posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:39 PM
i have noticed that people reject the idea of fascism simply upon the action of past fascist societies. Whats actually wrong with being a fascist.
Anybody who knows their political philosophy knows ho Adam Smith is. After reading his work one begins to understand the merits of fascism.
Looking at the world one can hardly say that we are currently acting in any way that we could wish to be universal law. Surely then the best form of
government will require a form of control, for the sake of the people.
I think its important at this stage not to confuse fascism with fascist Italy and fascist Germany. Sure the concept is there, but it doesnt speak
truely or fascism. Putting aside the terrible things these governments did, what were the people like. With the government in control, how much evil
was done by the people to one another (I obviously understand that germany was indeed at war and people did suffer, but not from one another, the
suffering was caused by external forces).
it was said in the french revolution that it was necvessary for the government to be evil so the people did not have to be, or something along those
lines. Maybe this is reasonable.
The problem with this is fascism would work, providing the ruler ruled not for himself, but for the people. A dictator for the people....
Someone who was not surcome to corruption..
I'd like to think what everyone elsethinks bout this..i might add something later to try make my ideas clearer. But if we were able to implement a
system along these line would it not put an end to the disguised tyrrany of democracy, which causes so much pain. A government should be for the
people, and looking at the world today, i can hardly say the democrats are for the people (generally speaking of course, i hardly wish to discriminate