Democracy vs. Fascism

[God Kefka]

1. This is true but misleading. Some people are less incompetent than others, some people are more than competent. It's one thing to say that but this should not stop us from seeking out the truly exceptional people and pay attention to their views over that of the largely mediocre and incompetent majority.

2. Hitler brought the German economy out of the Great Depression and his economic policies brought the German economy up. He lost the war but had he won it Germany would have been invincible. Plus you have to consider how long he managed to hold out against such powerful countries as the USA (world's wealthiest country), British Empire (world's largest empire by landmass), and the Soviet Union (largest army).

The fact that Hitler's forces fought to the very very end and the fact that he's succeeded in keeping the German people largely unified and patriotic throughout the war shows the power of fascist nationalism at uniting and inspiring the people to do the extraordinary.

3. Yes but right now we have a system where the majority, who as I have said are stupid, incompetent or mediocre... HAVE absolute power. And the leaders they elect are corrupt and stupid as hell...

If we change the rules of the game and turn it into a meritocracy, power does not have to corrupt.

1. Doesn't take genius to figure out that the select few generally never have anything more then their own interests at mind.With elected politicians it's just that they hold the same interest as the people who voted for them, where as in fascism those in charge tend to act only on their personal interest, regardless if it's good or bad for the rest of the country.

2. By completely moving the nation towards wartime preparations, taking credit for previous chancellors reforms, or simply overworking the German population.Not to mention you seem to be forgetting Germany owes it's early success to having skilled veteran generals left over from WW1. Most of whom outright though Hitler was either insane, a poor leader, or a bloodily madman determined to run Germany into the ground.

3. So both Hitler and Stalin where bastard sons of an abusive father and estranged mothers who climbed their way into being rulers of Germany and the USSR respectively, that doesn't by any means make them any more fit for the jobs.VS Roosevelt and Churchill whom where elected into their positions and brought more prosperity to their countries then either Stalin or Hitler ever did.

1. It does take a genius to figure it out it seems... this is why we are still living in democracies with elected reps chosen by the mediocre and the weak. If we did figure this out, the logical conclusion would be to work really hard to find those incorruptible, strong, smart, and righteous people to lead us all.

2. So you don't dispute the fact that Hitler DID pull the German economy out of a black hole?

3.Hitler didn't finish setting up his fascist regime. There was no system of succession in place so I don't see what this proves

[Liberated Freedomstan]

1. Doesn't take genius to figure out that the select few generally never have anything more then their own interests at mind.With elected politicians it's just that they hold the same interest as the people who voted for them, where as in fascism those in charge tend to act only on their personal interest, regardless if it's good or bad for the rest of the country.

2. By completely moving the nation towards wartime preparations, taking credit for previous chancellors reforms, or simply overworking the German population.Not to mention you seem to be forgetting Germany owes it's early success to having skilled veteran generals left over from WW1. Most of whom outright though Hitler was either insane, a poor leader, or a bloodily madman determined to run Germany into the ground.

3. So both Hitler and Stalin where bastard sons of an abusive father and estranged mothers who climbed their way into being rulers of Germany and the USSR respectively, that doesn't by any means make them any more fit for the jobs.VS Roosevelt and Churchill whom where elected into their positions and brought more prosperity to their countries then either Stalin or Hitler ever did.

1. It does take a genius to figure it out it seems... this is why we are still living in democracies with elected reps chosen by the mediocre and the weak. If we did figure this out, the logical conclusion would be to work really hard to find those incorruptible, strong, smart, and righteous people to lead us all.

2. So you don't dispute the fact that Hitler DID pull the German economy out of a black hole?

3.Hitler didn't finish setting up his fascist regime. There was no system of succession in place so I don't see what this proves

1. The logical decision would be to find an incorruptible, intelligent, righteous leader, it's true. Not everyone has the same definition for these terms, and more importantly, no fascist dictators- ever!- were either incorruptible or righteous, and I'd say a large fraction of them weren't intelligent.

2. He's pointing out the fact that Hitler took credit for other people's work.

3. The point is, that Hitler failed to bring his people prosperity, he failed to bring his people peace, he failed to bring his people anything; at the end of his idiocratic rule Germany had been bombed back to square zero, the people of most of Europe were starving, and they hadn't even won the war! Stalin, even with winning the war, as an absolute dictator (despite your probable protests that he's a 'communist,' his rule was very similar to fascism.) and failed to bring his people the same level of prosperity as elected officials in the West. This is because elected officials, beholden to the people, have an interest in doing what is best for their electors, which most of the time is the same as what is best for the country as a whole, while dictators do what they want at a whim and kill anyone who either protests or points out that it's a stupid idea.

