Anti-Anti-Fascist = (EITHER) Pro-Fascist (OR) Pacifist

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Let's approach this with pure logic.

The term, Anti-Fascist does not specify what it is FOR, only what it is AGAINST.

The term, Anti-Fascist implicitly endorses any conceivable action (censorship/protest/violence) that impedes perceived Fascism.

(1) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against violence, then you are a PACIFIST.
(2) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against ALL censorship, then you are a HATE-SPEECH-ADVOCATE.
(3) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests then you are a FASCIST.

IF you call yourself an "Anti-Anti-Fascist" then you must specify which of these 3 options you are supporting.

And just a reminder,

FASCISM IS:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a (de facto) dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Source

This seems to accurately describe China and Turkey and Russia.

Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
#2
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
There are two problems that I can see with your logic.
1. Your premise assumes that the group claiming to be anti-fascist is, in fact, opposed to fascism. For example, the antifa groups in Portland, Oregon have been known to beat up journalists. Since silencing dissent with violence is one characteristic of fascism, it is safe to say that the Portland antifa has some fascist characteristics. Therefore, opposing the Portland antifa would be opposing fascism, since the group claiming to be anti-fascist is actually fascist (at least in some ways). However, if the group in question is, in fact, anti-fascist, your premise stands. The problem is that antifa in America has some fascist characteristics, so your logic cannot be used to defend them.

2. Your second axiom does not follow. Simply because someone opposes all censorship does not make them an advocate for hate speech. Such a person would necessarily have to defend people's right to say hateful things, but that does not necessarily mean that they defend those hateful things. For instance, I support people's right to say racial slurs; at the same time, I discourage them from using such slurs. This case illustrates the difference between legality and morality. I think it is legal to say racial slurs, but I do not think it is moral. The reason I defend people's right to say hateful things is not because I agree with them, but because I do not think the law can be used to enforce morality. Obviously, the law does need to enforce aspects of morality that, if ignored, would cause direct physical harm to themselves or others (for instance, do not murder, do not steal). On the flip side, the law should not enforce such things as do not use hate speech or do not use profanity because those things do not cause direct physical harm and they would be almost impossible to enforce.

I have two other objections to your post, but they are closer to technicalities. Axiom 3 does not follow because, while it is true that opposing public protests is a characteristic of fascism, having one characteristic of fascism does not make you a fascist. Thus, it would be better to say "then you are fascist in that respect." Since that would be rather clunky wording, I understand why you didn't use it.

My final objection is in the definition you provided for fascism. Your definition lists "a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls" as a characteristic of fascism. This is both contradictory and incorrect, although it isn't that far from the truth. It is contradictory because a capitalist economy is, in part, an economy that doesn't have stringent government controls. If an economy is capitalist, it doesn't have strict government controls; if it has strict government controls, it isn't capitalist. Instead, it is a mixed economy. The definition is incorrect because, historically, fascist countries like Italy and Germany nationalized major industries, which is a characteristic of socialism. However, their economies were mixed and not entirely socialist; still, they are closer to the socialist side than that definition would indicate.

I apologize if my post is excessively wordy, technical, and/or contrarian. Obviously, I am bad at writing concisely. As a final point, I noticed that your link goes to DuckDuckGo. Congratulations for using a superior search engine!
Topic's author
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
The problem is that antifa in America has some fascist characteristics, so your logic cannot be used to defend them.
Even the worst Anti-Fascist groups are not properly fascist, because they are not a formal government (please observe the definition of fascism), at best they might be considered "quasi-fascist".

Simply because someone opposes all censorship does not make them an advocate for hate speech.
(IFF) someone opposes all censorship (THEN) they are a de facto hate-speech-advocate.

I agree that one can support a principle without explicitly endorsing/defending the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles, however, if you support a principle, then you are IMPLICITLY ENDORSING/DEFENDING the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles.

For example, I may not believe that abortion is a good idea, and I may try to discourage people from having abortions and I may be personally averse to having an abortion myself, HOWEVER I defend people's right to make that personal decision for themselves on the PRINCIPLE of personal-PRIVACY.

(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.

...I do not think the law can be used to enforce morality. Obviously, the law does need to enforce aspects of morality...
The Law is codified mob-rule.  American law is based on British-Common-Law which is simply a loose collection of regional social norms that have been written down independently by local judges in villages, towns and cities.  I believe the law should be logically-coherent, but whether or not you think the law is (or should be) a "moral instrument" depends on whether or not you believe "social norms" are distinguishable from "morality".

...because those things do not cause direct physical harm...
Playing your dance music at high-volume in your back yard at 2am on a week night "does not cause direct physical harm" either.  I'm not sure that "direct physical harm" is a coherent standard.

...while it is true that opposing public protests is a characteristic of fascism, having one characteristic of fascism does not make you a fascist.
Great point!  What about,

(IFF) you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests (THEN) you are a de facto supporter of FASCIST tactics.

If an economy is capitalist, it doesn't have strict government controls...
Eh, not necessarily.  You might be conflating capitalism with "free-market-capitalism" or "laissez-faire-capitalism".

CAPITALISM:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.

The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital. [LINK]

And,

There are a lot of flavors of SOCIALISM:

By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned [worker-owned] enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system. [LINK]

Here's an example of an Employee-Owned (market-socialist) corporation, [PUBLIX]
#4
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
Even the worst Anti-Fascist groups are not properly fascist, because they are not a formal government (please observe the definition of fascism), at best they might be considered "quasi-fascist".
Firstly, you're confusing "fascist" with "fascism." It is possible to be a fascist without being a formal government. The dictionary.com definition of fascist is "a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism." It does not require them to be a government. Secondly, I did not say they were "properly fascist." I said "antifa in America has some fascist characteristics." I am aware that they are not full-blown fascists. That is why I said they "have some fascist characteristics" and not "they are fascists." Thirdly, even if they are merely "quasi-facist," that still undermines your argument because opposing antifa would be opposition to quasi-fascism rather than advocacy for fascism.

however, if you support a principle, then you are IMPLICITLY ENDORSING/DEFENDING the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles.
Again, you are confusing legality with morality. However, I do agree with you on a legal basis. Legally speaking, there is no difference between saying "X should be legal" and "X should not be illegal." From that perspective, you could say I am a hate speech advocate, even though I personally disapprove of hate speech and would call myself a free speech advocate. I object to the term hate-speech advocate because it is unclear. If you say "hate-speech advocate," people will think that person uses hate speech, even though that isn't true. Basically, what I'm saying is that your second axiom gives the impression that someone must be hateful in order to be anti-anti-fascist for the reason that they oppose all censorship, even though that isn't the case. 
(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.
I disagree, but that is another can of worms that is totally irrelevant. Secondly, "if" spelled IFF means "if and only if," and I don't think that's what you mean.
Playing your dance music at high-volume in your back yard at 2am on a week night "does not cause direct physical harm" either.  I'm not sure that "direct physical harm" is a coherent standard.
Actually, it does cause direct physical harm in the form of sleep deprivation. I am aware that direct physical harm isn't a completely coherent standard, but I didn't have time to work out a legal philosophy that I could boil down into a few sentences.
you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests (THEN) you are a de facto supporter of FASCIST tactics.
Agreed, and that is much better wording than what I thought up.
Eh, not necessarily.  You might be conflating capitalism with "free-market-capitalism" or "laissez-faire-capitalism".
Yes, when I say "capitalism," I am usually referring to a complete economic system that could be called "free-market-capitalism." Perhaps that isn't the most common definition, but even these definitions
  |
  |
 \/
CAPITALISM:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.


don't change the fact that fascist countries have nationalized major industries, which doesn't qualify as "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned" and therefore is not capitalist.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.


Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
I said "antifa in America has some fascist characteristics." I am aware that they are not full-blown fascists.
What fascist characteristics would those be?  Pro-censorship and pro-violence?  Let me know if I've missed one that you object to.

Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection.  Are you pro-unrestricted-free-speech (including hate-speech)?  Are you anti-violence (pacifist)?  Are you against all public protests (de facto supporter of fascist tactics)?

Again, you are confusing legality with morality. However, I do agree with you on a legal basis.
Morality is personal, subjective, experiential, and Qualitative.

Legality is (should be) impersonal, independently verifiable, logically coherent, and Quantitative.

If you object to anti-fascism for personal, subjective, experiential, and Qualitative reasons, please mention that.

To be clear, I prefer generally, to examine ideas in an impersonal, independently verifiable, logically coherent, and Quantitative framework.

I object to the term hate-speech advocate because it is unclear.
Certainly, I'm just trying to avoid the opposite ambiguity of the term "pro-free-speech" from which most people intuitively exclude "fighting-words" and "hate-speech" and "profanity" without any explanation whatsoever.  I'd probably say "pro-unrestricted-free-speech-including-hate-speech" if that sounds more acceptable to you.

