NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading the thread on "Examinational democracy" posted by Gryphonwing wherein it was proposed that polititians should pass tests to demonstrate their capability to lead. I don't think that problem truly lies in stupid polititians, so much as the stupid people who vote them in. So instead of this scheme of democracy, I propose a similar, yet sharply distinct system:

Liberal Fascism

The unfortunate fact with democracy is that even if you had a list of skilled polititians, the people would pick which ever one had better hair. This is the inescapable and unfortunate flaw of democracy; 'majority rules', even if it is stupid or misled. This has been the case since the conception of democracy. Anacharsis, an ancient Scythian King, upon visiting Athens criticised democracy as a system wherein "Wise men argue causes; fools decide them".

To combat the tyranny of the mob, I propose 'liberal fascism', or to put it simply 'freedom for the deserving'. If an individual wants a particular set of freedoms, he has to prove he deserves it by taking a test. There would be 4 categories of freedoms/rights; human, civil, economic, and political.

First up, all individuals are awarded a human rights certificate at birth, as they have already passed that test. The government would protect the human rights all of all humans.

If you want civil freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, then you don't deserve civil rights. This test would be easy, and based purely on your ability to respect others who have also passed the test. You would take this test as a teenager, maybe 16-18 (upon legal independence). This test is essentially compulsory to pass, as it is quite difficult to live without civil liberties. The point is that in order to have your civil rights protected by the law, you first have to show you understand this comes on the condition of respecting the civil rights of others. The second great thing about this is that it could serve as a contractual obligation to follow the law. Currently, I don't quite understand why anyone should have to follow the laws of their government without first agreeing to.

If you want economic freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, you shouldn't own a business. This test is not as hard as the political freedoms test, but not easy. Theoreticaly, competition is still active, only the lowest band of the competion is removed from market. Less failed businesses, more workers.

Finally, if you want political freedom, take the test and earn it. If your too stupid to pass, then you shouldn't be voting or running for government. This test would be the hardest of the lot and would safeguard the wellbeing of everyone into the hands of those who at least have some idea of politics. Idiots and those who don't care don't mess with the votes.

What do you think?

What do you think?
I think...that's a frightening idea.

I don't see the liberalism. It sounds like some sort of technocracy or extreme meritocracy.

Holy crap! It's like Starship Troopers, except replacing the military with a test. That's frightening enough for me...

I don't see the liberalism. It sounds like some sort of technocracy or extreme meritocracy.
Sure there is, just that the liberties are regulated by fascist divisionism/elitism. The result would be levels of freedom. Ideally, you could carry this system over to citizenship as well (wherein default citizenship does not exist, and even natives must pass a test to progress to the status of 'citizen').

Sure there is, just that the liberties are regulated by fascist divisionism/elitism. The result would be levels of freedom. Ideally, you could carry this system over to citizenship as well (wherein default citizenship does not exist, and even natives must pass a test to progress to the status of 'citizen').

Christ. I thought eugenics had passed away decades ago, and rightly so.

Christ. I thought eugenics had passed away decades ago, and rightly so.
There's no eugenics there. That would require some form of racial superiority (which we all know is BS), or genetic manipulation. I'm only talking political economics here, actual policies are different. Mind you I am in support of eugenics, but that is not the issue here.

There's no eugenics there. That would require some form of racial superiority (which we all know is BS), or genetic manipulation. I'm only talking political economics here, actual policies are different. Mind you I am in support of eugenics, but that is not the issue here.

Eugenics is a pile of crap, anyone can see that. And this is eugenics - mental eugenics. Only the smarter can be involved in society.

[FONT="Courier New"]If you want economic freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, you shouldn't own a business. This test is not as hard as the political freedoms test, but not easy. Theoreticaly, competition is still active, only the lowest band of the competion is removed from market. Less failed businesses, more workers.
Gee, I wonder how this test would apply to those of the mega US corporations that failed recently, such as Enron and WorldCom. Just think of the number of people involved in those fiascos.

Speaking of bubbles bursting, I think this could also apply to your suggested economic strategy as outlined here?

Uhh... so where's the 'liberal' part of this fascism...?