[Stovokor]

Also lets not forget that this apparently all perfect being that Kefka seems to be thinking of will not live forever and there's nothing to say that his/her offspring will be just perfect.

Read Max Weber's work on Charismatic Authority, here's a wiki article to get you started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority

I have a book containing some of his work and his major critique against charismatic authority and though Weber recognizes it as an essential to leadership, he also understands that power invested in one person is at best inherently unstable and a non permanent entity, despite any means to set up a line of "succession."

[God Kefka]

Also lets not forget that this apparently all perfect being that Kefka seems to be thinking of will not live forever and there's nothing to say that his/her offspring will be just perfect.

Read Max Weber's work on Charismatic Authority, here's a wiki article to get you started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority

I have a book containing some of his work and his major critique against charismatic authority and though Weber recognizes it as an essential to leadership, he also understands that power invested in one person is at best inherently unstable and a non permanent entity, despite any means to set up a line of "succession."

He won't be constrained by the weak/mediocre majority and will be at greater freedom to continue to lead the people on the path towards glory. Because any who oppose him will be crushed.

[Distruzio]

The leader of a fascist nation attempts to mirror the monarch in substance but, instead, mocks it. Where a monarch is the father of his population, the dictator is the brother. He leads where a father rules. This is a shadow in substance of monarchic autocracy.

Diz, I know this is slightly OT, but you are a monarchist correct? Because you seem hypocritical concerning your political philosophy.

Take the quote in your sig. "Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

Do you not realize that monarchy is the pathetic belief in the effective governance of individual ignorance?

Well, I'm only a monarchist where anarchism is not preferred by the population or, by extension, the individual.

I do realize this. The difference is that my philosophy (and the philosophy of monarchism itself) does not, actually, consider effective government as an ideal to strive for. In order to uphold the absolute political ideal of liberty the government must be, above all else, moral. All government that is not anarchist in nature is ineffective to some degree (and according to certain individuals over which it rules). So, in order to desire an effective government we must define both effectiveness and discern how a government representing the society over which it rules can apply that. Monarchism renders this need irrelevant.

In other words, it isn't a governments effectiveness that I worry about. It's the morality of the nature of government that concerns me.

An individual monarch may, indeed, be relatively immoral - it's true. However, that does not discredit the substance of the structure of government which enables his rule - only his rule. A democratic government, by contrast, may indeed be relatively immoral. But the structure of democratic governance is, itself, discredited by the substance of democracy. How so? Because democracy presumes that society is, in reality, the government. Therefore, if a particular democratic government is immoral - the society it rules over is as well. This includes the minority suppressed as they uphold the structure of democratic governance.

Make sense?

[Distruzio]

The leader of a fascist nation attempts to mirror the monarch in substance but, instead, mocks it. Where a monarch is the father of his population, the dictator is the brother. He leads where a father rules. This is a shadow in substance of monarchic autocracy.

How is the monarch the father of the population? He only rules because his mommy and daddy are super rich and their ancestors kicked the crap out of other people and declared themselves kings and queens.

The reason he rules is irrelevant to the question you ask. The term "father" is a title of honor bestowed upon the monarch as a recognition of his unique position in the national consciousness. A monarch is the father of the nation because is the personification of the nation. He is the living breathing expression of everything that concerns national identity and unity. Therefore, since he is the identity of the nation (by inheriting the traditions and culture of the past), it is his name the nation honors - or takes. Just as you take your fathers name - honor him and the family line that precedes you (your culture and tradition).

This is no different than Americans claiming that the generation of men who fought for independence (secession) from Great Britain and crafted the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as the "Founding Fathers."

[Distruzio]

The leader of a fascist nation attempts to mirror the monarch in substance but, instead, mocks it. Where a monarch is the father of his population, the dictator is the brother. He leads where a father rules. This is a shadow in substance of monarchic autocracy.

Why does a monarch deserve to pass on his rule, even if he was a good leader, to his offspring? The hereditary principle only leads to stagnancy.

That is his right by birth.

Just as you have a right, by birth, to be recognized as an individual of certain qualities (possessed of certain rights). Among the rights of the monarch is the right of hereditary deference and privilege.