(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.
I disagree, but that is another can of worms that is totally irrelevant.
Ok, it seems pretty straight-forward to me, but we can skip it for now if you'd like.

I am aware that direct physical harm isn't a completely coherent standard, but I didn't have time to work out a legal philosophy that I could boil down into a few sentences.
Perhaps, "individual sovereignty"?

Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream.  There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.

...fascist countries have nationalized major industries, which doesn't qualify as "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned" and therefore is not capitalist.
In the United States it is common for government entities to own stadiums and public utilities and even forests and other public lands that are leased to loggers and oil drillers and natural gas drillers and gravel haulers.  75% of Lockheed-Martin's funding comes directly from the government (making it a de facto government owned corporation).  Boeing is heavily subsidized.  The government picks winners and losers all day every day.

Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream.  There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.

“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners ”were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.” [LINK]

The same thing is happening right now in the United States.  There is no free-market.  For example, exhibit A: [LINK]

I appreciate your scathing critique.
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Here's another conversation on the same topic, [LINK]
#7
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
What fascist characteristics would those be?  Pro-censorship and pro-violence?  Let me know if I've missed one that you object to.
Yes, those are the fascist characteristics I am referring to. There may be others, but I don't need them to demonstrate my point, so I'm too lazy to think of what those might be.
Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection. 
How about the objection of being opposed to fascism, whether regular or quasi?
Are you pro-unrestricted-free-speech (including hate-speech)?  Are you anti-violence (pacifist)?  Are you against all public protests (de facto supporter of fascist tactics)?
It is possible to be anti-violence without being pacifistic. For instance, it is possible to oppose aggressive violence (beating journalists, wars of conquest) without opposing defensive violence (self-defense against criminals or resisting invasion), whereas a pacifist would oppose both aggressive and defensive violence. Perhaps a better term would be anti-unjustified-aggressive-violence. It is possible to object to antifa without having to pick one of those three by being anti-aggression. In my case, I would be anti-aggression and pro-unrestricted-free-speech, so I would fit into one of your categories. However, someone who was only anti-aggression or anti-wearing-ski-masks-when-you-aren't-skiing, to use a silly example, would not fit into any of your categories.
Perhaps, "individual sovereignty"?
Perhaps.
Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream.  There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.
I'm not going down that rabbit hole.
I appreciate your scathing critique.
I'm not sure whether to be glad that you appreciated it, offended that you called it scathing when it wasn't meant to be, or annoyed at myself for coming off as scathing even though I'm trying to be civil. Whatever the case, thank you for being both civil and reasonable.

Topic's author
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection. 
How about the objection of being opposed to fascism, whether regular or quasi?
That's an interesting question.

What's wrong with fascism anyway?
#9
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's an interesting question.

What's wrong with fascism anyway?
Are you serious, or am I missing a joke somewhere?


Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Are you serious, or am I missing a joke somewhere?
I'm serious.  Please explain what you think is wrong with fascism.
#11
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
It suppresses dissent with violence. It denies people rights such as the rights to bear arms and have free speech and press. It fosters xenophobia and racism that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It promotes extreme nationalism that led to wars of conquest, ultimately killing tens of millions in the European front of WWII. It is frequently centered around personality cults that exalt dictators, which we saw with Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Its economic policies are unsustainable and would have lead to recession without the war. It is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. The secret police assassinate or imprison those who disagree. Fascist governments rely on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.

Shall I go on, or is that enough?
Topic's author
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
It suppresses dissent with violence. It denies people rights such as the rights to bear arms and have free speech and press. It fosters xenophobia and racism that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It promotes extreme nationalism that led to wars of conquest, ultimately killing tens of millions in the European front of WWII. It is frequently centered around personality cults that exalt dictators, which we saw with Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Its economic policies are unsustainable and would have lead to recession without the war. It is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. The secret police assassinate or imprison those who disagree. Fascist governments rely on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.

Shall I go on, or is that enough?
Everything you've mentioned is bad-fascism, like having a bad king.

What about good-fascism, like having a benevolent king.

For example,

The Catholic Church has no tolerance for criticism (blasphemy).  The Catholic Church fostered xenophobia and racism (antisemitism) that lead to the Holocaust in WWII.  It is centered around a cult-of-personality (The Holy Pope).  The Catholic Church is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent.  Historically, The Catholic Church has imprisoned and burned-at-the-stake anyone who dares to disagree.  The Catholic Church relies on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.

