Economic fascism or social fascism?

12/7/2009 1:09:26 AM

They are one and the same.

12/7/2009 7:23:09 AM

I wish you hadn't used the term fascism, but I've been thinking about this topic, too. Perhaps "authoritarianism" would've been better? It's been in the front of my mind because of Beck and the Tea Baggers' cries of tyranny regarding economic issues, when they'd be more than happy to institute social authoritarianism.

This seems ludicrous, because to me, social authoritarianism is abhorrent on a Constitutional and moral level, whereas economic authoritarianism is merely "a trade-off that's not optimal in most areas." I certainly don't see anything inherently immoral about it.

Every government must tax and spend. The extent to which is a gray area morally, and is completely open question Constitutionally.

No legitimate government may strip its people of natural rights, and the Constitution takes great care to prevent this from happening.




[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM. Reason : This actually best sums up why I'm a Democrat.]

12/7/2009 9:10:27 AM

I think social fascism would be worse. At least under economic authortarianism I can put in my half ass attempt at work or take my handouts if its a socialist authortarian regime but on my own time I can live freely without having the big gubmerment telling me whats moral and trying to protect me from myself.

12/7/2009 9:31:59 AM

^ That's very surprising coming from you, Mr. Anti-Gay Marriage.

12/7/2009 9:54:01 AM

I do not give a shit about what gays do. The Economic fascist part though will prevent them from getting their tax breaks.

12/7/2009 10:00:22 AM

^ So the government telling ME that I can't get married is not "the big guberment telling me whats moral?" Good to know. It's fun to watch people over-generalize when it supports their personal beliefs, and then pick out things that they, personally, just don't like.

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM. Reason : You made it a moral issue. You fail.]

12/7/2009 10:02:47 AM

Under social fascism, you can't vote away things you don't like.

Thus, economic fascism is useless without social fascism.

12/7/2009 10:05:29 AM

Quote :

"No state shall...pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts"

Boone It looks to be the opposite from my reading of the Constitution (that counter-revolutionary document). Economic freedom is codified explicitly, to get any social freedom you must stretch a ban on unreasonable search and seizure to make it an invasion of privacy to call witnesses that saw you engaged in the act being outlawed.

Yes, alternative lifestyles are usually engaged in behind doors, but so is carpentry without a license, using drugs, and working under non-standard employment contracts; all things you would call economic fascism and therefore merely a trade-off.

Well, it is absurd to differentiate. Liberty is liberty, it is just as unfair for the legislature to dominate those unlucky enough to want abnormal careers as it is to dominate those unlucky enough to want abnormal hobbies.

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/7/2009 10:07:32 AM

I think we have two misunderstandings.

- I fail to see how the contract clause plays any a role in this.

a) I've never read of the ban on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws having any economic dimension

b) This particular clause only applies to states. Bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are banned on the federal level in Article I. Impairing the obligation of contracts is not.

c) If you're interpreting it to be an absolute ban on federal involvement in contracts, then why is bankruptcy, interstate commerce, and excises permitted?

- I think your view of what constitutes "social" is far too narrow. "Social" encompasses all personal liberties that are not economic. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th Amendments, etc... In which case the Constitution is overwhelmingly against the impairing of social liberties.

12/7/2009 11:03:46 AM

I don't make much of a distinction. If your position is that the government shouldn't be taking away rights, it makes no sense to say "but, they can take your money to pay for other people's expenses or to fight illegal wars." What about your right to the fruits of your labor? Sure, some taxation makes sense, but to cover basic things it would be a very low rate of taxation, nothing like we have now.

You can also get into the whole "secret taxation" aspect a fiat money system that comes in the form of inflation. Why people don't care about this or get mad about it, I don't fully understand. Do people think we actually have the revenue to cover these trillion dollar deficits? It doesn't matter what your political views are, we've got to have a balanced budget or we go the way of Zimbabwe/Weimar Republic/Argentina.

12/7/2009 11:40:57 AM

Quote :

"Sure, some taxation makes sense"

As I said-- it's a grey area. At a certain point it become undesirable on a practical level. But until it gets to an extreme that we're not likely to see in the US, it's not a moral issue, and it will never be a Constitutional issue.

Quote :

"You can also get into the whole "secret taxation" aspect a fiat money system that comes in the form of inflation. Why people don't care about this or get mad about it, I don't fully understand."

Oh jeebus. If you want an argument to be taken seriously, don't inject it with gold standard rants.

12/7/2009 1:08:12 PM

It has nothing to do with the gold standard. It has to do with the fact that newly created money isn't worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't just "crazy old Ron Paul" rant...the dollar is losing purchasing power by the day. Do you seriously think that we can double the money supply and the dollar will have the same value?

12/7/2009 1:29:14 PM

Both are the different means to the same ends. Neither is really worse than the other, but economic fascism is easier to maintain; where as social fascism requires people to keep the same attitude about lifestyles and choices over generations, economic fascism simply requires playing cat and mouse with money. The RIAA has been more effective at slowing piracy with their massive lawsuits and economic warfare than they have with any of their PSAs and "educational" appeals.