[Distruzio]

For the same reason a person deserves to pass on his assets (money, property, investments, etc.) to his or her offspring.

A kingdom is a monarch's assets, and he (or she) should pass this on to his (or her) children.

And what if the successor is unfit to lead?

By who's determination?

[Ljvonia]

And what if the successor is unfit to lead?

By who's determination?

Could he have reached his position were he not born to it? Then he does not deserve it. You cannot inherit merit or capability (and coincidentally I am in favour of the state confiscating any assets a corpse left behind, redistributing them for the good of the whole Nation.).

[Sottalieu]

What about democracy and fascism? Which side of each are we going to compare and contrast?

A democracy is a perverted form of government (refer to plato's classification of governments) wherein the main governing body is led on by the masses whereas fascism is an ideology wherein society sets standards.

[Prizea]

By who's determination?

Could he have reached his position were he not born to it? Then he does not deserve it. You cannot inherit merit or capability (and coincidentally I am in favour of the state confiscating any assets a corpse left behind, redistributing them for the good of the whole Nation.).

You can inherit intelligence. And capability can be taught.

[Distruzio]

By who's determination?

Could he have reached his position were he not born to it? Then he does not deserve it. You cannot inherit merit or capability (and coincidentally I am in favour of the state confiscating any assets a corpse left behind, redistributing them for the good of the whole Nation.).

By what merit is your life valuable? What compels me to respect your existence (your expression, your thought, your bodily integrity) beyond your birthright?

Do you see where I am going with this?

If the monarch maintains no legitimacy because his right to rule is dismissed forthwith in favor of a merit-based qualification, then can we assume the same dismissal applies to every right, to every person, at all times?

What have you done to earn the right to free expression or, even, your right to life?

[Prizea]

What about democracy and fascism? Which side of each are we going to compare and contrast?

A democracy is a perverted form of government (refer to plato's classification of governments) wherein the main governing body is led on by the masses whereas fascism is an ideology wherein society sets standards.

I would say that Fascism is Tyranny. Which Plato says is the worst of the five regimes.

[Distruzio]

What about democracy and fascism? Which side of each are we going to compare and contrast?

A democracy is a perverted form of government (refer to plato's classification of governments) wherein the main governing body is led on by the masses whereas fascism is an ideology wherein society sets standards.

I would say that Fascism is Tyranny. Which Plato says is the worst of the five regimes.

To be fair, though, any and all government is inherently authoritarian. Any and all can fall into tyranny.

[Ljvonia]

Could he have reached his position were he not born to it? Then he does not deserve it. You cannot inherit merit or capability (and coincidentally I am in favour of the state confiscating any assets a corpse left behind, redistributing them for the good of the whole Nation.).

You can inherit intelligence. And capability can be taught.

So... let's say the "rightful heir" has intelligence and was tutored extensively due to his status. What qualifies him above a normal citizen with the same? He would still rule only by the virtue of birth, of coincidence, and as well if he lacks spirit and intelligence no amount of tutoring will help him to surpass said citizen. No, birth alone is no virtue, you cannot inherit merit.

[Prizea]

I would say that Fascism is Tyranny. Which Plato says is the worst of the five regimes.

To be fair, though, any and all government is inherently authoritarian. Any and all can fall into tyranny.

Yes, eventually. But democracy takes longer to fall than fascism, which is already there.

[Uniao Nacional]

Stop that.

How?

Well, lets see here...
1. Franco managed to keep his country out of WWII despite extreme pressure from all sides
2. Franco increased Spain's economic productivity after a particularly destructive civil war
3. Ensured a peaceful transition of power after his death
4. He revived Spanish nationalism
5. Encouraged Spanish unity
6. Established structures to feed people after the Spanish Civil War
7. Enabled Spain's survival as an independent force without communist or capitalist influence
8. Started the Spanish Miracle which is described as the following: "the time of the greatest sustained economic development and general improvement in living standards in all of Spanish history."

Now compare that to neighboring Portugal, who also stayed neutral during WWII. To me Franco seemed like an alright guy!


http://www.spain-barcelona.com/general/ ... franco.htm
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/spanishcase/francisco_franco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Miracle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_ ... e-Payne2-8

1- It was Franco who wanted to fight with Hitler against Bolshevism if Hitler given to Him territory at the Hendaya Discussions where Franco was piss off because he couldn't get what he want and Hitler said he prefer to go to Dentist instead of talking more with Franco .
Salazar played a major role on this situation because he manage to keep Germans and UK away from Iberian Peninsula and played with both sides .

