the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

There's no welfare, no universal health care, no public schools, no employment insurance, and so forth, without private enterprise making the money that sustains them through taxation.

Indeed. Those are pillars of a mixed economy. Do you oppose all of them?

No. But they need to be paid for. And Capitalism is the only way they can be kept even close to sustainable. Ask Norway or Denmark how they pay for their programs. Norway does it through oil reserves sold off on Capitalist terms, and Denmark does it by being even more open and deregulated to Capitalism than the US is. Compare that to Canada, where the government is choking off both oil and free enterprise, and note that the medical system is also collapsing horribly, and wait times for basic procedures are often six months, a year, or even longer.

[tillingborn]

Well, the pension isn't "thrown in": you pay for it. How much you pay, I'll warrant you have no idea at all.

I have a rough idea, but I'm lucky enough not to have to care what the exact figure is. I do know that I put more into the NHS than I hope I will ever have to withdraw, unless I live to about 120, but I do so primarily for altruistic reasons. I pay because I can and it helps others.

As for your medical system, what are your wait times like?

It really depends on the procedure. Should I have a heart attack, I wouldn't have to wait very long.

And what is the availability of surgeries and other advanced procedures?

Believe it or not the UK, with the fifth biggest economy and four of the top ten universities in the world, can deliver a decent health care service.

And what percentage of the public purse is being lost to the NHS?

What percentage do we contribute to maintaining health and welfare of our fellows? Again, I don't know the exact figure, because it is not so great that it is a burden.

[henry quirk]

Sure, people want to keep health care the way it is...it looks "free" to them, even though they're paying a ton of money for it.

We pay less than in the US and we get a pension thrown in as a bonus. The electorate of the People's Constitutional Monarchy of The United Kingdom actually knows what is on offer, and we make a free choice. **Nobody gets everything they want all the time, and in Britain we know not to trust anyone who says we can. *It's called democracy.

*Mob rule, with the leaders callin' the shots.

What you really have is institutional theft and Hobson's Choice.

**Of course not. But if they truly had a free choice they'd be able to chase that rainbow without penalty. Instead, in your country and mine, folks who can are robbed to pay for those who can't. Robbed not only of money, but of the vastly more important autonomy that is the birthright of free folks. In your country and mine, increasingly, the successful or capable or merely competent are expected, and forced, to shoulder and sacrifice for the failures, the incapables, the incompetent (made so, not by nature, but thru benevolent domestication by government).

And: domestication is really what Socialism is all about, isn't it?

Encouraging certain traits, discouraging certain traits...the end goal: New Man (i.e. Eloi).

[tillingborn]

Ask Norway or Denmark how they pay for their programs.

That's a bit harsh on two small states in 2021. Frankly, in the roughly 5000 years of recorded human history, I am not aware of any society that has got it right. It is the nature of us that we keep trying.

Norway does it through oil reserves sold off on Capitalist terms...

So a nation using it's natural resources to fund the welfare of it citizens, rather than the personal fortune of capitalists is a bad thing in your view?

..and Denmark does it by being even more open and deregulated to Capitalism than the US is. Compare that to Canada, where the government is choking off both oil and free enterprise, and note that the medical system is also collapsing horribly, and wait times for basic procedures are often six months, a year, or even longer.

So lots of countries are getting it wrong. Is any government doing a good job, in your opinion?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the pension isn't "thrown in": you pay for it. How much you pay, I'll warrant you have no idea at all.

I have a rough idea, but I'm lucky enough not to have to care what the exact figure is.

You're wealthy enough not to care what you pay? You are very fortunate indeed. I notice that Socialism is particularly promoted by the wealthy these days...

As for your medical system, what are your wait times like?

It really depends on the procedure. Should I have a heart attack, I wouldn't have to wait very long. [/quote]
I'm sure the same for any emergency procedure, like severed limb or brain seizure. These things always go to the front of the line. But some painful conditions, like, say kidney stones, do not. You just have to deal with the pain until they get to you.

What about hip replacement? What about neuroma? What about eye surgery? How about a bypass? How long do you have to wait for kidney surgery, and how long for basic tests like endoscopy or MRI? These things can cause you pain, deterioration, or even death if they are not delivered in a timely way.

In a pay system, you can get them tomorrow. You'll pay, of course, but you'll be out of pain. That's something. But in a socialized system, you're not even allowed to get these procedures until your place in line opens up. And that can be weeks, months or years. I know of many such cases.

