"Small government", "big government", and fascism

[PureX]

Well, for all intents and purposes, the U.S. was a fascist country through the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries. We had racism, slavery, atrocities, aggressive expansionism, lynchings, state-sponsored murder and genocide - all the earmarks of fascism, except without a dictator or a big government. (We didn't call it "fascism," either, since that's an Italian word.)

If anything, the government had to get bigger and more centralized in order to prevent fascist atrocities.

The purpose of government is to protect us from itself, and from each other, while enabling us to act together for our mutual benefit. Fascism is by definition, then, a failure of government, as it fails to protect us from itself, and fails to enable us to act for all our mutual benefit.

What we call our government is irrelevant. And how we set them up is still a matter of trial and error in terms of how well they do what they're supposed to do.

 

[Stevicus]

The purpose of government is to protect us from itself, and from each other, while enabling us to act together for our mutual benefit. Fascism is by definition, then, a failure of government, as it fails to protect us from itself, and fails to enable us to act for all our mutual benefit.

What we call our government is irrelevant. And how we set them up is still a matter of trial and error in terms of how well they do what they're supposed to do.

I can accept that. My only point was that fascism does not require "big government" (as many conservatives might define it), nor does the existence of "big government" constitute evidence of fascism.

 

[PureX]

I can accept that. My only point was that fascism does not require "big government" (as many conservatives might define it), nor does the existence of "big government" constitute evidence of fascism.

I don't think the term "big government" refers to it actual size. I think it refers to it's imposition. And if that's the case, fascism is very "big government" by it's desire to impose the fascist's will on the people.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I don't think the term "big government" refers to it actual size. I think it refers to it's imposition. And if that's the case, fascism is very "big government" by it's desire to impose the fascist's will on the people.

How people use the term "big government" can vary. But in this thread, I actually did mean size.

 

[PureX]

How people use the term "big government" can vary. But in this thread, I actually did mean size.

The size would depend on whatever is required for proper functionality. And that depends on the population being governed and the complexity of it's culture. And on how imposing the control. Which, again, places fascism on the larger end of the scale.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think the term "big government" refers to it actual size. I think it refers to it's imposition. And if that's the case, fascism is very "big government" by it's desire to impose the fascist's will on the people.

Some people might see it that way, although I think when conservatives refer to "big government," they seem to be primarily referring to how much the government spends and taxes. The capitalists' support of Reagan is a clear indication that they'll support an expensive, warmongering police state - as long as taxes are low and unions are powerless. Forget all the other scourges of the state - torture, murder, warmongering, militarism, expansionism, unjust incarceration - since capitalists don't care about those things. All they care about is low taxes. Even the Christian capitalists would sell their immortal souls to Satan as long as it meant lower taxes.

To listen to conservatives speak, taxation is the absolute worst thing that any government can do. In their eyes, there is no greater atrocity than taxes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people might see it that way, although I think when conservatives refer to "big government," they seem to be primarily referring to how much the government spends and taxes. The capitalists' support of Reagan is a clear indication that they'll support an expensive, warmongering police state - as long as taxes are low and unions are powerless. Forget all the other scourges of the state - torture, murder, warmongering, militarism, expansionism, unjust incarceration - since capitalists don't care about those things. All they care about is low taxes. Even the Christian capitalists would sell their immortal souls to Satan as long as it meant lower taxes.

To listen to conservatives speak, taxation is the absolute worst thing that any government can do. In their eyes, there is no greater atrocity than taxes.

You sure do look down on capitalists, Republicans,
& conservatives. Yet liberals & Democrats loved
to raise taxes (along with Pubs like GHW Bush)
& wage useless wars, including torture.
It seems disingenuous to criticize the other side
for things that one's own side also does.

 

[Stevicus]

You sure do look down on capitalists, Republicans,
& conservatives. Yet liberals & Democrats loved
to raise taxes (along with Pubs like GHW Bush)
& wage useless wars, including torture.
It seems disingenuous to criticize the other side
for things that one's own side also does.

