the limits of fascism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the limits of fascism

Post by Advocate »

Every time a new child is born, the government must prove its entire legitimacy anew.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
Advocate
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=486556 time=1609094997 user_id=9431]
That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
[/quote]

The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10682
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:49 pm That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:49 pm That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
I agree to the concern Advocate raised and he is NOT asserting at the OP whether it is fair or not. It is a truism. That is, we are born into a world that 'rules of human conduct', regardless of who is 'governing' has an apriori power to impose without CONSENT.

The point is actually raised in most if not all political philosophies and most specifically UNIQUE to the anarchists, of which the fascist solution is to RESIST any 'formal' system that respects the people's vote on.

"Divine right" is meaningless except if it is reduced to meaning Nature, regardless of whether it includes gods or not. But even if so, why is it still NOT 'natural' to oppose "Divine right" unless your 'God' does NOT permit "free thought", a contradiction to the underlying process of "free will" that I'm sure your version of 'Christianity' actually supports.

IF we don't require 'government', we also don't require following the dictates of those who DECLARE 'ownership' by fiat or THEY ARE our 'government'. They might not call themselves that but still MEAN that. The difference is that those in power BECOME the 'government' BY MEANING. They would be 'dictators' BY MEANING because they'd have the only 'right' to DEFINE rules of conduct upon what they deem is their 'OWN'. I don't know why you think that a people's system should be abolished. Given you approve of SPECIAL status for those who 'own', then where the PEOPLE are without a system that THEY are permitted to create and run, that defines the intoleration of systems such as the fascists believe: ONLY a unique 'fasci' matters.

(A 'fascii" is a collection of people based upon familiar/family heritage/inheritance sometimes referred to as "tribalism". The National Socialists are a form of it that decrees some racially defined 'Native' as the ONLY people permitted 'ownership' and who are assured to BENEFIT socially through the system at the disinclusion of all others outside that class.

The reason this is a 'rightwing' ideology, btw, is because they BELIEVE in extreme private 'ownership' to a SELECT set of people in perpetuity in contrast to Communists who assert community ownership, something I noticed you don't notice from previous conversations with you.)
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Scott Mayers »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:44 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:49 pm That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10682
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:10 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:44 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:07 pm

The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.
well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Scott Mayers »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:21 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:10 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:44 am

current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.
well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it
That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:05 am (A 'fascii" is a collection of people based upon familiar/family heritage/inheritance)
Well, it can also be based on anything else, like the Roman Empire was, from which the term comes. The fascii is an old emblem for collectivism (hence the bundle of sticks bound together, as a "collective") which is the key dogma of Socialism and Communism. And this is why Mussolini started off in the Communist Party; it was a short leap from there to the fascists. They were the same type of person. All that happened there was Mussolini became more nationalistic, but he retained his old dogma of collectivism...his Socialist ideology, in other words.

Now, as for the Nazis, you are correct that they hated Communists. But the part both sides objected to in each other was nothing to do with Socialism, which they both held in common to be the correct economic arrangement. Rather, the Nazis were national Socialists, and the Communists were international Socialists. What they were fighting about, then, was not their Socialism, but the scope of the Socialism -- should it be a kind of Arayan Supremacy thing, or a "Soviet Union" led thing -- and which leader, Hitler or Stalin, should run the show when it was all over. But they were really the same type of person, with the same types of values, who did the same types of inhumane things, and subscribed to the same economic and ideological strategy -- to Socialism.

Both were on the Left, because both were devout Socialists. It was really the one thing on which they agreed. And that is why for every Socialist regime, you can also find a Stalin, or a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or a Castro, or a Maduro, or a Mugabe, or a Ceaucescu, or an Enver Hoxha, or a Tito, or a Pol Pot, or a Kim Jong...Socialism and dictatorship always end up in the same places.

You would think today's Socialists would be smarter than to reproduce a pattern that has been repeated every time Socialism was allowed to rule...but they're not. The next generation of dictators sure know what they stand to gain from Socialism; but the masses of Leftists just never seem to get a clue what they're setting themselves -- and everybody else -- up for.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Mon Dec 28, 2020 5:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:07 pm The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth.
That's a totalitarian description, as it stands. In any case, you ignored the fact that children existed when there were no governments.
At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
No, there is no such "agreement." Who are the two parties who "agree" to anything, and who says it "must be...accepted"? You can observe that there are plenty of governmental arrangements that do not ask for any "understanding" or "acceptance" from their people at all. Monarchy is one, or Dictatorship is another, and Communism (or Socialism) would be a third (or fourth). None of these governments gives one fig what the individual says he likes or does not like, or accepts or does not accept. They just impose themselves anyway, and if the individual says, "I don't understand" or "I don't accept," then they chop off his head, throw him in a gulag, or shoot him into a pit. And all of these claimed "legitimacy" based on principles other than "consent of the governed."

