• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question For Koriymer The Rat

Status
Not open for further replies.

VaiT

Banned
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I recently had the privilege to read your "About Me" post. You state that you are a "proud fascist". Could you briefly elaborate on the origin of your stance?
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.
 

Diogenes

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
3,059
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.
Uh-oh. That sounds like Obama Meets The Taliban.

I disagree. We need laws to prevent people from harming others; we do not need laws telling people what to do "for their own good."
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

The way you explain it, it actually sounds good.
 

Helvidius

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
735
Reaction score
325
Location
Good ol' US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

But who decides what is moral/ethical? Are those things not subjective?
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,216
Reaction score
24,380
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

I think you are right in that I am also beginning to believe that people are too stupid/lazy/selfish to do what is in their or society's best interest. Not sure about the other stuff.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Uh-oh. That sounds like Obama Meets The Taliban.

Or Cheney meets the religious right.

I disagree. We need laws to prevent people from harming others; we do not need laws telling people what to do "for their own good."

The two are not mutually exclusive.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,216
Reaction score
24,380
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I guess thinking about it, I have two questions.

1. If a fascist system is autocratic, do you see problems in people handing off power as it seems it would require a bit of a cult of personality, given the examples of German, Spain, and Italy.
2. Do you see general societal harshness towards what is determined to be lesser people a general feature or a bug?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

What country currently has this form of government?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

I always used to say, "Facism works, when properly applied" :thumbs:
 

VaiT

Banned
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I used to be a Libertarian. I realized that their politics and their ethics were too limited, and that certain government services are necessary for a healthy society. I used to be a Liberal. I realized that people do not behave morally when left to their own devices, and that government-enforced morality is necessary for a healthy society. Democracy cannot provide this, as people will vote for more spending and lower taxes and to remove every impediment to their hedonistic, decadent lifestyles. Democratic government is a slow and ugly process of regression to society's lowest common denominator. People are simply too lazy, selfish, and stupid to do what's best for themselves without someone looking over their shoulder.

The only way for society to be truly progressive is to have autocratic leadership providing strict moral order.

"Moral" is a relative term.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Uh-oh. That sounds like Obama Meets The Taliban.

That is accurate, if as deliberately uncharitable as possible. I prefer to think of it as the Roosevelts unencumbered by an uncooperative Congress and Supreme Court, before all of this modern liberal silliness. I am not interested in primitive tribal barbarism-- merely the reclamation of moral standards of decency and decorum that our society has abandoned.

We need laws to prevent people from harming others; we do not need laws telling people what to do "for their own good."

No? When people hurt themselves, they hurt everyone around them. They lose productivity. They become a drain on resources. They destroy their own lives, and their families' lives, and innocent bystanders' lives. I think we need seatbelt laws and helmet laws and laws against drinking or texting while driving. I think we need laws against public intoxication and public indecency. I think we need laws against pornography and prostitution and the solicitation of prostitution. I think we need laws to limit the abuse of tobacco and cannabis and other drugs. I think we need laws that help hold families together rather than laws that tear them apart.

The way you explain it, it actually sounds good.

I challenge you to read Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism and tell me that what he is promoting, his ideals, are not positive and life-affirming. There were failures in implementation. There were unfortunate decisions. There were atrocities. I won't make excuses for history, but there hasn't been any atrocity committed by autocratic governments that hasn't been duplicated in democratic governments.

But who decides what is moral/ethical? Are those things not subjective?

"Moral" is a relative term.

Absolutely, yes. Which is why they have to be enforced. It isn't so much a matter of whether or not you are right-- though some values are better than others-- as a matter of whether or not you are committed.

What country currently has this form of government?

Currently? None. China is probably the closest, but as a former Communist republic its ideology is too anti-spiritual. There's no shortage of autocratic regimes on the planet, but the majority of them are either Communist or monarchies. Iran is another possible candidate, but it is a case of the clergy having too much power; to be properly Fascist, spiritual authority has to be incorporated into secular authority, not the other way around. A Fascist State has to be both spiritual and forward-thinking.

It's also worth noting that what works for China and Iran is not what works in America. Americans are a unique people and American Fascism must be uniquely suited to them.

1. If a fascist system is autocratic, do you see problems in people handing off power as it seems it would require a bit of a cult of personality, given the examples of German, Spain, and Italy.
2. Do you see general societal harshness towards what is determined to be lesser people a general feature or a bug?

1. Yes. It is a problem. Having some mechanism for establishing the lawful transition of power is key, but due to the means by which Fascist governments obtain power, it's unlikely. A strong Party authority that can override or even replace the leader would ensure both (mostly) peaceful transitions of power and enough conflict to keep the government sharp. In the absence of such mechanisms, the best solution is for the leader to simply rule for as long as he is capable and then be replaced by coup d'etat. Allowing him to designate his own successor will lead to a weak or inept political crony replacing the strong leader who initially seized power.

2. That depends on why they are considered "lesser" people. If they are aliens or lesser for objective reasons, it is a feature in that it upholds the purity and vitality of the nation. If they are lesser for arbitrary reasons, it leads to the nation cannibalizing itself and squandering its own intellectual and cultural potential, which is a definite bug. It is a difficult balance to maintain, as it is hard to establish objective criteria by which to differentiate between assimilated immigrants and aliens. That is my primary objection to the BNP and other right-wing movements; they tend to focus too much on external measures of identity rather than cultural affinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom