TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Original text here:
Fascism Anyone?
City: Looking at the world right now, do you consider the US a fascist state?
Britt: No. By definition it's a democracy. My article is a cautionary tale. This is what I've researched; this is what I've seen; this is what's happened in the past. You can draw your own conclusions: No, this has nothing to do with the United States; or, there are some disquieting trends here that we certainly have to be aware of, and the powers that be exhibit many of these characteristics, and we'd better damn well be careful.
Fascism in America?
ogvh5150: Am I supposed to just agree because you posted a pic? 
The lofty connection is a bit too subtle; why not support it with a little arguement? Perhaps a connection between which points reflect your views on the matter.
The playgroud, school yard arguement of posting a Bush pic everytime a Nazi symbol shows up doesn't explain anything IMHO.
Sorry, but I forgot to take my clairaudient pills this morning... 
As for Canada, I can agree that we fit the bill much closer than any Bush arguement hands down.
The points that I could truly argue as being Canada:
6. Controlled Mass Media
The state-run CBC division of the Liberal Party...
| quote: | ||
The CBC as a Liberal breeding farm Is the CBC a farm? Is their main product Grade-A prime Canadian Liberal? This paragraph in a National Post article on the state-run CBC division of the Liberal Party caught my eye:
In general terms, we all want long-term, permanent jobs. But: (1) He�s taking sides? Only in Canada! And oh, the fun of state-run socialist enterprises! (2) �We want long-term, permanent jobs for all our citizens�? Surely on this point he misspoke. Is he implying that regardless of the financial bottom line; regardless of the business ramifications; regardless of the measure of useful productivity; regardless of how the top (Liberal appointed) board and management at the state-run media want to run things� he as a Liberal Party politician and cabinet minister will tacitly dictate that the state must employ its citizens? That�s simply communist thinking! Mr. Fontana sounds very much like a communist to me. He and health minister Ujjal Dosanjh both sound very much like communists to me. That�s the point of the state-run media? That�s the point of all those Canadian government state-run enterprises which all compete against resourceful Canadian citizens? The CBC should be dismantled or sold, and a prohibition against government interference into free markets and private enterprise should be enshrined in our Constitution. You want �long-term, permanent jobs for all our citizens,� Mr. Fontana and all other liberal-left ideologically-driven fundamentalists? Get the government off our backs, out of our faces, and stop competing against your own citizens. What kind of a government would compete against its own citizens for their very livelihoods and that of their families? |
| quote: |
Opposition cries Liberal cronyism Dingwall expense scandal provides fuel for critics Peter Evans Financial Post Saturday, October 01, 2005 MINT MESS David Dingwall resigned this week as president of the Royal Canadian Mint after a scandal involving his expense accounts. Opposition MPs were instantly up in arms, arguing it's the latest example of Liberal cronyism, but so far the Grits have been standing by their man. Despite taking in more than $250,000 in salary, the former Cabinet member managed to rack up almost $800,000 in expenses. In addition to high-end luxuries such as a $1,400 golf club membership and a $5,728 meal at a tony Ottawa restaurant, some relatively pedestrian items were also charged to taxpayers. For some reason, the Mint apparently picked up the tab for a $1.29 pack of breath-freshening chewing gun. No word yet on what kind, but here's hoping it was "mint" flavour. |
I believe the US administration has covered more than half of those points.
It's scary if you ask me. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they could see the beleaguered state of our Nation.
It's as though we've sold out to the greed of corporate excess.
| quote: |
| If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. - Samuel Adams |
Found this on the net about "Dr." Britt and his list.
