-Caveat Lector-
Howard:
As you may have noticed, I have been conspicuously silent on these threads
the last couple of days--in specific deference to the list owner, who has
asked that discussions return to the basic theme of the list. Even so, not
to answer your interrogatories would be rude:
>Republicans, in general, advocate both economic and social
>interventions. Libertarians advocate neither. That seems to me to be a
>rather greater difference then you would indicate above.
How, exactly, do Republicans advocate social intervention--apart from
attacking social programs (and their recipients) as the sole form of
government waste? No staunch Republican I have ever met is for any form of
social program other than the punishment of criminals. The same holds true
for Libertarians.
>In a recent discussion with a very liberal friend of mine he asked me
>for my definition of fascism. I replied that it was a system of
>government which does not own the means of production (as in communism)
>but controls these businesses and society in general through regulation.
>He agreed with me on this. What is your definition of fascism?
Fascism: a form of government of the extreme right; characterized by a
functional merging of state and business interests, and of belligerent
nationalism. Include within this more mechanical definition, a more
subjective statement concerning the partisans of such a government's need
to install same at the expense of the more defenseless members of society.
>Please define what you mean by social Darwinism.
The belief in the social equivalent of survival of the fittest. I.e., "I've
got mine, to hell with you."
> I have never heard a
>libertarian say that they were a social Darwinist.
And you never will: the "partisans of apathy" (Republicans and
Libertarians) haven't got the guts to present their real agenda for social
scrutiny. Why is it that conservatives focus only on social problems with
respect to governmental waste and invasiveness? Are there no other, more
egregious, forms of government waste which would warrant the same kind of
attention?
>The need for scapegoats is a form of government?
No, but it is essential to the formation/installation of some forms of
government: fascism specifically :-)
> You mean like the
>Department of Scapegoating?
There's no need for departments. The pundits have a handle on this one by
themselves. <ROFL>
Edward ><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"From the rage of today's downtrodden comes the revenge of tomorrow's
revolutionary force." Edward Britton ><>
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html
Talk to the planet: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