Quote :

"As I said-- it's a grey area. At a certain point it become undesirable on a practical level. But until it gets to an extreme that we're not likely to see in the US, it's not a moral issue, and it will never be a Constitutional issue. "

Years ago, the people of this country thought that double digit taxation was extreme. I'm curious as to how far we'll let it go this time around.

[Edited on December 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM. Reason : adsf]

12/7/2009 1:29:36 PM

Stop obsessing with money. The constitution has never been interpreted to grant you the right to light taxation (it was forms of taxation, but was amended). However, we did used to have the right to earn a living as we saw fit. As recently as 1905 the United States Supreme Court held "liberty of contract" was implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States used to be prevented from setting up cartels and licensing away competition.

Economic fascism is not taxation. Taxation is pretty-much fair, even when it is draconian. Economic fascism is making it a criminal offense to rearrange furniture, teach yoga, teach accounting, build a house, or share the price of gas when giving someone a lift to the store. It is a crime to serve food to the homeless from your church on Thanksgiving. Yes, in almost all of these money or property changes hands, but why does that alone make this ok with you? Property does not posses rights, people do; so when you regulate property you are regulating the lives of people. It is difficult to enjoy social freedom when the members of your commune are all arrested for violating occupancy and zoning restrictions, having your property seized for failure to pay the fines, and the failure to vacate the property when ordered.

12/7/2009 3:11:05 PM

What about enviromental fascism? That's basically what they're working on over in Copenhagen this week.

And hard-core greenies have already had a huge effect on our country, making it harder to continue our economic prosperity. Cheap energy is what a country needs to prosper and grow. Not to mention that the weathier a country is the cleaner it is.

The greenies protest and lobby the government to heavily regulate construction of new coal plants, natural gas plants, nuclear plants, oil refineries, and drilling for oil. Then they tell us we rely too much on foreign energy. They protest construction of new roads and highways and when they're not made tell us cars are inefficient and waste energy stuck it traffic.

They're pushing us away from incadescent light bulbs b/c they're "inefficient", and ironically prefer we use CFLs that contain mercury.

12/7/2009 4:05:54 PM

I see your point, and I can agree with your larger view of what constitutes an economic right.

But I think even your extreme examples are morally and Constitutionally acceptable. I'm glad yoga studios need to pass fire code, that teachers and contractors need to be licensed, and that all eateries need to pass health code. I'm not sure where you were going with splitting the bill and rearranging furniture, though. I'll just go ahead and assume I wouldn't have a problem with them, either.

You expressed your dislike for government-backed professional licenses in the education thread, too, and I just don't get it. Their benefit to society more than outweighs any slightly higher prices-- or whatever your beef with them is.

12/7/2009 4:07:33 PM

Oklahoma recently started licensing psychics. They issued tens of thousands of licenses, the majority of which were to out of state firms. The stated purpose of these firms which paid $5000 for the licenses was so they could claim to be "state certified" when advertising.

Crooks and scam artists use the state licensing process to lull consumers into trusting them. This is because licenses are not issued based upon merit but for the sole purpose of limiting the supply. The phenomenon of licenses has been studied by economists, thanks to the presence of 50 states, some of which license everything and some that license very little. In the most recent study I read on contractors, what they found was the only demonstrable effect of licensing was to drive up the number of complaints filed at the better business bureau and the number of lawsuits. How? After licensing, customers were more willing to pay up-front and less likely to have work checked by a third party before paying, with predictably poor outcomes. Also, after licensing the number of available providers fell, reducing competition. So, where-as providers used to compete in terms of not just price but quality and customer service, the loss of competition resulted in less competitiveness in all three measures.

12/7/2009 5:01:12 PM

Quote :

"I don't make much of a distinction. If your position is that the government shouldn't be taking away rights, it makes no sense to say "but, they can take your money to pay for other people's expenses or to fight illegal wars." What about your right to the fruits of your labor? Sure, some taxation makes sense, but to cover basic things it would be a very low rate of taxation, nothing like we have now."

I see what you're saying, but I think there's a meaningful difference between the gov. saying "hey look, we're going to give you this service... but it'll cost money" and the gov. saying "well, a lot of people believe this whacky Religious belief, so we think it should be taught in the science classroom/promoted/whatever."

Ideologically, I think it's clear that any infringement is infringement. But we routinely ignore ideology for practicality when it comes to a variety of things, in government.

Obviously it's due to my own personal biases, but I can't really imagine many situations where i'd prefer social authoritarianism (creationism, civil rights, abortion, stem cell, etc) to economic authoritarianism (progressive taxation, welfare, etc). I would much rather have higher taxes than have scientific research stifled, or institutional discrimination or intolerance.

12/7/2009 5:09:37 PM