And what percentage of the public purse is being lost to the NHS?

What percentage do we contribute to maintaining health and welfare of our fellows? Again, I don't know the exact figure, because it is not so great that it is a burden.

Not for you, perhaps. But in order for the NHS to survive, it has to be sustainable in the face of an aging population and rampant immigration. Meanwhile, it must not cripple education (which in England is not universally public), or welfare, or regulatory services, or the military, or the penal system, or public security, or public works, or public infrastructure, or any of the other many government programs. It's apparently 10% and climbing much faster than GDP, so it means somebody's going to pay somewhere along the line.

Just be glad you are insulated by money, and don't have to care about petty concerns like sustainability. When the NHS goes down, you'll still be able to buy what you want overseas.

[Immanuel Can]

Frankly, in the roughly 5000 years of recorded human history, I am not aware of any society that has got it right. It is the nature of us that we keep trying.

But Socialism's been tried, repeatedly, and failed every time, worse than any other system in history. So by that logic, you should have abandoned it years ago.

Norway does it through oil reserves sold off on Capitalist terms...

So a nation using it's natural resources to fund the welfare of it citizens, rather than the personal fortune of capitalists is a bad thing in your view?

Of course not. But we can't pretend that Capitalism isn't shoring the whole thing up. If nobody buys the oil, then Norway goes down immediately.

Socialized programs cannot be sustained by Socialist economics. Socialist economics are a disaster.

...lots of countries are getting it wrong. Is any government doing a good job, in your opinion?

You're right that government is, at best, not a positive good but a necessary evil. But not all evils are equal, and some are offset somewhat by having strict limitations on power and scope, which makes them reasonable compromises. Parliamentary democracy is a good idea, and a multi-party system keeps the power-hungry in check. That makes life bearable for ordinary folks. And it saves them from misguided utopian evils.

However, all the Socialist countries have gotten it wrong, along with their penchant for dictatorship, the destruction of their economies and their abysmal record on human rights. So there can be no rationale even for considering attempting that massively-failed experiment again.

[Scott Mayers]

...assuming that fascism is a 'Left-of-center' ideal. If you believe this YOU require demonstrating proof of this interpretation.

I already did. Did you not read that?

Here's proof of your deception in practice. By leaving out the context, you intentionally fake my quote as asserting fascism is "left-of-center'. I did not assert this and you know it or would not have half quoted that sentence.

The Nazis are "National Socialists." Look it up: you'll see I'm correct.

PROVIDE your sources, please. Your the one claiming this, not me. It is you who requires proving your deluded interpretation is conventional.

Here is merely ONE source, the Washington Post, on just a quick search on Google, that expands upon your deception: The Right Needs to Stop Falsely Claiming that Nazis were Socialists

Now do your fucking homework. You are not talking to your flock here. You can save your rhetoric for those of your flock you intentionally think are dumb enough to agree.

I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.

If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)

It is working NOW...

Where? Name a place.

Another intentional insufficent quote. You are clearly intentionally lying and NOT merely playing dumb. HOW do you think you could possibly get me or others to EVER trust you when you behave like this? You are actually SELLING the 'socialist' cause by demonstrating why you cannot be trusted. You cannot even escape this by now declaring a lapse of stupidity down the road. [Good thing you are merely hiding behind anoymity here! ]

You defend a system that diminishes the means of government

It's the opposite. I defend a system that prevents government from becoming bloated, inefficient and then dictatorial.

You're too trusting of government, Scott. Governments are made of corruptible human beings; and the bigger they are, the more corrupt they get. That's how it goes every time.

If governments are untrusting, placing LESS people in control of it only enables those few to be able to successfully corrupt with better force. You seem to be implying that a mono-archy (dicatatorship) is better than one with many (a 'democracy') because more people managing the masses is 'bloated'. I'll accept 'bloat' over totalitarianism any day.

Capitalism is a system that permits unlimited means of power

No, it's not. It's an economic model, not a government model. And it's the only thing that saved Socialist China from economic collapse, actually.

...if you LEAVE out restricting rules against OWNERSHIP privileges, society would advance better.

Did you mean to say this, Scott? I think maybe you meant to assert the opposite. But it would be wrong either way.

I said it correct; you are likely interpreting it incorrectly. But what could your interpretation be? This says that government SHOULD make laws restricting 'ownership privileges'. There is no reason why Billionaires should exist. They are only able to do so by how they are able to get away with deceptive acts that have no laws that prevent such abuse.