The idea of "consent of the governed" is actually entirely a fixture of modern democracy, not of other arrangements. It's so new it doesn't even exist before John Locke et al. Prior to that, even what were called "democracies" were a kind of rule by consensus of the landowner or citizen class, and did not include slaves, women, peasants, or other such disenfranchised groups.

A little basic knowledge of political history cures us of the delusion that the idea of a consensual "social contract" kind of deal is universal. It's not.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10682
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:40 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:21 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:10 am
True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.
well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it
That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.
oh, abuses happen...problem is we keep hirin' nutsacks to oversee nutsacks

try this instead...

the government of a minarchy has four parts:

*local, minimal, constabulary

*local, minimal, court of last resort

*a sensible, border-stationed military

*a militia

the militia is us, our job: to, minimally, tar & feather, or maximally, hang from lamp posts, anyone in the first three branches who oversteps...oversteppin' defined as any unjust violation of a citizen's life, liberty, or property

and, once a year, for no reason at all, the militia gets to shoot anyone in the first three branches, in the ass, with rock salt...just as a reminder to the lot, they are employees
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 5:12 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:05 am (A 'fascii" is a collection of people based upon familiar/family heritage/inheritance)
Well, it can also be based on anything else, like the Roman Empire was, from which the term comes. The fascii is an old emblem for collectivism (hence the bundle of sticks bound together, as a "collective") which is the key dogma of Socialism and Communism. And this is why Mussolini started off in the Communist Party; it was a short leap from there to the fascists. They were the same type of person. All that happened there was Mussolini became more nationalistic, but he retained his old dogma of collectivism...his Socialist ideology, in other words.

Now, as for the Nazis, you are correct that they hated Communists. But the part both sides objected to in each other was nothing to do with Socialism, which they both held in common to be the correct economic arrangement. Rather, the Nazis were national Socialists, and the Communists were international Socialists. What they were fighting about, then, was not their Socialism, but the scope of the Socialism -- should it be a kind of Arayan Supremacy thing, or a "Soviet Union" led thing -- and which leader, Hitler or Stalin, should run the show when it was all over. But they were really the same type of person, with the same types of values, who did the same types of inhumane things, and subscribed to the same economic and ideological strategy -- to Socialism.

Both were on the Left, because both were devout Socialists. It was really the one thing on which they agreed. And that is why for every Socialist regime, you can also find a Stalin, or a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or a Castro, or a Maduro, or a Mugabe, or a Ceaucescu, or an Enver Hoxha, or a Tito, or a Pol Pot, or a Kim Jong...Socialism and dictatorship always end up in the same places.

You would think today's Socialists would be smarter than to reproduce a pattern that has been repeated every time Socialism was allowed to rule...but they're not. The next generation of dictators sure know what they stand to gain from Socialism; but the masses of Leftists just never seem to get a clue what they're setting themselves -- and everybody else -- up for.
You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left as well as all to almost everything you claim here. What I think is needed to discuss with you are classification schemes on politics. What I think would help would be to first note that while the politics are often divided binary, the reality is that there are a lot of 'dimensions' that have to be noticed. The prime dimension of interest here that I think needs addressing is...

Ownership dimension
This is the first factor that all societies initially had to adapt to with consideration to settling down in ONE spot. The term, "ownership", was moot prior to this point because it is defaulted that one's OWN was limited to one's body, their life, and ONLY what they could literally keep BY FORCE. The 'family' was the tribe and all that was deemed one's OWN depended upon how that family lived and to the leading patriarchs/matriarchs of them. And to the tribe as a whole, the 'ownership' concept IF negotiated between other tribes (as a 'treaty'), was to hunting and gathering areas where one was literally AT THE MOMENT. The negotiations were only an option from warring and it helped to find agreement between them as wholes as to which tribal ownership was TRANSIENT. This also refers to the beliefs about one's own genetic roots (family) and so in today's terms, this would be identical to those who believe in PURITY of race and an extended 'trust' in others ONLY of thier own genetic-class (thier race). The 'collective' form of those on this scale is 'fascist' and refers to one's own genetic and cultural choice to associate ONLY with this limited form. It doesn't matter where this particular term originated given the meaning is what it refers to as a fact.