Trying to create a sense of social responsibility in return for protection of your rights is one thing; giving the power of the state to decide whether or not to ensure your civil rights is another, scary idea...

What do you think?

I like the idea, but as a practical matter, I think this system would be prone to corruption. Who would make the tests?

Or we could just make stupidity a crime and shoot offenders, turning them in to dog food (or Big Macs). Either way, Darwin pwnz j00.

I mean, I already run over chavs when I'm out and about :)

Eugenics is a pile of crap, anyone can see that. And this is eugenics - mental eugenics. Only the smarter can be involved in society.
Only if you believe intelligence is genetic (which is debatable), and the decision were based on this fact. I don't care if you are retarded (or came from a long line of village idiots), as long as you can pass the test. Therefore the focus does not lie on any genetic superiority. Furthermore, none of these tests require great levels of intelligence. It's more that they rule out extreme stupidity, and even 'intelligent' people with stupid ideas. Again, no eugenics.

I'm not much in favor of caste systems of any sort...

Gee, I wonder how this test would apply to those of the mega US corporations that failed recently, such as Enron and WorldCom. Just think of the number of people involved in those fiascos.

Speaking of bubbles bursting, I think this could also apply to your suggested economic strategy as outlined here?

It definitely would. Corporate empires will fall in any system that allows them to exist autonomously (which is the best way). I never claimed to eliminate inefficient or dishonest business. I did claim to eliminate the massive waste of resources that is halfwit self-employed types who couldn't pass a simple bussiness test. Instead, those guys would be working in a successful business.

I'm not much in favor of caste systems of any sort...

Agreed. This is selective and mental tyranny. It's basically 'Service guarentee's Citizenship!' but replace 'Service' with 'Intelligence based upon someone's biased perceptions'.

I like the idea, but as a practical matter, I think this system would be prone to corruption. Who would make the tests?
This one is a pickle, but remember this still is a twisted democracy. So presumably, the voting population would elect some independent board as we do in our current system for such things.

Uhh... so where's the 'liberal' part of this fascism...?

Trying to create a sense of social responsibility in return for protection of your rights is one thing; giving the power of the state to decide whether or not to ensure your civil rights is another, scary idea...

The 'liberal' part is there if you earn it. The idea of earning rights would go across the board. So if you were a hard libertarian and you wanted to own your own gun, you would have to pass a test to show you had the responsibility to do so, or rather you weren't going to do something stupid with it. The train of thought I'm running on here is that most of the societies woes come from stupid people misusing the freedoms they have to ruin it for others.

I'm not much in favor of caste systems of any sort...
Up to you, but remember these castes don't discriminate on birth. I don't care who you are, where you are from, what you think of the government, what colour you skin is, what religion you are, only that you have a reasonable command of logic/reason. If that is beyond you, you can live a good life, you just won't be in charge.

Sure there is, just that the liberties are regulated by fascist divisionism/elitism. The result would be levels of freedom. Ideally, you could carry this system over to citizenship as well (wherein default citizenship does not exist, and even natives must pass a test to progress to the status of 'citizen').
Most authoritarian regimes gave freedoms to their ruling class.

They are known as authoritarian because they didn't give freedom to everyone.

Agreed. This is selective and mental tyranny. It's basically 'Service guarentee's Citizenship!' but replace 'Service' with 'Intelligence based upon someone's biased perceptions'.
Not so much 'intelligence' as 'lack of stupidity'. Average intelligence should be able to pass every test. Furthermore the tests wouldn't measure your intelligence (as I said, you can be as dumb as dogshit, as long as you pass the test). Also, bias wouldn't come into beyond what is contextually relevant (i.e. tests which measure political understanding would of course be from the perspective that democracy is good, peace is good, ect. A working knowledge of the current economic/political systems is essential, though a knowledge of other systems is not prophibited (say, communism). Of course, if you didn't like the test, you could appeal and demonstrate the shortcomings of how it measures your idea of reason. If the testing board thinks you have a fair arguement, you test could be remarked and the criteria changed.