"Consent of the governed."

Force is for Socialists and other kinds of Fascists. Democracy holds that the people are competent to decide their own governance, and to hold the governors accountable.

Is it 'consent' if only the wealthy...

That's not democracy. That's aristocracy.

How do you even think in principle that a government that eliminates means to police those who 'capitalize' on opportunistic behaviors is 'democratic'? Oh right,...the majority must be criminal!?

An 'aristocracy' DEMANDS economic freedom, not social freedom, because they 'own' the economy. The aristocracy is by default 'conservative' and are not socialists. A 'socialist' favors the masses. Why would they prefer to feed the poor or heal the sick free of charge via social welfare if they were so 'anti-democratic'?

China IS an example by contrast of a system that DOES demonstrate this as relatively sucessful.

It's only success came when it abandoned Socialist economics and went "Red Capitalist." That should tell you something.

I stand in the middle but lean to the left. All systems become abusive if they remain 'conserved' for any length of time. That is how a "Communist" labeled country like North Korea is able to become ANTI-Communist in practice! [Note the Koreans, North and South, throughout history are 'buffer' zones for China by Nationalists elsewhere and why China (and the West) left them both as is.]

The middle ground IS necessary and CHANGE (ie...progress) is required to KEEP governments from settling comfortably for too long. The left is in PRINCIPLE, "liberal" and "progressive" and why I lean my trust there regardless of the nature of 'evil' that exists in all people. All types of systems fail when they leave things the same because there is a tendency for the original 'parents' of the initial system to eventually pass on the system to their 'own' children who become spoiled brats who lack the same suffering conditions that their parent-class had reason to change in the first place. So the tendency to all systems when left alone become capitalist laissez faire style systems that turn the 'public servants' into 'public dictators'.

... John Locke showed ...(t)he protection of personal property is a primary right.

"Personal property" is also protected in the socialist environment.

You don't know what Socialism is, if you think that.

Your declared opinion does not matter. Socialism is only the INCLUSION of government roles that serve the needs of those who are unable to get a fair start. It attempts to draw a MINIMUM means to grant 'ownership' to those disenfrancized for not fault of their own. It doesn't require one be against 'private capital' to some degree.

I clearly laid out how the concept of 'ownership' is artificial...

Locke showed that it's not.

Stated by your opinion without establishing a proof. WHY do you think this? WHAT was his argument IN YOUR WORDS?

"Own" is the root of "ownership". How is it not true that the Earth is not rightfully ALL people's own? If anyone does not own this Earth in any part, are they aliens who 'float' upon this world unqualified to opine for not having the privilege to be FREE to do what they want for lacking a right to call it theirs too? "Ownership" is an artificial GOVERNMENT-backed formula that permits those who 'own' to have certain freedoms over and above others uniquely. It doesn't imply that it has to be 'absolute' as many are deluded into thinking because it is DEFINED by the system that granted them the protection to KEEP it in their power. It also doesn't care about which 'government' authority is opting to assign 'ownership'. So, when the Nazis took lands and property from the Jews, for instance, that system's government decreed what is permitted to be their 'own'. But just because the present system PERMITS this, it doesn't have any meaning without the means to ENFORCE those rights. That is, "ownership" is NOT intrinsically just because it depends on the system that allows that label to be applied, regardless of how potentially cruel or not.

...the capitalist believes in a 'right' to own BEYOND one's own person and their needs....

Wealth is created by labour, personal enterprise, personal risk, and ingenuity. Those are things the individual brings to the equation. Government, by contrast, produces no wealth.

Everybody has a right to be responsible to own and dispense whatever they have morally earned. Nobody has a right to a "free lunch," or to taking the fruits of other peoples' labour away by force...which is what Socialism entails.

The FIRST fact is that at some point, some human peed upon some land and said, this is MINE! It has no meaning if others could overpower that person's declaration. So the initial stage of ownership requires a 'claim' without justice other than that they were there first.

Also, you ignored the point I made about the Aboriginals. Their FIRST claims were ignored and proves that the inital means of 'ownership' is merely artificial. Many North American Aboriginals were TRANSIENT 'owners', meaning that they only had the belief in claiming 'ownership' as whichever place they were in. The conflict against them used this coincidental difference in civil-settlement evolution to actually STEAL their land by merely declaring 'ownership' to lands when the Natives were away. How is this not theft, for instance, given it intentionally EXPLOITED the difference in evolutionary stage, no different than stealing candy from a baby.