If you are a 'fascist', you believe in your family, an expectation to some 'culture' (like one's associated religion) and a coinciding belief about one's race whereby one demands their offspring to stay within this group (not be allowed to marry outside of this 'tribal' group.) [note that 'tribe' is not merely one's personal family nor necessarily the particular group you are living transient with but to one's extended family in all the groups. When tribal families attempt to appeal to the strength of them AS a collective, the bundle of sticks (the fasci) is universally common expression independent of where the tribes exist anywhere in all times. That is, the particular choice of the 'fasci' as a bundle of sticks metaphor for arguing why they should stick together in wars or conflicts, refers to the TRIBAL groups in all cultures around the world that does NOT refer to any 'whole' regarding things like Communism. The belief in one's OWN genetics and culture are the defining group, NOT ALL PEOPLE, even where a similar argument CAN be expressed of the whole logically if you treat human-kind versus all other animals as what matters. But the fascists and the associated 'nation' is their TRIBE, regardless of where they are at any moment. So, for instance, the Isreali Zionists as much as the German National Socialists, are both types of such fasci.

This is NOT to associate what BAD behaviors that specific historical governments but as an explanation of a type of POLITICAL view that is 'normal' to any animal. The only concern the world as a whole takes issue with this is due to their ISOLATION to their own with a 'civilized' counterproductive view because it threatens those OUTSIDE of these purists. This is NOT 'communism'.

"Communism" means that no person OWNS beyond what they NEED minimally, including the system formed by it as a 'community'. The MEANING comes from the initial formation of any settled society because it EXTENDED favor to other tribes. In other words, they are NOT 'racial purists' nor do they believe their children should require strict heritage. In PRACTICE, this too will have its abusers. But the concept, not this particular label, is also understood to be universally evolved in independence of others.
The abuses BEGIN when select subgroups formulate beliefs that align some 'culture' to one's 'genetics', as representative of many today who might believe that one 'sex' OWNS a universal set of behaviors. Today's left, thus, is not made up of ALL people who believe in the 'communist' concept, even in places like the U.S.S.R.. The problems begin when 'culture' laws are introduced REGARDLESS OF WHICH TYPE of government is CLAIMED to preside.

"Individual" OWNERSHIP is the default of each and every animal regardless of the above but the one major factor that contributes to ANY of the abuses of any of the collectives above. The problem with arguing for this is that it is NOT ABLE to formulate a system that contributes to the idea of CIVILIZATION. This can ONLY exist in isolating oneself like a hermit living in the deep forest who DOES in fact rely ONLY on their own. They would require building ALL their 'own' things from scratch to be sincerely 'indendent' individuals. If you are NOT a hermit, this argument cannot BE a system within a civil society because it is a default behavior of all individuals regardless of which political party you favor. It threatens civilization where it is NOT LIBERAL precisely because the only means to assure the individual has power would be to permit ANY behaviors that 'frees' oneself but at the EXPENSE of someone else's 'freedom'. "Liberal" means free, 'liberated', and has to have the caveate that one cannot be ABSOLUTELY FREE because of this factor.

The general classifications of 'ownership' then are "individual", "tribal", or "communal"* [I am avoiding the terms like 'fascist' or 'communists' at this summary because these are often only hints of someones' political party and labels may not correctly map to the MEANINGS involved. Also, one can CLAIM they are some party but act in practice as another.

These are the ONLY classifications of 'ownership' types. Only the "tribal" or "communal" types are relevant for civil governments. The dictators IN governments, like North Korea, have stepped BEYOND their initiating political classification. But the "tribal" forms are the next threatening because of their RESTRICTION to favor their own at the expense of all others.

So, just limiting it to the 'ownership' dimension, where do you stand?

Edit note for the "*" above: the classifications for "ownership" can logically be reduced to a belief in ownership is to ONE, SOME, or ALL. The 'ALL' is synonymous to 'none' where all is indifferent to meaning 'inifinite' ownership.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by gaffo »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 6:56 pm Every time a new child is born, the government must prove its entire legitimacy anew.
a legit government is a government that governs by the consent of the governed. any other form of gov is illegitimate.


as per the limits of Fascism

look to the ovens.

Fascism has no limits.

to the death of all is the final limit of fascism.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:44 am
Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:07 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 27, 2020 7:49 pm That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? :shock: Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?
The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.
current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
so you reject the us dec of independence - that a legit gov is one that rules by consent of the governed.


interesting.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:21 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:10 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:44 am

current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun
True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.
well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it
from me noting your posts = pro trump - i think you are more authoritarian than libertarian.


- you seem fine with a Trump centric gov.


Libertarian my ass.
Post Reply