But they're the "good guys" so, doesn't that make it ok?
#13
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything you've mentioned is bad-fascism, like having a bad king.

What about good-fascism, like having a benevolent king.

For example,

The Catholic Church has no tolerance for criticism (blasphemy).  The Catholic Church fostered xenophobia and racism (antisemitism) that lead to the Holocaust in WWII.  It is centered around a cult-of-personality (The Holy Pope).  The Catholic Church is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent.  Historically, The Catholic Church has imprisoned and burned-at-the-stake anyone who dares to disagree.  The Catholic Church relies on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.

But they're the "good guys" so, doesn't that make it ok?
Firstly, the Catholic church doesn't rig its elections (although it does restrict voting to cardinals), and it isn't a government. Secondly, why did you assume that I think the Catholics are the "good guys?" I'm not Catholic and I never said I was. When the Catholics do things like burn people at the stake or use false propaganda, I don't approve. The only way you could have "good fascism" is if you have an immortal, omnibenevolent king. If the king isn't immortal, then he will die, and his heirs will institute "bad fascism." If the king isn't omnibenevolent, then he will still end up abusing his power.

Why are you suddenly defending fascism? I had thought by your first post that you opposed fascism. Is this meant to be a thought experiment or something like that?


Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Eh, I'm not defending fascism, I'm questioning it.

Isn't it a little strange that we love to blather on and on about "democracy" and how great it is, but our literature, especially for children (inculcation), is riddled with Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses?

Isn't it a little strange that we're born into families that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we idolize the military which is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we work for businesses that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we're taught to obey a god that is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
#15
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't it a little strange that we love to blather on and on about "democracy" and how great it is, but our literature, especially for children (inculcation), is riddled with Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses?
That's due to nostalgia, rose-colored glasses, and the fact that it makes next to no sense to have the main character swing a sword and then go to a voting booth. In order to do medieval fantasy, you need to at least be realistic enough to have a monarchy rather than interjecting republics where they didn't exist.
Isn't it a little strange that we're born into families that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we idolize the military which is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we work for businesses that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?

Isn't it a little strange that we're taught to obey a god that is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Rather than deal with these one at a time, I will answer what I think is the more important point. Simply put, democracy works well as a form of government. That does not mean it works well for other things. A democratic family, for instance, would be foolish because the children have undeveloped brains and a lack of experience which would lead them to make bad decisions like not going to school. A democratic military would be a complete disaster. You can look into the abysmal performance of militia in the War of 1812 to see what I mean. Democracy is a good form of government because it reflects what the people want. While that isn't a very good measure of what they actually need, it is far better than other options like fascism, in which the government is built around what the dictator wants, which is an even worse measure of what the people need.


Topic's author
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's due to nostalgia, rose-colored glasses, and the fact that it makes next to no sense to have the main character swing a sword and then go to a voting booth. In order to do medieval fantasy, you need to at least be realistic enough to have a monarchy rather than interjecting republics where they didn't exist.
Oh, you mean like the republics in Ancient Greece?

And dragons?

Are dragons more realistic than representative democracy?

A democratic family, for instance, would be foolish because the children have undeveloped brains and a lack of experience which would lead them to make bad decisions like not going to school.
But don't you think children should have some input into the decision making process?

I mean, should you force kids to eat broccoli (for example) if they're perfectly willing to eat peas instead?

And I almost forgot, do you believe "going to school" is really the best use of their time?
#17
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh, you mean like the republics in Ancient Greece?
The interesting thing about the republics in ancient Greece was that they were in ancient Greece, not medieval. In any case, monarchies were the norm, even though there were exceptions.
And dragons?

Are dragons more realistic than representative democracy?
There is a difference between making up dragons, which don't exist, and inserting representative democracy, which do exist, but in the wrong time period. It would be like giving King Henry VIII a cell phone. It isn't that it can't be done, but it makes it feel like the wrong time period.
But don't you think children should have some input into the decision making process?

I mean, should you force kids to eat broccoli (for example) if they're perfectly willing to eat peas instead?
Yes, they can have some input. It's more important decisions like "Should Daddy work or stay home and play with us all day?" that they shouldn't be making.
And I almost forgot, do you believe "going to school" is really the best use of their time?
Not necessarily, but an education, whether going to a public or private school, homeschooling, or even hiring a tutor, is very beneficial in the long run. Many jobs, including most of the high-paying jobs, require some kind of education. I don't believe the American education system is anywhere near perfect, but it is still better than no education at all.