The second stage of 'ownership' is either due to TRADING that initial claim by monetizing it or passing it on (through inheritance claims). ONLY those who had NO initial ownership are required to LABOR. The labor is paid by their landowners though. So should they demand to be paid fair, the owner class uses their advantage of power as a force that 'enslaves' those without to work hard for the least expected income. If they challenged this, the owner just kicks them as they are down and 'hires' someone else who will accept the least energy as payment for the most energy in their favor.

Many CAN 'earn'. But most still come from the middle to upper classes by children of parents who owned. Those who lacked ownership, lacked anything to pass on to their children, AND raised their children in relatively SICK conditions that those from the middle-to-upper classes lack. So they are doubly penalized and require an impossible means to get ENTRY into the system other than by the very EXPLOITERS who manage to keep them from ESTABLISHING ground (something that takes a few generations of manageable survival and luck.) There is a 'ghetto' effect that taints those IN larger communities of impoverishment whereby their own kin of similar impoverishment act like birds that peck other chicks that have even the trivialist of wounds. This is the major reason for a NEED of some "socialism".

The alternative of 'conserving' power in the hands of those who have the wealth to maintain government controls, is for the masses to revolt in anger (and hunger). Try not feeding your pet dog regardless of how often it complains, and I assure you, it will go mad! Socialism helps to reduce this angst by providing AT LEAST something to enable those on the bottom to have a chance.

So, no, "socialism" is not the evil devious concept you assume it is. But when you KEEP them down for longer periods until they blow up, you are contributing to WHY many countries that have tried 'socialist' systems (including even the National Socialists where they existed from dire conditions) to BECOME the very threat you interpret them to be. You require permitting leniency to those who suffer as well as finding means to provide incentive rewards via some capitialist ideas.

Back to the 'fascist'/National-socialist forms, these come from the 'right' because they are the concentrated class of the poor of those who are also the privileged class. If the dominating present population of the wealth belongs to Japanese, say, then the poor Japanese on that side will be the ones who become more interested in 'fascism'. But the 'fascist' governments are created and endorced by the discriminating wealth of that class who would rather favor their own race/sex/class of poor rather than ALL the poor equally. This is why they are defined as "right" wing. They are formed and designed by those on the Right who utilize cultural purity as their reason for favoring 'capitalistic' ideals. They do NOT believe in UNIVERSAL social systems but rather PRIVATE select social systems. They favor their own 'pets' over the concern of the welfare of even other people, where 'pets' here, is a reference to their own racially related kin.

[henry quirk]

The Nazis were as interested in engineering a society as any other collection of Socialists.

Engineering a society is fundamentally what Socialism is about. Doesn't matter if it come from repubs or dems, conservs or progs, atheists or christians, capitalists or communists: if the idea is to direct people, it's Socialism.

[tillingborn]

I notice that Socialism is particularly promoted by the wealthy these days...

Do you really? Have you not noticed capitalism being promote by the wealthy? As someone with their finger on the pulse, can you tell us what the poor are promoting these days?

What about...?
In a pay system, you can get them tomorrow. You'll pay, of course, but you'll be out of pain. That's something. But in a socialized system, you're not even allowed to get these procedures until your place in line opens up. And that can be weeks, months or years. I know of many such cases.

You can go to Harley Street and you are allowed to get any procedure you wish right now, if you have the money. There are private companies like Bupa who will take your money to get you hospitalised tomorrow, and hand you over to the NHS the moment your premiums run out and you are no longer profitable.

...in order for the NHS to survive, it has to be sustainable in the face of an aging population and rampant immigration.

How do you suppose private medicine will survive in the face of such obstacles?

[Immanuel Can]

By leaving out the context, you intentionally fake my quote as asserting fascism is "left-of-center'.

I did not. I made no attempt to represent you as believing it. I only included it so you could remember what you were asking for proof of. And the proof, you have.

The Nazis are "National Socialists." Look it up: you'll see I'm correct.

PROVIDE your sources, please.

Seriously? Okay.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nazi-Party

You seem to be implying that a mono-archy (dicatatorship) is better than one with many (a 'democracy') .

Well, I never said any such thing, nor did I ever imply it. So I have no idea where you pulled this out of.

I'm advocating minimal, limited, democratic governance, with strictly fixed terms and powers, and a system of checks and balances to make sure it stays that way.