The 'liberal' part is there if you earn it. The idea of earning rights would go across the board. So if you were a hard libertarian and you wanted to own your own gun, you would have to pass a test to show you had the responsibility to do so, or rather you weren't going to do something stupid with it. The train of thought I'm running on here is that most of the societies woes come from stupid people misusing the freedoms they have to ruin it for others.
You are very very very scary. There is an arguement for minimum academic qualifications and experience to lead, and possibly a degree of complication in the process of electing ones leaders to augment the the playing feild towards the smarter candidate - such as proper debates about issues chaired by neutrals. But our basic rights should not be earned again. In Britain and for that matter, most of Europe, rights were slowly granted from above and each step of the way was hard work, we wouldn't want to go through that again. In my home country Zimbabwe, when the Rhodesians took away the limited voting powers of the black population and tried to replace them with earned voting rights based on education, wealth and national service they guarenteed two long civil wars and the demise of any form of political power in Southern Africa's white population for the next hundred years. The scary thing is the obvious need to ensure smarter, more honerable men and women lead us rather than the Bushs Blairs and Mugabes of this world - I only hope your idea dies in the chat rooms

Or we could just make stupidity a crime and shoot offenders, turning them in to dog food (or Big Macs). Either way, Darwin pwnz j00.

I mean, I already run over chavs when I'm out and about :)
Stupidity already is a crime. It carries a fine of $5 and can be enforced by any citizen upon seeing a demonstratably stupid action of another.

Oh, btw.. that'll be $5 for your post. :)

Most authoritarian regimes gave freedoms to their ruling class.

They are known as authoritarian because they didn't give freedom to everyone.

Everyone is free in terms of human rights; freedom of thought, speech, religion, movement...
Most (surely more than 95%) people are free in terms of civil rights; protection of property rights, access to govt welfare, able to lodge lawsuits...

The only restriciton of freedoms is to voters and businesspersons. Even then, I would argue, the majority would make the cut, just not the disruptive, stupid, criminal, and useless types.

You are very very very scary. There is an arguement for minimum academic qualifications and experience to lead, and possibly a degree of complication in the process of electing ones leaders to augment the the playing feild towards the smarter candidate - such as proper debates about issues chaired by neutrals. But our basic rights should not be earned again. In Britain and for that matter, most of Europe, rights were slowly granted from above and each step of the way was hard work, we wouldn't want to go through that again. In my home country Zimbabwe, when the Rhodesians took away the limited voting powers of the black population and tried to replace them with earned voting rights based on education, wealth and national service they guarenteed two long civil wars and the demise of any form of political power in Southern Africa's white population for the next hundred years. The scary thing is the obvious need to ensure smarter, more honerable men and women lead us rather than the Bushs Blairs and Mugabes of this world - I only hope your idea dies in the chat rooms


Whoa, relax mate. Think of this as more of a playful hypothetical spawned by too many encounters with stupid stupid voters. It's fun to contemplate though...hmmm...

Everyone is free in terms of human rights; freedom of thought, speech, religion, movement...
Most (surely more than 95%) people are free in terms of civil rights; protection of property rights, access to govt welfare, able to lodge lawsuits...

The only restriciton of freedoms is to voters and businesspersons. Even then, I would argue, the majority would make the cut, just not the disruptive, stupid, criminal, and useless types.

What about those who challenge your version of knowledge and order. Gallelao challenged the idea of the world being the centre of the Universe and he was tried and risked death unless he recanted, but he was not a stupid man. Do the people who accept one set of ideas lose their rights to vote if their ideas are discreditied?

Whoa, relax mate. Think of this as more of a playful hypothetical spawned by too many encounters with stupid stupid voters. It's fun to contemplate though...hmmm...

In jest we tell the truth we dare not say elsewhere.

I couldn't tell you were joking, in part because I too have met too many stupid people, who might beleive such ideas are viable

Nah, the only real way to go is through a good old fashionned enllightened dictatorship.

With me as the Enlightened Dictator, obviously. However, your system does seem nice enough... Want to be my minister of pretend-democracy? Or head of my parliament of puppets?

What about those who challenge your version of knowledge and order. Gallelao challenged the idea of the world being the centre of the Universe and he was tried and risked death unless he recanted, but he was not a stupid man. Do the people who accept one set of ideas lose their rights to vote if their ideas are discreditied?