A lot of liberals and Democrats are capitalists, too - and they're probably much closer to conservatism than either of them would care to admit. That's why I tend to be against both sides (although some liberals might be the lesser of two evils).

I'm just going by what I've observed conservatives say they support. With Reagan, they supported the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, higher incarceration rates, militarism, warmongering, propping up dictatorial regimes overseas. Apparently, all that was okay in their eyes, all because Reagan lowered taxes for the wealthy. That's all that matters to the wealthy capitalists. It was the same with Bush and his "no new taxes" pledge (which he later broke). Then with Bush Jr., it was all about people getting "tax relief."

I've seen it as a recurring theme among conservatives and capitalists. They ostensibly believe that the worst thing any government can do is regulate business and impose taxation.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lot of liberals and Democrats are capitalists, too - and they're probably much closer to conservatism than either of them would care to admit. That's why I tend to be against both sides (although some liberals might be the lesser of two evils).

Capitalists are your personal boogeyman, but
your fellow socialists are even worse regarding
death & destruction.
Once again, you focus too much upon your
foes, while ignoring the sins of your own.

I'm just going by what I've observed conservatives say they support. With Reagan, they supported the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, higher incarceration rates, militarism, warmongering, propping up dictatorial regimes overseas. Apparently, all that was okay in their eyes, all because Reagan lowered taxes for the wealthy. That's all that matters to the wealthy capitalists. It was the same with Bush and his "no new taxes" pledge (which he later broke). Then with Bush Jr., it was all about people getting "tax relief."

I've seen it as a recurring theme among conservatives and capitalists. They ostensibly believe that the worst thing any government can do is regulate business and impose taxation.

Instead of decrying the other side for wrongdoings,
you should be decrying the wrongdoings themselves,
not merely using them for demonization of the other.

 

[Stevicus]

Capitalists are your personal boogeyman, but
your fellow socialists are even worse regarding
death & destruction.

I'm not really interested in an argument on moral relativism. If the only thing you can argue is which side is "worse," then I call your attention to this other thread where I demonstrated which side is actually worse: The answer is a communist party | Page 7 | Religious Forums

Once again, you focus too much upon your
foes, while ignoring the sins of your own.

I don't ignore anything. Quite the opposite, in fact, as I take into consideration the complete picture. However, we might have different ideas as to what we would consider "sins."

Instead of decrying the other side for wrongdoings,
you should be decrying the wrongdoings themselves,
not merely using them for demonization of the other.

Is that really the issue here? The issue in this thread seems to be whether having a big government or small government, in and of itself, can cause the increase or decrease of wrongdoing.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Is that really the issue here? The issue in this thread seems to be whether having a big government or small government, in and of itself, can cause the increase or decrease of wrongdoing.

You can just about say that, since I interpret fascism as "wrong".

However, if we more broadly focus on "wrongdoing", I'd say small governments and big governments would "probably" both be at fault.

 

[Stevicus]

You can just about say that, since I interpret fascism as "wrong".

However, if we more broadly focus on "wrongdoing", I'd say small governments and big governments would "probably" both be at fault.

At the risk of sounding cliche, I guess it's not really the size that matters, but how you use it.

 

[PureX]

A big complex nation needs a big complex government to run it effectively. To protect us all from each other, from other nations, and from itself. This costs money, and when the rich can avoid paying taxes, and the poor have nothing to pay, with, that leaves everyone in the middle having to pay for everything.

This is why some people get angry about taxation. And rightfully so. Unfortunately, those same people think the solution is no taxation, and smaller government. Both of which are really bad ideas. The solution is making the wealthy pay a greater share of the tax burden, instead of them paying less, or nothing. They benefit the most, they should pay the most.

 

[wellwisher]

The Religious freedom that is spoken of in the Constitution is how it becomes possible to have a free and dynamic country using small Government.

A person who believes in God, sees something that is larger than themselves and man. This means one is required to have more self control, since God is omnipresent and omniscience. The godless only have to check their compulsions, if another human is watching. But under the cloak of darkness, you can do what you want. The religious does not have these same hiding places, because of an all seeing God; fewer crimes.

