The very first thing Musolini and Hitler did when they got into power was to take out the labour unions, the very next thing was to take out the socialists.
But you're leaving out extremely important and relevant facts. Mussolini and Hitler both strengthened, staunchly supported, and then used labor unions and socialists to propel them to power. It was only *after* they had attained power and no longer needed socialists and labor unions that they destroyed them so they could not in turn remove them from power.
They relied on 'useful idiots' in the labor unions and socialist groups just like US Liberal/Progressives, and for the same reasons and goals, and their fates would be similar if they ever attain total power.
The "maximum amount of individual liberty" is called anarchy, and no, that's not what this country was founded on. Libertarianism is the delusion that one can take the violence out of government, when that is actually the definition of government. Libertarianism is nothing more than rationalized recalcitrance.
You cut that quote off. It was "the maximum amount of individual liberty possible ". You're right, absolute freedom is anarchy. However, since the discussion surrounded a functioning form of government, I must have mistakenly assumed everyone was intelligent enough to understand the context.
Sorry about your mental shortcomings, but I hear psychiatrists, psychologists, and doctors have been making great strides, so there's hope for you yet, don't lose hope!
Nice strawman there too, by the way, and you knock it down SO well!
You define all libertarians and pigeon-hole them all to the most extreme viewpoint possible and show how that's silly. Wow, amazing! Your mom must be SO proud!
Do you also pigeon-hole and stereotype other groups, ethnicities, cultures, and races in a similar way? There's a name for that. Maybe you should do some research. Just saying.
You didn't answer the question whether you seriously think that Germany or Sweden today are essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.
Gee, I'm sorry! I thought you wanted facts, history, and principles. You know, a serious discussion about things that matter?
Of course Germany and Sweden are not the same as Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. That's a stupid question meant purely to troll.
I'm sorry if I took your post as a serious inquiry rather than shit-stirring.
I'm curious: when you look at a country like Germany or Sweden today, which has government running (i.e. regulating and to some extent providing) healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc, do you genuinely think you're seeing a country that is essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany? Or are you simply making some kind of rhetorical exaggeration for effect? Or do you think there is a meaningful distinction between what these modern European countries are doing and what US-style progressivism is trying to achieve? Or something else?
I'm asking because I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint: I can't follow the logic. So I'd be grateful if you could lay it out.
Well, the countries you mention are centuries old. Capitalism and limited government such as the US used to have created the richest, most powerful, and most-free nation to ever exist in the space of less than 2 centuries, not to mention the most generous when it comes to helping nations in dire emergencies.
Capitalism and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and lifted the standards of living of more people than any other system yet tried, combined. It has also advanced science, medicine, and industrial systems and technologies faster than any other system yet tried. Government controlled/run economies and societies cannot match that or even come close.
Another aspect is the size and diversity of the US and it's population compared to the countries you named. Until very recently those countries' populations and cultures were fairly homogenous as opposed to the US, therefor comparisons are apples-and-oranges.
The US was founded on the idea that power resides in the people, and a portion only temporarily and conditionally is granted to government to do only those things that a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, declare war, guard borders, etc. This was designed in part to assure the maximum amount of individual freedom and liberty possible.
It all depends on the goals, I suppose. If one values individual liberty, a free and open society, a high average standard of living, free and open political debate, and rapid advances in science and technology, a limited government, individual liberty, and capitalistic free markets are necessary to obtain the best results as US history has shown. History shows that the more-free a nation and it's people are, the more successful, peaceful, wealthy, and advanced that nation and society become.
No system is perfect, and capitalism and free & open societies carry risks and have their own problems, but they still beat any of the alternatives tried so far.
...and that's a direct consequence of human caused global climate change.
If it's a direct consequence, then direct proof that's provable and verifiable independently should be easy to provide. Oh, wait...there's no such proof or directness.
Correlation =/= causation.
My original point stands: There's no way to know if this would still happen if humans never existed.
What the belief that it IS directly caused by humans requires is the same level of faith without proof that the Christian faith requires.
However, the likelihood of such weather events is made much more likely by climate change.
Maybe it would have happened regardless of whether humans had even come to exist. Maybe the difference in the reported reductions would be only a fraction of a fraction of a percent if humans had never existed. We don't know and likely never will know.
Earth is a massively-chaotic system. Humans do not yet possess the "Deep Thought" scale of computing power it would take, nor the ability to gather sufficient data, to be able to calculate with any usable reliability what the Earth's climate will be like in 100, 200, or 500 years into the future. Hell, the computer it would take to accomplish such an amazing feat would likely be larger than the entire Earth at our current level of technology!