It wouldn't by my version of anything. I like to refer to this system as 'mine' in an affectionate way as it is my cutesy wutesy brainchild, however the reality is that I would have no sway over it should it exist. To answer you question I'll quote an earlier post of mine:

*sip* A working knowledge of the current economic/political systems is essential, though a knowledge of other systems is not prophibited (say, communism). Of course, if you didn't like the test, you could appeal and demonstrate the shortcomings of how it measures your idea of reason. If the testing board thinks you have a fair arguement, you test could be remarked and the criteria changed.

The idea is that the testing board would operate like any elected watchdog/authority. To try and give an objective analysis to their field and reform when appropriate. Remember that citizens don't have anything to protect, other than baseless voting. Support for variety of opinion would be in the test to become a citizen in the first place, (actually it would have been in the civil rights test also). The point is that no political ideaology is being endorsed in particular here, other thatn that those who do endorse whatever they do, endorse it because they have though it through, rather than because they don't know any better. People will still disagree, just the disagreeing parties will be more informed.

The 'liberal' part is there if you earn it. The idea of earning rights would go across the board. So if you were a hard libertarian and you wanted to own your own gun, you would have to pass a test to show you had the responsibility to do so, or rather you weren't going to do something stupid with it. The train of thought I'm running on here is that most of the societies woes come from stupid people misusing the freedoms they have to ruin it for others.

I would propose the opposite. Rather than force the people to 'earn' their rights, I would put the emphasis on people to vote, and to educate themselves on the issues. I would propose a 'weighted' voting system, where the 'value' of one person's vote is relative to their dedication to the democratic process.

For instance, every citizen of majority age should have a vote, but how about 'licensed voters', where people can gain tax incentives and aditional 'voting power' by taking non-partisan tests of their understanding of the political process and current events? A minor fine for people who choose not to vote?

The problem I think, is that the current system relies on disinformation, and relying on the 'masses' to choose between 2 relatively similiar candidates that are both backed by an establishment that wants to maintain the status quo.

To combat the tyranny of the mob, I propose 'liberal fascism', or to put it simply 'freedom for the deserving'. If an individual wants a particular set of freedoms, he has to prove he deserves it by taking a test. There would be 4 categories of freedoms/rights; human, civil, economic, and political.

First up, all individuals are awarded a human rights certificate at birth, as they have already passed that test. The government would protect the human rights all of all humans.

If you want civil freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, then you don't deserve civil rights. This test would be easy, and based purely on your ability to respect others who have also passed the test. You would take this test as a teenager, maybe 16-18 (upon legal independence). This test is essentially compulsory to pass, as it is quite difficult to live without civil liberties. The point is that in order to have your civil rights protected by the law, you first have to show you understand this comes on the condition of respecting the civil rights of others. The second great thing about this is that it could serve as a contractual obligation to follow the law. Currently, I don't quite understand why anyone should have to follow the laws of their government without first agreeing to.

If you want economic freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, you shouldn't own a business. This test is not as hard as the political freedoms test, but not easy. Theoreticaly, competition is still active, only the lowest band of the competion is removed from market. Less failed businesses, more workers.

Finally, if you want political freedom, take the test and earn it. If your too stupid to pass, then you shouldn't be voting or running for government. This test would be the hardest of the lot and would safeguard the wellbeing of everyone into the hands of those who at least have some idea of politics. Idiots and those who don't care don't mess with the votes.

What do you think?
What do I think? I think this is one of the worst ideas ever generated by the demented mind of man! You are dehumanizing massive numbers of people. If you are a citizen of America, you have the right to vote under the Constitution with very, very few exceptions.

I see this as just another example of so-called liberals' thinly disguised contempt for the common man. IMHO, this is one of the primary reasons why liberalism has become almost a dirty word in America.

In jest we tell the truth we dare not say elsewhere.

I couldn't tell you were joking, in part because I too have met too many stupid people, who might beleive such ideas are viable

Not joking, more whimsically playing with the idea. Think of it as mental excersice. Political food for thought. I don't think that one would be have to be stupid to believe the viability of this idea. Maybe a little idealistic, though. The only problem I have faced with this one is that it is so radically different from existing systems it is hard to measure possible flaws (which is why I brought it here). In theory it seems to click fine though. There definitely would be some problems though, the trick is guessing what they would be...

sweet christ... thats scary.. what happins to the mentaly il or diaabled who cant pass any test.. they dont have any civil right.. jesus christ.. man . id fight to th death to stop anything like this.. its slightly more frightning than nazism..

