Is USA a fascist state?

[natty dread]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... al-control

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Sounds like one to me.

[The Bison King]

...Yeah the Supreme court doesn't even pretend to care about the constitution anymore. They're pretty much the worst branch of government.

[saxitoxin]

INB4 Scott notes the author of the Guardian article is a Ron Paul supporter -

[saxitoxin]

Not to nit-pick but, since it's the anniversary of the death of Mussolini today, it bears noting that a fascist state is not a synonym for a police state.

Fascism describes a specific model of economic and political organization where class cooperation is emphasized over class conflict.

In an unusually good article yesterday, CNN describes the current method of political organizing in USA between two "purified" political extremes. This would seem to emphasize conflict over cooperation and make the U.S. especially not a fascist state:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/opinion/g ... ?hpt=hp_c1

[Victor Sullivan]

I blame the Tea Party Death Squads!

-Sully

[patches70]

Fascism describes a specific model of economic

The US isn't fascist, yet. But we are moving in that direction, especially economically. Do we not hear enough, especially with this current administration, that business making profits is "fine", to a point, but that more must be used in service of The State?

Does not the US government increasingly find itself in ever greater control of the economy in all areas? Through the use of regulation and rhetoric.

Does not our own President continue to bypass traditional and lawful powers of Congress to enact his own agenda? Under the guise that the Congress is ineffective.

Is not more and more the the country falling under the thumb of ever fewer numbers of elites?

Fascist? The US isn't there quite yet, but all signs are pointing to such a destination ahead......

[natty dread]

I love how the right-wing people instantly jump on to "stop regulating teh businesses" as if the freedom of businesses to make a profit is more important than the freedom of actual people as individuals...

just sayin'.

Everyone knows that the whole of US political field is totally operated according to corporate interests anyway...

[saxitoxin]

I love how the right-wing people instantly jump on to "stop regulating teh businesses" as if the freedom of businesses to make a profit is more important than the freedom of actual people as individuals...

more power to regulate = more power

You would want to give a government that enacted the NDAA more power?

This is the failure of all people living in western police states. They've been told they only have two choices:

(1) decrease the power of government by increasing the power of corporations
or
(2) decrease the power of corporations by increasing the power of government

You have a third choice - destroy both corporate and governmental power.

[BigBallinStalin]

I love how the right-wing people instantly jump on to "stop regulating teh businesses" as if the freedom of businesses to make a profit is more important than the freedom of actual people as individuals...

just sayin'.

what saxi asks. Besides...

Regulations tend to make the rent-seeking businesses more impervious to competition. This stabilizes the playing field for the rent-seekers at the expense of businesses which are (1) legally barred from entering a market and/or (2) must incur higher start-up costs which were increased by regulation.

An (un)intended consequence of regulation and government-mandated privileges is less competition, thus higher profit margins and market control for the rent-seekers. With less competition comes generally higher prices, less innovation, lower quality, etc.--depending on the type of regulation.

Everyone knows that the whole of US political field is totally operated according to corporate interests anyway...

Corporate interest groups aren't one homogenous group. Their plans also conflict with each other.

Also, the politicians have their own interests, so US politics is not "totally operated according to corporate interests."

[natty dread]

You have a third choice - destroy both corporate and governmental power.

That'd be neat, actually - I'm just pissed at the people who always push their libertarian "markets solve everything" agenda as a universal answer to every problem...

I think corporations political influence should be limited, and I also there should be limitations to the power of governments. Governments, as well as corporations, should exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

[Army of GOD]

horror show

I viddied a devotchka after I ate eggiweg and jammiwam

[saxitoxin]

You have a third choice - destroy both corporate and governmental power.

That'd be neat, actually - I'm just pissed at the people who always push their libertarian "markets solve everything" agenda as a universal answer to every problem...

I think corporations political influence should be limited, and I also there should be limitations to the power of governments. Governments, as well as corporations, should exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

Tom's of Maine toothpaste advertises itself as an all-natural, boutique toothpaste because it sells well with weekend environmentalists. But it is neither all-natural (it contains soldium lauryl sulfate) nor boutique (it's owned by Colgate-Palmolive).

Many neo-cons advertise themselves as libertarians because it sells well at elections.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Sounds like one to me.

I thought this was only in places that bans guns? Anyone clear this up I'm a little confused.

But yes, I would not argue against Bush and Obama turning us more and more into a fascist state. Pretty much what I have been saying all along, to the effect we lose more and more of our freedoms everyday.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Sounds like one to me.

It's frightening, really.

I love how the right-wing people instantly jump on to "stop regulating teh businesses" as if the freedom of businesses to make a profit is more important than the freedom of actual people as individuals...

just sayin'.

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

-TG

[natty dread]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

[natty dread]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

Oh, you know, the usual.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/05/us-sexual-humiliation-political-control

In a five-four ruling this week, the supreme court decided that anyone can be strip-searched upon arrest for any offense, however minor, at any time. This horror show ruling joins two recent horror show laws: the NDAA, which lets anyone be arrested forever at any time, and HR 347, the "trespass bill", which gives you a 10-year sentence for protesting anywhere near someone with secret service protection. These criminalizations of being human follow, of course, the mini-uprising of the Occupy movement.

Sounds like one to me.

We are heading there... but don't pay too much attention, after all the real issues are just economics (sarcasm alert).

Yep, why worry about searches (only to protect us, after all) or denials of speech (radical speech just incites people to negativity), the real threats are homosexuality, abortion and the destruction of the family, particularly denuding of the father's role in the household.

[BigBallinStalin]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

Oh, you know, the usual.

Have fun complaining about something you can't explain!

[Army of GOD]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

I'M interested in this too, but looks like natty is just avoiding the question.

[saxitoxin]

We are heading there... but don't pay too much attention, after all the real issues are just economics (sarcasm alert).

Yep, why worry about searches (only to protect us, after all) or denials of speech (radical speech just incites people to negativity), the real threats are ...

Didn't you say you'll be voting for the President who signed the NDAA, who ordered the execution without trial of a U.S. citizen, who voted for immunity for telecoms for warrantless wiretapping, who is seeking to put Bradley Manning to death, who expanded domestic use of surveillance drones, who is seeking to eliminate the Freedom of Information Act?

But he'll order the treasury to give you a few hundred bucks of treats to buy your vote ... I guess the real issues are economics for you, too.

Your price tag is just lower.

[natty dread]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

I'M interested in this too, but looks like natty is just avoiding the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

[BigBallinStalin]

But doesn't the freedom of individuals encompass the freedom to transact business?

Certainly, but that's not the point. Individuals have freedom to do business, but the freedoms of businesses should never override the freedoms of the individuals. In other words, corporate interests should never be given the priority over basic human rights.

What are those basic human rights?

I'M interested in this too, but looks like natty is just avoiding the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

Care to narrow the following down?

show

[Army of GOD]

looks like he still has no interest in honestly answering the question

[natty dread]

What exactly is unclear? Human rights are human rights. They're clearly defined in the human rights declaration.

It's like we're in an argument over whether the sky is blue or not, and I'm claiming it is, and you guys refuse to address my arguments unless I explain to you what "blue" is. You're being disingenuous and obstinate. (Look, I know long words)