I don't understand what you are even trying to say here. So according to you the FCC's current net neutrality regulations are not what net neutrality supporters think it is, so it's good that we just got two guys that oppose net neutrality?
There's the "net neutrality" that we on/. think of, then there's "Net Neutrality(TM)(C)(Pat Pending)" that the FCC and their lobbyists were intent on implementing. Pretty much the only things these two have in common is the name. The latter is what the appointees oppose, and that's a Good Thing(TM).
The FCC version has none of the goodness that Slashdotters think "net neutrality" has. It was a giveaway to political supporters in the major telecommunications/internet/media and a power-grab for government.
I am for "net neutrality" as in the basic principles of fairness and openness commonly associated with that term. I find it disappointing that Slashdotters either couldn't figure this out, or have been so blinded by their political/ideological beliefs that they either could not or would not understand the difference.
Hopefully, now that "Net Neutrality(TM)(C)(Pat Pending)" is a part of history, regulations to enable *real* "net neutrality" can be discussed, debated, and finally be enacted going forward.
Or that he (Trump) settled the Trump University lawsuit in order to better focus his time on the country.
Ok, one down... Now, how about Trump also suspends all of his other business dealings to better focus on the country.
And I'm just suuuure you'd be all peachy-keen with PRESIDENT Trump were he to handle his business dealings in the same manner Hillary! handled the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
Right?
No, no. You don't understand. See, the Clintons are good, so if there's anything questionable in their dealings they should be given a wide benefit of doubt, and any accusers put through the wringer for daring to besmirch their legacies.
Now, we know Trump is evil and criminal (he dared run against Hillary! Satan, he be!), and any other negative adjective we can think of, so any excuse, any twisting of facts or context, are A-OK in bringing this un-indicted criminal down, even if it means starting a foreign war or civil war. Preferably both! Our MIC cronies are always needing more of your money.
Once the 'Freedom Gang' gets going, everything online will require a real name - and address - so the Patriots can have frank and candid discussions with those that don't seem American enough.
Nah, Obama and his "choom-gang" Democrat buddies are already lame ducks, though they tried to float the idea of requiring internet access be conditional on authenticating your personal identity, and along with their other oh-so-popular ideas, witch-hunts for whistle-blowers, and general crony-capitalist corruption, brought us Trump.
Thanks, Obama and Democrats! You created this monster.
Governments will continue to spy on their citizens no matter what happens. I took the most extreme cell phone surveillance countermeasure of anyone I know. I "opted out" of the issue by no longer owning a cellphone. Problem. Solved.
Maybe, temporarily.
Until the "cashless society" is more fully-implemented.
Then you'll need your smart phone to buy a stick of gum or pay the neighbor kid to mow your lawn, or buy/sell/rent anything from/to anyone. Laws will be passed requiring the carrying of a government-approved hardwired 'always-on' smart phone when not at home.
That is, until they get the chip implants rolled out. Then people will be "chipped" immediately after birth.
Listen, I get that its human tendency to want to blame people. While Obama has his faults just like everyone else however, you can't seriously blame him or single individuals for *systemic issues* that are tearing at the fabric of society as a whole. I'm not pro-Obama, but your argument is weak when he is compared to that of others and read the actual facts without bias. Even if he did contribute in a negative sense, he would be no more than a cog/puppet. Try again.
Q: What is a 'system' with its' 'cogs/puppets' removed?
The U.S. Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution to address the "all governments eventually go corrupt" issue. Since then every American government coming to power has worked real hard to erode those safeguards. Two hundred years of erosion have taken their toll.
Agreed.
Far past time for an Article V convention of States.
Just put the people who performed the OPM or DNC hacks on it. I'm sure they can release that data and a whole lot more data revealing even more illegal/unconstitutional crap that the FBI/US Gov. has not revealed to anyone.
It's a very sad state when people start to trust hackers and hostile foreign governments more than they trust their own government.
Whether something is "OK" and whether it is "illegal" are 2 different topics - the one at hand is whether Taxation is Theft, i.e. whether it is illegal - it isn't.
Wrong.
Theft can be legal or illegal, it's still theft. In WW2 Germany the jews had their wealth, property, and businesses stolen. It was theft. It was technically legal under the existing laws, but it was still theft.
The same as the genocide in WW2 Germany. It was legal, but it was still genocide.
Legal status does not make something right or wrong or change what it is. It simply allows or forbids it under the legal system.