For example, if there was a speed limit on a road and you knew there was police nearby, you will not speed. But if you knew all the police were at a large fire, and there is nobody to catch you, many will speed. The religious will have a harder time justifying this, since they know God is still watching. So you need fewer police to catch speeders if all believed in God; smaller government.

No religion teaches people to be mean or to be greedy since both of these are considered cardinal sins. The Godless are not under these same rules, since they have relative morality and can justify anything. Now you need more people to make it fair; Big Government.

The Seven Cardinal Sins​

The seven deadly sins, also called the seven capital sins or the seven cardinal sins, in Roman Catholic theology, are the seven vices that spur other sins and further immoral behaviour. First enumerated by Pope Gregory I (the Great) in the 6th century and elaborated in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas, they are (1) vainglory, or pride, (2) greed, or covetousness, (3) lust, or inordinate or illicit sexual desire, (4) envy, (5) gluttony, which is usually understood to include drunkenness, (6) wrath, or anger, and (7) sloth. Each of these can be overcome with the seven corresponding virtues of (1) humility, (2) charity, (3) chastity, (4) gratitude, (5) temperance, (6) patience, and (7) diligence.

Say you were an Atheist and decided these cardinal sins; trigger sins, are old wives tales, so you will decide you will do the opposite to spite the religious. We will need much more government to mop up the mess. The believer is taught to check these seven behavior and try to avoid these impulses, since they tend to lead to deeper problems, that will require larger government to mop it up.

The homeless drug addiction problem is rooted in gluttony and sloth. These are fairly minor offenses on the surface, but these capital sins, can lead to a bigger social problem, since any of the cardinal sins can spur other sins; greed and anger; drug crime. Now we need even more government.

Bigger Government is symptomatic of compounding social problems, caused by not avoiding the base or cardinal sins, that can spread to even worse things. Lust now requires surgical removal of genitals; sex reassignment and new government program. The Religious freedom was there so people could reverse this and thereby get by with much less Government. Since Government wants to grow; via pride and greed, the founders made sure that government could not establish any religion. Pride and greed would add sin as an excuse to grow and exceed its role; swamp.

 

[PureX]

The Religious freedom that is spoken of in the Constitution is how it becomes possible to have a free and dynamic country using small Government.

That's just BS.

Religious freedom does not protect us from each other's greed and selfishness. Nor from each other's obsession with self-righteousness. It doesn't keep our food safe to eat, or our work places safe to work in, or our homes safe from fires or hurricanes or marauding thieves and murderers. Religious freedom doesn't stop other countries from invading ours. Religious freedom will not provide us with health care when we're sick or injured. Religious freedom doesn't make anyone believe in God, nor does it make the believers any less stupid, greedy, self-righteous, or mean-spirited.

Churches all across the country are filled with wife beaters and child molesters and business cheats and tax cheats and drunks and junkies and racists and bigots of every kind imaginable. And going to church and believing in God is not changing them for the better one little bit. Nor will it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not really interested in an argument on moral relativism.

This isn't about morality at all...for me.

If the only thing you can argue is which side is "worse," then I call your attention to this other thread where I demonstrated which side is actually worse:

I prefer the which side is better,
based upon my preferences.

Is that really the issue here? The issue in this thread seems to be whether having a big government or small government, in and of itself, can cause the increase or decrease of wrongdoing.

You brought up capitalism.
I addressed it.

 

[Stevicus]

This isn't about morality at all...for me.

Then I must have misunderstood.

I prefer the which side is better,
based upon my preferences.

It appears we have different preferences.

You brought up capitalism.
I addressed it.

I brought up capitalism because that seems to be their major issue in terms of how they relate to government. It's always about taxes - wanting lower taxes and smaller government and equating that with "freedom." That was in the context of the topic about small government vs. big government and the common arguments for and against. My contention is that small government does not necessarily lead to freedom, nor should it be considered an effective hedge against fascism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I brought up capitalism because that seems to be their major issue in terms of how they relate to government. It's always about taxes - wanting lower taxes and smaller government and equating that with "freedom."

Over-simplification.

 

[Stevicus]

Over-simplification.

Perhaps, but not wrong.