I would propose the opposite. Rather than force the people to 'earn' their rights, I would put the emphasis on people to vote, and to educate themselves on the issues. I would propose a 'weighted' voting system, where the 'value' of one person's vote is relative to their dedication to the democratic process.

For instance, every citizen of majority age should have a vote, but how about 'licensed voters', where people can gain tax incentives and aditional 'voting power' by taking non-partisan tests of their understanding of the political process and current events? A minor fine for people who choose not to vote?

The problem I think, is that the current system relies on disinformation, and relying on the 'masses' to choose between 2 relatively similiar candidates that are both backed by an establishment that wants to maintain the status quo.

I love it! It is a similar approach, but attracts far less knee-jerk reactions from democracy apologists. People still feel like they have a say, but if they care, they can work towards informing themselves, thus boosting the influence of their say! 100 points to Mikesburg!!!:D

See, this is why I post this crap! *dances with glee* very happy with this 'humanistic approach! I did feel deep down that my previous idea was a little...how do you say, 'mean'? Also unrealistic. I wouldn't feel guilty implementing this system though. Thanks mate, I will enjoy tossing this one around upstairs.

What do I think? I think this is one of the worst ideas ever generated by the demented mind of man! You are dehumanizing massive numbers of people. If you are a citizen of America, you have the right to vote under the Constitution with very, very few exceptions.

I see this as just another example of so-called liberals' thinly disguised contempt for the common man. IMHO, this is one of the primary reasons why liberalism has become almost a dirty word in America.

I wasn't talking about America, nor am I American, or a liberal for that matter. Furthermore, the only thing my hypothetical sytem shares with the American 'liberals' is the word. In actual fact, my system portrays a hyper-right political scenario, closer to the republicans on the political spectrum (though not in policy, so relax).

I wasn't talking about America, nor am I American, or a liberal for that matter. Furthermore, the only thing my hypothetical sytem shares with the American 'liberals' is the word. In actual fact, my system portrays a hyper-right political scenario, closer to the republicans on the political spectrum (though not in policy, so relax).
Then a plague on it.

I love it! It is a similar approach, but attracts far less knee-jerk reactions from democracy apologists. People still feel like they have a say, but if they care, they can work towards informing themselves, thus boosting the influence of their say! 100 points to Mikesburg!!!:D

See, this is why I post this crap! *dances with glee* very happy with this 'humanistic approach! I did feel deep down that my previous idea was a little...how do you say, 'mean'? Also unrealistic. I wouldn't feel guilty implementing this system though. Thanks mate, I will enjoy tossing this one around upstairs.

:) Yeah, that idea's been bouncing around in my head for awhile, but it won't please everybody. Get's away from the whole 1 vote per person angle. And the nature of 'non-partisan testing' of voter licensing is debatable too.

But I do like the idea.

sweet christ... thats scary.. what happins to the mentaly il or diaabled who cant pass any test.. they dont have any civil right.. jesus christ.. man . id fight to th death to stop anything like this.. its slightly more frightning than nazism..
Bingo! Thats where I intially got the idea, 'Mein Kampf'. Mind you it should be less frghtening than Nazism, as I merely took their system and swapped racism for discriminating against stupidity. I also deleted the whole dictatorship thing and swapped it for a twisted form of democracy. In the case of disabled and mentally ill, there would probably have to be a form of govt. welfare for these exceptional cases(mind you, they still wouldn't vote).

sweet christ... thats scary.. what happins to the mentaly il or diaabled who cant pass any test.. they dont have any civil right.. jesus christ.. man . id fight to th death to stop anything like this.. its slightly more frightning than nazism..
And I would join you! Old as I am, I still kick ass! :D

Then a plague on it.
give me some reasons to munch on, on either my or Mikesburg's post:

I would propose the opposite. Rather than force the people to 'earn' their rights, I would put the emphasis on people to vote, and to educate themselves on the issues. I would propose a 'weighted' voting system, where the 'value' of one person's vote is relative to their dedication to the democratic process.

