, you should not make statements that you do not intend to stand by, then, even if they happen to support your main point.

If you are swearing at me, that is a reasonable assumption to make.

"Shitty" is a colorful adjective. I was not angry at third-world economies for being shitty when I used it in the sentence prior to the one where I used it to describe your logic, either.

The premise "you folks are the only ones supporting it" can be interpreted two ways: Either it means that "you folks are the only ones (in the history of the world) supporting it" or it means "you folks are the only ones supporting it (here in Politicsforum.org)." The first interpretation is idiotic. The conclusion, "therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it" does not follow from the second.

So it's illogical if we assume that I meant two different thing sat two different times. If I meant the same thing in both instances, it is still a logical claim. Thank you.

I did not assume that you meant two different things at two different times; such a thing was not stated or even suggested in my post. I said that there were two interpretations. There are not even "two instances." There is only one instance. If it is the first interpretation all the way through, the logic you have used is wrong. If it is the second interpretation all the way through, the logic you used is also wrong.

Did you miss that bit where I claimed that authoritarian gov;ts are not accountable to the people?

It was irrelevant to that particular point. Other points were under discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

In the future, you should not make statements that you do not intend to stand by, then, even if they happen to support your main point.

Good thing I didn't do that.

"Shitty" is a colorful adjective. I was not angry at third-world economies for being shitty when I used it in the sentence prior to the one where I used it to describe your logic, either.

If you are swearing at me, that is a reasonable assumption to make.

I did not assume that you meant two different things at two different times; such a thing was not stated or even suggested in my post. I said that there were two interpretations. There are not even "two instances." There is only one instance. If it is the first interpretation all the way through, the logic you have used is wrong. If it is the second interpretation all the way through, the logic you used is also wrong.

If you say so. However, I think you are confused.

None of this has anything to do with my point, so I am simply going to drop it.

It was irrelevant to that particular point. Other points were under discussion.

I will assume that you are trying to be ironic.

Now, do you have anything to say about fascism? If not, have a nice day.

[ThereBeDragons]

Good thing I didn't do that.

You claimed that "authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability." This struck many posters as being inaccurate, so you were challenged to support it, which you finally did seven posts later, after repeatedly suggesting that it was nitpicking and irrelevant, and then declared that whether or not your statement was accurate as stated has "no bearing" on your original point.

If you are swearing at me, that is a reasonable assumption to make.

I will note that the usage of the word "shitty" offends your delicate sensibilities and refrain from using it around you in the future.

I will assume that you are trying to be ironic.

Pathetic.

Now, do you have anything to say about fascism?

Should people say more about fascism, I will feel free to comment. Should I find future statements by you or others inaccurate, I will challenge them; for the time being, all the points that I asked you to clarify have either been dropped or resolved.