Taxation IS theft, it simply happens to currently (and temporarily) be legal in the US. That legality can (and should, for a free people) be changed.
So was slavery at one time, so were the horrors perpetrated in WW2 Germany, so were separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. All legal, compulsory even, in many circumstances. Holding women as chattel is also legal in places in the ME, as is killing homosexuals.
I guess being legal makes anything OK then, right?
Or is it only as long as the laws comport with *your* views and biases?
Just hack into the IRS and erase their database and wipe out all records. Seeing how easily the OPM was hacked, this should not be that hard for a talented group.
If the IRS wants to operate outside the US Constitution and Rule of Law, then they abrogate the right to any protections provided under the law and are fair game.
If it seems ironic to you it's probably because you believe Progressives cannot be Republicans. Progressives in both major Parties have been the driving force behind the vast majority of privacy and civil rights infringements and violations in the US in the 20th and 21st centuries. Both GHWB and GWB were Progressives for example, as is "Jeb!". They have more in common with Progressive Democrats than conservatives/libertarians.
No it really isn't. The mainstream media is far from perfect, but that does not make it equivalent to the completely fake crap which is much, much further from perfect.
No, the fake crap put out by the MSM is FAR more dangerous, as people will be more likely in general to trust it as opposed to some random article on the interwebs.
What I see happening is the laying of groundwork for the implementation of a US version of "1984"'s "MiniTruth".
Slashdot Mirror
The very first thing Musolini and Hitler did when they got into power was to take out the labour unions, the very next thing was to take out the socialists.
But you're leaving out extremely important and relevant facts. Mussolini and Hitler both strengthened, staunchly supported, and then used labor unions and socialists to propel them to power. It was only *after* they had attained power and no longer needed socialists and labor unions that they destroyed them so they could not in turn remove them from power.
They relied on 'useful idiots' in the labor unions and socialist groups just like US Liberal/Progressives, and for the same reasons and goals, and their fates would be similar if they ever attain total power.
Strat
The "maximum amount of individual liberty" is called anarchy, and no, that's not what this country was founded on. Libertarianism is the delusion that one can take the violence out of government, when that is actually the definition of government. Libertarianism is nothing more than rationalized recalcitrance.
You cut that quote off. It was "the maximum amount of individual liberty possible ". You're right, absolute freedom is anarchy. However, since the discussion surrounded a functioning form of government, I must have mistakenly assumed everyone was intelligent enough to understand the context.
Sorry about your mental shortcomings, but I hear psychiatrists, psychologists, and doctors have been making great strides, so there's hope for you yet, don't lose hope!
Nice strawman there too, by the way, and you knock it down SO well!
You define all libertarians and pigeon-hole them all to the most extreme viewpoint possible and show how that's silly. Wow, amazing! Your mom must be SO proud!
Do you also pigeon-hole and stereotype other groups, ethnicities, cultures, and races in a similar way? There's a name for that. Maybe you should do some research. Just saying.
Strat
You didn't answer the question whether you seriously think that Germany or Sweden today are essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany.
Gee, I'm sorry! I thought you wanted facts, history, and principles. You know, a serious discussion about things that matter?
Of course Germany and Sweden are not the same as Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. That's a stupid question meant purely to troll.
I'm sorry if I took your post as a serious inquiry rather than shit-stirring.
I'll try not to make that mistake in the future.
Strat
I'm curious: when you look at a country like Germany or Sweden today, which has government running (i.e. regulating and to some extent providing) healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc, do you genuinely think you're seeing a country that is essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany? Or are you simply making some kind of rhetorical exaggeration for effect? Or do you think there is a meaningful distinction between what these modern European countries are doing and what US-style progressivism is trying to achieve? Or something else?
I'm asking because I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint: I can't follow the logic. So I'd be grateful if you could lay it out.
Well, the countries you mention are centuries old. Capitalism and limited government such as the US used to have created the richest, most powerful, and most-free nation to ever exist in the space of less than 2 centuries, not to mention the most generous when it comes to helping nations in dire emergencies.
Capitalism and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and lifted the standards of living of more people than any other system yet tried, combined. It has also advanced science, medicine, and industrial systems and technologies faster than any other system yet tried. Government controlled/run economies and societies cannot match that or even come close.
Another aspect is the size and diversity of the US and it's population compared to the countries you named. Until very recently those countries' populations and cultures were fairly homogenous as opposed to the US, therefor comparisons are apples-and-oranges.