For instance, every citizen of majority age should have a vote, but how about 'licensed voters', where people can gain tax incentives and aditional 'voting power' by taking non-partisan tests of their understanding of the political process and current events? A minor fine for people who choose not to vote?

The problem I think, is that the current system relies on disinformation, and relying on the 'masses' to choose between 2 relatively similiar candidates that are both backed by an establishment that wants to maintain the status quo.

snip

What do I think? Anyone who thinks standardized tests are a way to award greater "citizenship" of some sort probably would be able to pass them.

First up, all individuals are awarded a human rights certificate at birth, as they have already passed that test. The government would protect the human rights all of all humans.
What defines a "human right"? Under a number of definitions/charters, you'd see civil liberties listed as human rights. The UN defines three hots and a flop as essential human rights.
If you want civil freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, then you don't deserve civil rights. This test would be easy, and based purely on your ability to respect others who have also passed the test. You would take this test as a teenager, maybe 16-18 (upon legal independence). This test is essentially compulsory to pass, as it is quite difficult to live without civil liberties. The point is that in order to have your civil rights protected by the law, you first have to show you understand this comes on the condition of respecting the civil rights of others. The second great thing about this is that it could serve as a contractual obligation to follow the law. Currently, I don't quite understand why anyone should have to follow the laws of their government without first agreeing to.
What is a "civil freedom"? How does one "respect" them in others? More importantly, how do you know people won't just fake it for the duration of the test, and then back to disrespecting?
If you want economic freedom, take the test. If you can't pass, you shouldn't own a business. This test is not as hard as the political freedoms test, but not easy. Theoreticaly, competition is still active, only the lowest band of the competion is removed from market. Less failed businesses, more workers.
Isn't the ability to run a business successfully without getting arrested a pretty strict test already? Not every business method/scheme will meet the same testing criteria, so this method wouldn't weed out anyone extra, and would serve to stifle innovation by eliminating those people who don't match the current model for success.
Finally, if you want political freedom, take the test and earn it. If your too stupid to pass, then you shouldn't be voting or running for government. This test would be the hardest of the lot and would safeguard the wellbeing of everyone into the hands of those who at least have some idea of politics. Idiots and those who don't care don't mess with the votes.
Here, we are in perfect accord. Not just because it weeds out the ignorant voters, but also because the difficulty in taking the test will weed out those people who haven't enough will or interest in how they are governed.

Fiction that is frighteningly close to current reality...

Finally, if you want political freedom, take the test and earn it. If your too stupid to pass, then you shouldn't be voting or running for government. This test would be the hardest of the lot and would safeguard the wellbeing of everyone into the hands of those who at least have some idea of politics. Idiots and those who don't care don't mess with the votes.

What do you think?

Would you be allowed to run for office if you wanted to abandon the system as a matter of policy?

What defines a "human right"? Under a number of definitions/charters, you'd see civil liberties listed as human rights. The UN defines three hots and a flop as essential human rights.

What is a "civil freedom"? How does one "respect" them in others? More importantly, how do you know people won't just fake it for the duration of the test, and then back to disrespecting?

Yeah, I deliberately didn't go into that one. To tell the candid truth I just wanted to have convenient level of rights. The reality is that each would need specific definitions. I can give you a vague one right now, though. Human rights would be all of the things you need to live a happy life; freedom of speech, thought, religion, from discrimination, from persecution, and the right to property. Civil rights would be access to the fruits of government welfare, protection of the law and the right to use against others; lawsuits, access to subsidies in healthcare and education, stuff like that. Makeshift definiton.

Isn't the ability to run a business successfully without getting arrested a pretty strict test already? Not every business method/scheme will meet the same testing criteria, so this method wouldn't weed out anyone extra, and would serve to stifle innovation by eliminating those people who don't match the current model for success.

Touche. I was hoping to eliminate the hopeless small businesses that file for bankruptcy in their droves, but that is hard to do without also hedging of a few fringe entrepenuer with unconventional tactics. Probably should let the free market sort those guys out...(again, I just wanted to have another type of freedom to earn. The key component of the theory is the political aspect).

