What the United States Supreme Court Says

[MMI]

I'm sorry you think I'm attacking the American way of life. I'm not. I'm attacking a law which I believe to be so palpably wrong it amazes me so few here can see it. If I have offended the States or Americans in any other way, I apologise and take back whatever I said unreservedly.

Don't withdraw, denuseri.

War against the individual is inherent in all state power.

Anarchistic nonsense. Mugabwe is at war against his people because he has no popular support now that Zimbabweans have withdrawn their approval. George Bush is not at war with his people because he does have power and needs popular support to retain it. He would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole, not because they'd rise up in armed revolution, but because they'd vote him out (ignoring the fact he's near the ned of his term anyway).

[Virulent]

(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out.

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

[MMI]

MMI, do you really mean that? When a government inevitably develops into fascism, you vote that they stop and be nice again?

You are right though; this is more about anarchism for me than gun control. Perhaps I need to start another thread.

Yes, I mean it. The US government will not "inevitably" progress into a fascist dictatorship: it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability.

[Virulent]

I feel like you're back-pedaling MMI, can you help me understand your rationale? You said: "(George Bush) would be unwise to declare war on individuals or the people as a whole ... because they'd vote him out." then you said "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability".

So I think I misunderstood you originally; you DON'T believe that you can vote out fascism, you instead believe that "it will be stopped before that happens, by the electorate in all probability", right?

So it sounds like you're saying that democratic governments never make it to fascism to me... but I don't think you could possibly mean that, the counter-examples being kind of obvious.

So... what do you mean?

[MMI]

So... what do you mean?

I'm saying I believe that the government of the United States is unlikely to become a fascist dictatorship because there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent it. This means that, if the President decided to move towards fascism (or any other undemocratic philosphy) he would either be voted out, because the electorate would reject his policies, or he'd be forced out of office - by impeachment, perhaps.

I also think that's the case for most "stable" governments - France, Germany, Australia and so on.

I believe some kind of coup would be necessary to install fascism in those countries.

[Virulent]

I'm saying I believe that the government of the United States is unlikely to become a fascist dictatorship because there are sufficient checks and balances to prevent it.

I agree with everything in this statement other than the word "sufficient". I think that sufficiency is a judgment that can only be made in retrospect. I, for one, feel better the more checks and balances there are, to no end. The more policies and provisions there are to obstruct any legislative or executive action, the happier I am. Filibuster everything!

That government is best which governs least.