The US was founded on the idea that power resides in the people, and a portion only temporarily and conditionally is granted to government to do only those things that a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, declare war, guard borders, etc. This was designed in part to assure the maximum amount of individual freedom and liberty possible.
It all depends on the goals, I suppose. If one values individual liberty, a free and open society, a high average standard of living, free and open political debate, and rapid advances in science and technology, a limited government, individual liberty, and capitalistic free markets are necessary to obtain the best results as US history has shown. History shows that the more-free a nation and it's people are, the more successful, peaceful, wealthy, and advanced that nation and society become.
No system is perfect, and capitalism and free & open societies carry risks and have their own problems, but they still beat any of the alternatives tried so far.
HTH
HAND
Strat
If you can classify mid 20th century fascist movements as "populist" then yes.
Oh, I see!
Like modern US-style Liberal/Progressivism that wants government running healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc etc etc!
Thanks for clearing that up!
Strat
...and that's a direct consequence of human caused global climate change.
If it's a direct consequence, then direct proof that's provable and verifiable independently should be easy to provide. Oh, wait...there's no such proof or directness.
Correlation =/= causation.
My original point stands: There's no way to know if this would still happen if humans never existed.
What the belief that it IS directly caused by humans requires is the same level of faith without proof that the Christian faith requires.
AGW == Religion
Strat
However, the likelihood of such weather events is made much more likely by climate change.
Maybe it would have happened regardless of whether humans had even come to exist. Maybe the difference in the reported reductions would be only a fraction of a fraction of a percent if humans had never existed. We don't know and likely never will know.
Earth is a massively-chaotic system. Humans do not yet possess the "Deep Thought" scale of computing power it would take, nor the ability to gather sufficient data, to be able to calculate with any usable reliability what the Earth's climate will be like in 100, 200, or 500 years into the future. Hell, the computer it would take to accomplish such an amazing feat would likely be larger than the entire Earth at our current level of technology!
Strat
But...but..haven't we been told (screamed at) that weather is not climate?
Seems from the applications we've witnessed from AGW cultists that this is a mutable rule based on agenda.
Strat
I don't understand what you are even trying to say here. So according to you the FCC's current net neutrality regulations are not what net neutrality supporters think it is, so it's good that we just got two guys that oppose net neutrality?
There's the "net neutrality" that we on /. think of, then there's "Net Neutrality(TM)(C)(Pat Pending)" that the FCC and their lobbyists were intent on implementing. Pretty much the only things these two have in common is the name. The latter is what the appointees oppose, and that's a Good Thing(TM).
The FCC version has none of the goodness that Slashdotters think "net neutrality" has. It was a giveaway to political supporters in the major telecommunications/internet/media and a power-grab for government.
I am for "net neutrality" as in the basic principles of fairness and openness commonly associated with that term. I find it disappointing that Slashdotters either couldn't figure this out, or have been so blinded by their political/ideological beliefs that they either could not or would not understand the difference.
Hopefully, now that "Net Neutrality(TM)(C)(Pat Pending)" is a part of history, regulations to enable *real* "net neutrality" can be discussed, debated, and finally be enacted going forward.
Strat
No, no. You don't understand. See, the Clintons are good, so if there's anything questionable in their dealings they should be given a wide benefit of doubt, and any accusers put through the wringer for daring to besmirch their legacies.
Now, we know Trump is evil and criminal (he dared run against Hillary! Satan, he be!), and any other negative adjective we can think of, so any excuse, any twisting of facts or context, are A-OK in bringing this un-indicted criminal down, even if it means starting a foreign war or civil war. Preferably both! Our MIC cronies are always needing more of your money.
Strat
Facts based on actual measurement have a nasty habit of overriding 'common sense'.
No such satellite data exists, you've been lied to.
Your tears of impotent frustration and rage are sweet.
Strat
Facts based on actual measurement have a nasty habit of overriding 'common sense'.
Yeah, like that pesky satellite data showing no warming. Gotta 'massage' those pesky facts into the proper agenda-backing curve, don't ya know!
Gawd, you people are hilarious! You know you've jumped the shark with most people in the US, right?
Strat
If you had any clue at all, you would know that measured air pollution in London, both particulate and gas, varies over a surprisingly small area.
Like, depending on how hard/which direction the wind is blowing? /facepalm
Don't let common sense get in the way of your eco-fanaticism.
Strat
It would take you not very long at all to discover that this means a targeted program aimed at reducing pollution specifically near schools.
Good thing air doesn't move around much, then.
Oh, wait...