Here, we are in perfect accord. Not just because it weeds out the ignorant voters, but also because the difficulty in taking the test will weed out those people who haven't enough will or interest in how they are governed.

I know, it's cool right. However, you should read back and take a squiz at Mikesburg's suggestion wherein you do not offend the democracy apologists by simply scaling the value of a vote depending on how many 'points' you have. Points being based on non-partisan tests and prerequisites of different kinds. That way everyone gets a vote, but those who care can seriously increase the value of their vote.

The concept I have of both Liberalism and Fascism decrees that nothing could be possibly more opposite to Fascism than Liberalism.
I am exceedingly proud to be a Liberal.

Would you be allowed to run for office if you wanted to abandon the system as a matter of policy?
As long as you could pass the test in the first place, sure. I don't suspect you would receive a huge level of voter-sympathy for putting them back on par with those who haven't earned the right to vote. Remember that the people that the said polititian would be championing couldn't help him with votes (though possibly through demonstrations they may). The polititian would have to rely on sympathy...

What's wrong with the majority? If a law is being discussed that has certain obscure benefits only economists can see, for example, but is distasteful to the masses, it should be weeded out by the popular vote. The solution to ignorance is to encourage education and encourage people to become involved in debates, not to deny people the right to vote or to have opinions on politics (however uninformed). Established democracies already have checks on the tyranny of the majority anyway.

The concept I have of both Liberalism and Fascism decrees that nothing could be possibly more opposite to Fascism than Liberalism.
I am exceedingly proud to be a Liberal.

I am not using the term 'Liberal' in the very limited way that refers to the left wing of bipartisan political philosophy in the U.S. Nor am I refering to the right-wingers in Australia who go by the same name. No, I use the term by it's definition,(i.e. freedom). This paired with Facism combines to form a unequal, free society. More accurately, a society where freedom is present, but distributed unequally in a heirachy.

Would you be allowed to run for office if you wanted to abandon the system as a matter of policy?
Excellent question! I rather doubt it, since it would be an imposed system and intensely disliked by most people.

Excellent question! I rather doubt it, since it would be an imposed system and intensely disliked by most people.
read above

I am not using the term 'Liberal' in the very limited way that refers to the left wing of bipartisan political philosophy in the U.S. Nor am I refering to the right-wingers in Australia who go by the same name. No, I use the term by it's definition,(i.e. freedom). This paired with Facism combines to form a unequal, free society. More accurately, a society where freedom is present, but distributed unequally in a heirachy.

An unequal society is not free!

What a small 'l' liberal helping of lowercase fascism.

An unequal society is not free!

Forced equality is not freedom!


(Sorry: Nothing wrong with equality, but people aren't really all that equal to begin with. The only way to force everyone to be equal would be to force everyone to conform, thus, no freedom.)

Aisde from the idea being horrendous, 'liberal fascism' is called 'neoconservatism' (Bush's policies). For example, the PATRIOT Act: 'Conservative' used to mean 'constitutional' and 'liberal' meant 'unconstitutional,' but the PATRIOT Act is unConstitutional and fascist (Orwellian). That's just one example showing how neoconservatism is simply liberalism leaning towards fascism.

That is not "liberal fascism" (whatever that means). It is fascism itself.

Think Italy didn't have a Parliament in the 1920s-30s? Think Franco and Salazar didn't each have one? Or Horthy's Hungary?
Mussolini came up with the idea: get the deserving in there, not the cake-eaters.

It's good to see people want to bring back crapola.

The thing is, people may be stupid about a lot of things.

But what they're hardly ever stupid about is what's in their best interest, from their perspective.

If you give voting rights only to an enlightened minority they won't be electing leaders who are doing what's in the best interest of the majority.

Now, it is true that our two party system in the US pretty much ensures that a majority of the people will *not* be represented. But, if over 50% of the people are living crappy lives, they'll vote for people who they like better.

Somebody elected by stupid, self interested people would lead to a happier nation on average than somebody elected by enlightened intellectuals. Because a stupid person knows what's in his own best interest than a smart person knows what's in a stuipd person's best interest.