Topic's author
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
It would be like giving King Henry VIII a cell phone.
If cell phones were used in ancient Greece (500 BCE).

Yes, they can have some input. It's more important decisions like "Should Daddy work or stay home and play with us all day?" that they shouldn't be making.
Interestingly, that's one of the arguments against democracy.  (IFF) you believe people are idiots (THEN) democracy seems like a bad idea.

Not necessarily, but an education, whether going to a public or private school, homeschooling, or even hiring a tutor, is very beneficial in the long run.
Perhaps, but the greatest businessmen of the 20th century, like J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt all began working full-time at age 11 and never went to college.  Thomas Edison was taught reading and basic arithmetic by his mother and only attended school for three months as a young child.  And more recently, high-school drop-outs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson among others, seem to be doing ok for themselves. [LINK] and [LINK]
#19
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If cell phones were used in ancient Greece (500 BCE).
It was just the first example that came to mind. I know it isn't a perfect example, but democracy is considered more of a modern thing. Ancient and medieval democracies were the exceptions, not the rule.
Interestingly, that's one of the arguments against democracy.  (IFF) you believe people are idiots (THEN) democracy seems like a bad idea.
Voters in a democracy are not children, so it doesn't apply. I'm aware that there are superficial similarities, but they are different in substance.
Perhaps, but the greatest businessmen of the 20th century, like J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt all began working full-time at age 11 and never went to college.  Thomas Edison was taught reading and basic arithmetic by his mother and only attended school for three months as a young child.  And more recently, high-school drop-outs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson among others, seem to be doing ok for themselves. [LINK] and [LINK]
Those are exceptions, not the rule.

We are really off topic. I'm not sure that have any disagreements about the topic left.
Topic's author
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
We are really off topic. I'm not sure that have any disagreements about the topic left.
I'm just sayin'...

If you're against fascism, you're probably against autocracy, and we're practically swimming in autocracy, so there's no shortage of targets.
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
A democratic military would be a complete disaster.
So, does this mean you believe that a quasi-fascist autocracy is a GOOD THING in a military (and perhaps corporate) context?
#22
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So, does this mean you believe that a quasi-fascist autocracy is a GOOD THING in a military (and perhaps corporate) context?
In a military context, yes. In a corporate context, sometimes. A lot of different business models have been tried. Some work better than others, and some work only in certain situations. Autocratic corporations do work, but they can't be completely dictatorial. They do need to listen to their employees and treat them well. Otherwise, no one will be willing to work for them. The reason autocratic corporations work is that, because they are not governments, they are incapable of being completely dictatorial. If they are, they will eventually go out of business.
Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
Do you think it would be fair to say you are a conditional pro-quasi-fascist and a conditional anti-quasi-fascist?
#24
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think it would be fair to say you are a conditional pro-quasi-fascist and a conditional anti-quasi-fascist?
When it comes to government, no. When it comes to things other than government, that could be a good description. How about yourself? Are you always opposed to autocracy, or do you think it can be good in some contexts?


#25
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course, in common language, I think both of us are opposed to fascism and autocracy because those are normally understood in relation to government.
Topic's author
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
How about yourself? Are you always opposed to autocracy, or do you think it can be good in some contexts?
I generally oppose (I am averse to/suspicious of) authoritarian, hierarchical, centralized, opaque (occult), proprietary (fascist and or quasi-fascist) systems.

I am NOT in favor of opposing fascist and or quasi-fascist systems "by-any-means-necessary".

I would encourage people to work for/patronize employee-owned companies if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to use/write/contribute to open-source software/projects if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to enjoy public-domain books and movies and shows if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to use decentralized currency if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to move their fiat currency into local credit-unions if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to patronize individual artists/sole-proprietorships (non-corporate-entities) if that option is practical for them.

I would encourage people to buy used products and support legislation that protects an individual's right to re-sell what they buy.

I believe the best form of "protest" is to vote-with-your-dollars by supporting artists and institutions that you agree with ideologically.
#27
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's interesting. I don't go as far as that , but you seem very consistent in your actions and beliefs. It was great talking to you and learning about your ideaa.

82 days later

Topic's author
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@SirAnonymous
I appreciate your incisive questions and civil tone.
#29
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you for the same.