Strat
Once the 'Freedom Gang' gets going, everything online will require a real name - and address - so the Patriots can have frank and candid discussions with those that don't seem American enough.
Nah, Obama and his "choom-gang" Democrat buddies are already lame ducks, though they tried to float the idea of requiring internet access be conditional on authenticating your personal identity, and along with their other oh-so-popular ideas, witch-hunts for whistle-blowers, and general crony-capitalist corruption, brought us Trump.
Thanks, Obama and Democrats! You created this monster.
Strat
Governments will continue to spy on their citizens no matter what happens. I took the most extreme cell phone surveillance countermeasure of anyone I know. I "opted out" of the issue by no longer owning a cellphone. Problem. Solved.
Maybe, temporarily.
Until the "cashless society" is more fully-implemented.
Then you'll need your smart phone to buy a stick of gum or pay the neighbor kid to mow your lawn, or buy/sell/rent anything from/to anyone. Laws will be passed requiring the carrying of a government-approved hardwired 'always-on' smart phone when not at home.
That is, until they get the chip implants rolled out. Then people will be "chipped" immediately after birth.
Strat
Listen, I get that its human tendency to want to blame people. While Obama has his faults just like everyone else however, you can't seriously blame him or single individuals for *systemic issues* that are tearing at the fabric of society as a whole. I'm not pro-Obama, but your argument is weak when he is compared to that of others and read the actual facts without bias. Even if he did contribute in a negative sense, he would be no more than a cog/puppet. Try again.
Q: What is a 'system' with its' 'cogs/puppets' removed?
A: A 'former system'.
Strat
The U.S. Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution to address the "all governments eventually go corrupt" issue. Since then every American government coming to power has worked real hard to erode those safeguards. Two hundred years of erosion have taken their toll.
Agreed.
Far past time for an Article V convention of States.
Strat
Just put the people who performed the OPM or DNC hacks on it. I'm sure they can release that data and a whole lot more data revealing even more illegal/unconstitutional crap that the FBI/US Gov. has not revealed to anyone.
It's a very sad state when people start to trust hackers and hostile foreign governments more than they trust their own government.
Strat
Whether something is "OK" and whether it is "illegal" are 2 different topics - the one at hand is whether Taxation is Theft, i.e. whether it is illegal - it isn't.
Wrong.
Theft can be legal or illegal, it's still theft. In WW2 Germany the jews had their wealth, property, and businesses stolen. It was theft. It was technically legal under the existing laws, but it was still theft.
The same as the genocide in WW2 Germany. It was legal, but it was still genocide.
Legal status does not make something right or wrong or change what it is. It simply allows or forbids it under the legal system.
Taxation IS theft, it simply happens to currently (and temporarily) be legal in the US. That legality can (and should, for a free people) be changed.
Strat
Taxation is defined by law.
So was slavery at one time, so were the horrors perpetrated in WW2 Germany, so were separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. All legal, compulsory even, in many circumstances. Holding women as chattel is also legal in places in the ME, as is killing homosexuals.
I guess being legal makes anything OK then, right?
Or is it only as long as the laws comport with *your* views and biases?
Strat
Just hack into the IRS and erase their database and wipe out all records. Seeing how easily the OPM was hacked, this should not be that hard for a talented group.
If the IRS wants to operate outside the US Constitution and Rule of Law, then they abrogate the right to any protections provided under the law and are fair game.
Strat
Your sig is more than a little ironic.
But you probably don't know why.
If it seems ironic to you it's probably because you believe Progressives cannot be Republicans. Progressives in both major Parties have been the driving force behind the vast majority of privacy and civil rights infringements and violations in the US in the 20th and 21st centuries. Both GHWB and GWB were Progressives for example, as is "Jeb!". They have more in common with Progressive Democrats than conservatives/libertarians.
Strat
No it really isn't. The mainstream media is far from perfect, but that does not make it equivalent to the completely fake crap which is much, much further from perfect.
No, the fake crap put out by the MSM is FAR more dangerous, as people will be more likely in general to trust it as opposed to some random article on the interwebs.
What I see happening is the laying of groundwork for the implementation of a US version of "1984"'s "MiniTruth".
Strat
CNN is an "official" source so it must not be fake....
You just need to understand the decision-tree involved.
Q: Does this news impact Progressives/liberals/Democrats positively and/or Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians negatively?
A: Authentic news!
Q: Does it impact Progressives/liberals/Democrats negatively and/or Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians positively?
A: Totally fake bullshit, likely Russian propaganda!
See? Easy-peasy!
Strat