Capitalism is a system that permits unlimited means of power

No, it's not. It's an economic model, not a government model. And it's the only thing that saved Socialist China from economic collapse, actually.

...if you LEAVE out restricting rules against OWNERSHIP privileges, society would advance better.

Did you mean to say this, Scott? I think maybe you meant to assert the opposite. But it would be wrong either way.

I said it correct; you are likely interpreting it incorrectly. But what could your interpretation be? [/quote]
Read your own sentence carefully. It objects to "leaving out" rules "against ownership." That means you don't want there to be any rules against people owning things privately. So you'd be anti-Socialist, if you meant that.

Do you still want me to take you at your word?

There is no reason why Billionaires should exist.

Well, I'm not one, and I have no interest in whether or not they "exist," Scott. But why would you say that? After all, if a man made his billions by honest means -- like Bill Gates, say, inventing a computer system -- why would you say such a person has no right to exist?

A 'socialist' favors the masses.

Naive, Scott. You'll see that in no case in history has Socialism ended up "favouring the masses." It's always ended in dictatorship, financial ruin and murder.

"Personal property" is also protected in the socialist environment.

You don't know what Socialism is, if you think that.

Your declared opinion does not matter. [/quote]
It's not my opinion. It's a fact. Even Karl Marx won't agree with you. Socialism requires the destruction of all private property.

I clearly laid out how the concept of 'ownership' is artificial...

Locke showed that it's not.

Stated by your opinion without establishing a proof. WHY do you think this? WHAT was his argument IN YOUR WORDS?

Well, I'm not going to reiterate the whole thing here for you. But Locke pointed out three primary rights: "life, liberty and property." He grounded all three in God. And since Locke, there has been no other basis found in which to ground any rights at all.

Also, you ignored the point I made about the Aboriginals.

It was unimportant.

Whatever is true of Aboriginals is true of all humans. They have no special status in this, nor do we.

[Immanuel Can]

I notice that Socialism is particularly promoted by the wealthy these days...

Do you really? Have you not noticed capitalism being promote by the wealthy?

Both are. But right now, it's people like the millionaires of the Democratic Party and the billionaires of the Davos Group that are doing the major promoting of Socialism...and I do not see those guys giving their money away to the common good, do you?

...in order for the NHS to survive, it has to be sustainable in the face of an aging population and rampant immigration.

How do you suppose private medicine will survive in the face of such obstacles?

Longer than socialized medicine will. As long as there is an incentive in at least a reasonable profit, people will be there to provide it. When there is not, they move on and do other things.

[tillingborn]

However, all the Socialist countries have gotten it wrong, along with their penchant for dictatorship, the destruction of their economies and their abysmal record on human rights. So there can be no rationale even for considering attempting that massively-failed experiment again.

If satisfying everyone is the target, then every political system is a failure. The rationale underpinning democracy is that every individual should have a role in deciding their own future. If you accept that premise, then you have to accept choices you don't agree with. In the UK, the majority choose the BBC and NHS.

[Immanuel Can]

However, all the Socialist countries have gotten it wrong, along with their penchant for dictatorship, the destruction of their economies and their abysmal record on human rights. So there can be no rationale even for considering attempting that massively-failed experiment again.

If satisfying everyone is the target, then every political system is a failure.

It's not.

The target is not to give another chance to the most homicidal creed, statistically, in history, by orders of magnitude: over 100 million in the last century far, far more than any other cause.

[tillingborn]

I notice that Socialism is particularly promoted by the wealthy these days...

Do you really? Have you not noticed capitalism being promote by the wealthy?

Both are. But right now, it's people like the millionaires of the Democratic Party and the billionaires of the Davos Group that are doing the major promoting of Socialism...and I do not see those guys giving their money away to the common good, do you?

Do you see other millionaires and billionaires doing so?

...in order for the NHS to survive, it has to be sustainable in the face of an aging population and rampant immigration.

How do you suppose private medicine will survive in the face of such obstacles?

Longer than socialized medicine will. As long as there is an incentive in at least a reasonable profit, people will be there to provide it. When there is not, they move on and do other things.

What happens to people whose medical needs aren't profitable?

[tillingborn]

The target is not to give another chance to the most homicidal creed, statistically, in history, by orders of magnitude: over 100 million in the last century far, far more than any other cause.

The BBC and NHS haven't killed nearly that many. By popular demand, we choose to fund them.