What the United States Supreme Court Says

[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.