2 - You know nothing about Portugal so please abstain comment because it was under Salazar Rule that our Country had the biggest economic Growth , low debt , controlled Public Deficit, Growths over 5% year, Low crime Rates, low unemployment .

[Distruzio]

To be fair, though, any and all government is inherently authoritarian. Any and all can fall into tyranny.

Yes, eventually. But democracy takes longer to fall than fascism, which is already there.

On the contrary, democracy is the quickest to fall. Recall the sentiments of the founding fathers of America - democracy was viewed with contempt as it had, in all previous attempts, led to a tyranny within generations. In America, this tyranny manifests itself routinely in waves - against the slaves, the native tribes, the foreigners, women, ethnic minorities, philosophical outliers, the poor, and religion. These waves grow more frequent and variable as democracy in America gains ground. It is still much too republic oriented to truly be considered a democratic nation but.... it's getting there.

[Ljvonia]

Could he have reached his position were he not born to it? Then he does not deserve it. You cannot inherit merit or capability (and coincidentally I am in favour of the state confiscating any assets a corpse left behind, redistributing them for the good of the whole Nation.).

By what merit is your life valuable? What compels me to respect your existence (your expression, your thought, your bodily integrity) beyond your birthright?

By its potential an undeveloped life is valuable. What I make of that defines me, my will is my only limit. I myself will compel you to respect me.

If the monarch maintains no legitimacy because his right to rule is dismissed forthwith in favor of a merit-based qualification, then can we assume the same dismissal applies to every right, to every person, at all times?

Infancy, the stage of development, of potentials, makes everybody equal. What however we make of it after that is ours. By what right does the child of a monarch not have to conquer life like we do?

What have you done to earn the right to free expression or, even, your right to life?

I have the right to free expression because I am willing to bear the consequences of what I say and am willing to fight any who deny me.
I have the right to life until I die because I will only die when I cannot fight anymore.

The simple, short reason is: because of my willingness to act in accordance with it. "Rights" are not absolutes.

[Zathganastan]

1. It does take a genius to figure it out it seems... this is why we are still living in democracies with elected reps chosen by the mediocre and the weak. If we did figure this out, the logical conclusion would be to work really hard to find those incorruptible, strong, smart, and righteous people to lead us all.

2. So you don't dispute the fact that Hitler DID pull the German economy out of a black hole?

3.Hitler didn't finish setting up his fascist regime. There was no system of succession in place so I don't see what this proves

1. we still live in a democracy because unlike you most people can easily see which is the better system, at current democratic countries are the most economically, militarily, and political influential countries on the planet.Where as there aren't even any remaining fascist countries left to compare them to.

2. No I don't dispute that he took credit for others work while his own lead down the road to Germany's destruction.

3. Because he was to busy fighting the war he instigated, then expanded by launching an assault on the neutral USSR.Fascism doesn't work and WW2 shows that rather well.

[Distruzio]

By what merit is your life valuable? What compels me to respect your existence (your expression, your thought, your bodily integrity) beyond your birthright?

By its potential an undeveloped life is valuable.

Could we not use the potentiality of the value or merit of a monarch as a similar quantifier?


The following two comments are directly contradictory.

What I make of that defines me, my will is my only limit. I myself will compel you to respect me.

Infancy, the stage of development, of potentials, makes everybody equal. What however we make of it after that is ours.

Therefore, the two neutralize one another and render the responses valueless. How can we all be equal (by merit of potentiality) and yet be subject to individual compulsion?

By what right does the child of a monarch not have to conquer life like we do?

How does the child not "conquer life like we do?"

What have you done to earn the right to free expression or, even, your right to life?

I have the right to free expression because I am willing to bear the consequences of what I say and am willing to fight any who deny me.
I have the right to life until I die because I will only die when I cannot fight anymore.

The simple, short reason is: because of my willingness to act in accordance with it. "Rights" are not absolutes.

That isn't an answer. I figured that you'd argue for potential actions. Therefore, you aren't actually concerned with the merited value of a person. You're interested in the devaluation of a person - of a monarch. You haven't actually done anything to merit the rights you assert especiallyif you question them as absolute in nature. Therefore, I must deduce that rights must be earned - they cannot be given. Therefore, I must deduce that you currently have no right to speak nor to live. And, that being the case, I must ask by what milestones are we to gauge this merited bestowing of rights?

Are they granted upon saving a life? If so then I have those rights - I'm an emergency responder.
Are they granted upon completion of certain education goals? If so then I have those rights - I've finished my schooling long ago.
Are they granted upon parenthood? If so then I have those rights - I've a 5yr old son.
Are they granted upon political activism? If so then I have those rights - I've been elected to minor (very minor) political office before.

Have you done these things?

And what of a monarch? His avoidance of wars and favoring of social welfare will, no doubt, save millions of lives. His child will be raised with the finest education he can afford just as he himself was. His child will need to have a child of their own, in order to perpetuate the line - just as he did. He is a monarch - his political activism cannot be questioned - by birthright.

And if we add your earlier qualifier of "potentiality" then we must assume that the "potential" for the monarch to meet these arbitrary goals exists and is just as valid as your "potential."

Therefore, what you are really arguing for is not a merited society but a discredited one. If you're going to critique monarchism, then you'll have to find another route.

[Ljvonia]

By its potential an undeveloped life is valuable.

Could we not use the potentiality of the value or merit of a monarch as a similar quantifier?

No, for his starting point is privileged

The following two comments are directly contradictory.

What I make of that defines me, my will is my only limit. I myself will compel you to respect me.

Infancy, the stage of development, of potentials, makes everybody equal. What however we make of it after that is ours.

Therefore, the two neutralize one another and render the responses valueless. How can we all be equal (by merit of potentiality) and yet be subject to individual compulsion?

Simple. Your responsibility is to do what you can, to do your utmost. That in the case of children is the same for every child and develops from there.

By what right does the child of a monarch not have to conquer life like we do?

How does the child not "conquer life like we do?"

A monarchs heir will get access to the best education, to tutors and privilege, regardless of the actual merit. And then he gets a nation to opress on top.

That isn't an answer. I figured that you'd argue for potential actions. Therefore, you aren't actually concerned with the merited value of a person. You're interested in the devaluation of a person - of a monarch. You haven't actually done anything to merit the rights you assert especiallyif you question them as absolute in nature. Therefore, I must deduce that rights must be earned - they cannot be given. Therefore, I must deduce that you currently have no right to speak nor to live. And, that being the case, I must ask by what milestones are we to gauge this merited bestowing of rights?

I take that right, to speak with you, and by answering you have already acknowledged it.

Are they granted upon saving a life? If so then I have those rights - I'm an emergency responder.
Are they granted upon completion of certain education goals? If so then I have those rights - I've finished my schooling long ago.
Are they granted upon parenthood? If so then I have those rights - I've a 5yr old son.
Are they granted upon political activism? If so then I have those rights - I've been elected to minor (very minor) political office before.

Have you done these things?

I live my life as I see fit, depending only on myself and my own work. I have skill in my job and find satisfaction in it. And nobody handed me my job because of my father... I worked and succeeded!

And what of a monarch? His avoidance of wars and favoring of social welfare will, no doubt, save millions of lives. His child will be raised with the finest education he can afford just as he himself was. His child will need to have a child of their own, in order to perpetuate the line - just as he did. He is a monarch - his political activism cannot be questioned - by birthright.

Once more: what is the reason behind the supposed "birthright"? What has the child to do with the parent?

And if we add your earlier qualifier of "potentiality" then we must assume that the "potential" for the monarch to meet these arbitrary goals exists and is just as valid as your "potential."

No, you misunderstood me: a childs potential is unknown - and thus all children are equal until it is not anymore.

Therefore, what you are really arguing for is not a merited society but a discredited one. If you're going to critique monarchism, then you'll have to find another route.

Merit cannot be inherited, thus power should neither. I have yet to see a single reason why you believe different.

[Distruzio]

Merit cannot be inherited, thus power should neither.

On what grounds are the two comparable?

I have yet to see a single reason why you believe different.

I don't.

[Kingdom of the Polar Bear]

Democacy

[Ljvonia]

Merit cannot be inherited, thus power should neither.

On what grounds are the two comparable?

Why should anyone have power without having merited it?

I have yet to see a single reason why you believe different.

I don't.

Then with what actions has the monarch earned his place? Why should I give a shit about his "birthright" and follow him? Or rather: if he's a bad leader, why should I not rebel?