| quote: |
| 'Dr' Lawrence Britt is allegedly a political scientist. The article in question was originally written in the Free Inquiry Magazine (Volume 23, Number 2: Oct/Nov 2003), however the article is attributed to a Laurence W Britt (note the absense of the title Dr there) who appears to be a novelist. Another article from Rochester's City Newspaper informs readers the Laurence Britt is a retired professional who used to work for Allied Chemical, Mobil, and Xerox Corp. His politics were clarified during his years studying business at Northwestern University in the early 1960s, although it does not specify if he gained a doctorate. "I had a course in Situational Analysis," says Britt. "You would analyze facts and come to a solution for businesses. I applied the same methodology to determine what political philosophy was most appropriate. After a lot of reading and research, I came down on the progressive side." Since retiring, Britt has written three novels, but it's that one short article from Free Inquiry Magazine that has gained him high visibility on the left. The article in the City Newspaper linked above also asks Britt to elaborate on the 14 points of fascism and makes an interesting read. From what I can ascertain, he is not actually a doctor, and not a political scientist either (at least not professionally). Interesting. I imagine the press somewhere along the line embellished the original story to make it more newsworthy by adding the Dr title and calling him a political scientist rather than a novelist; sounds more 'official' I guess... I'll edit out the 'Dr' from my original entry. Thanks for the reality check John.  I also found this article titled "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt" written in 1995.. which bears remarkable similarity to Britts article written 9 years later, having the same number of points (14) even.. hmm. Noteworthy: 15. A significant upsurge in the number of lists which enumerate the characteristics of fascism. Interesting quote I happened across along the way though: "Under the influence of politicians, masses of people tend to ascribe the responsibility of wars to those who wield power at any given time. In World War I it was the munitions industrialists; in World War II it was the psychopathic generals who were said to be guilty. This is passing the buck. The responsibility for wars falls solely upon the shoulders of these masses of people, for they have all the necessary means to avert war in their own hands. In part by their apathy, in part by their passivity, and in part actively, these same masses of people make possible the catastrophes under which they themselves suffer more than anyone else. To stress this guilt on the part of the masses of people, to hold them solely responsible, means to take them seriously. On the other hand, to commiserate the masses of people as victims, means to treat them as small, helpless children. The former is the attitude held by the genuine freedom-fighters; the latter is the attitude held by the power-thirsty politicians."... Reich, Wilhelm, "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". (Farrar, Straux & Giroux; New York; 1980). |
| quote: |
| This is a highly flawed article. It is not a very accurate picture of fascism and frankly was a ripoff from a much better article by Umberto Eco: Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html The Britt article started with what is happening in the U.S. and then crafted a description of fascism that only highlights those points that will support the thesis. This is a logical fallacy (the false notion that things that are similar in some aspects are identical in all aspects). See also these definitions/descriptions: http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html Fascism is an especially virulent form of extreme right populism. Fascism glorifies national, racial, or cultural unity and collective rebirth while seeking to purge imagined enemies. It attacks both revolutionary movements and liberal pluralism in favor of militarized, totalitarian mass politics. Fascism first crystallized in Europe in response to the Bolshevik Revolution and the devastation of World War I, and then spread to other parts of the world. Between the two world wars, there were three forms of fascism: Italian economic corporatism; German racial nationalist Nazism; and clerical fascist movements such as the Romanian Iron Guard and the Croatian Ustashi. Since WWII, neofascists have reinterpreted fascist ideology and strategy in various ways to fit new circumstances. Roger Griffin, an influential scholar of generic fascism, argues that cism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the �people� into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence. There are other common components of fascism, including an exclusionary form of ethnonationalism that narrowly defines who the real people or Volk are; the idea of the primary importance of the homogenous whole (Integralism); and the diminution of the importance of the individual in a society ruled by leaders who metaphysically represent the will of the people (Organicism). These factors create a drive for totalitarian control in fascist movements and states. Totalitarian movements and governments insist on intruding into and controlling every aspect of a person's life-public or private-political, social, or cultural. Totalitarianism is a term that still has analytical value despite its frequent misuse to bash the Left. Most notorious was Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 1981-1985, who promulgated a theory that communist governments were totalitarian and could never be reformed, but brutal right-wing dictatorships were merely authoritarian and thus could be reformed through alliances with the United States. While this misrepresented the work of Hannah Arendt in her definitive book The Origins of Totalitarianism, it also suffered from a certain lack of historical accuracy when communism collapsed in Europe. Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates Co-author, "Right-Wing Populism in America" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Found this on the net about "Dr." Britt and his list. A critique of Mr. Britt's original article. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r |
| quote: |
| In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism, ("the Left") on the other. National and cultural differences in the use of the terms left and right are common. In Europe (excluding Britain) liberalism is generally assigned to the center-right, and the European liberal parties are primarily free market liberals. In North America, liberal refers almost exclusively to new liberalism or social liberalism, and is generally assigned to the center-left (see Liberalism in America). However, the right in the United States, which self-identifies as 'conservative', is heavily influenced by classical European liberalism, especially the emphasis in classic British liberalism on the rights of the individual versus the state. Hostility toward the U.S. federal government, as a perceived threat to individual liberty, is found among both "liberals" and "conservatives". Similarly, in China, left and right have referred to different positions at different times, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations. |
| quote: |
| Etymology The word "liberal" derives from the Latin "liber" ("free") and all liberals present themselves as friends of freedom. ... The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal has long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776�88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant." ... The first English language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" according to the OED dates from about 1801 and comes from the French lib�ral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". They give early English language citation, "1801 Hel. M. WILLIAMS, Sk. Fr. Rep. I. xi. 113," presumably Helen Maria Williams, Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated." The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in that year in C�diz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to state that they opposed the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy. |
| quote: |
| Usage of the word liberalism The word liberalism has several different, but generally related, political meanings. In its original political meaning, the term "liberal" refers to a political philosophy, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and to a lesser extent the Idealist parts of the Romantic, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights. In the present, a variety of ideologies attempt to claim the mantle of 19th century liberalism, from American liberalism to libertarianism to social-liberalism. Liberals throughout the world understand liberalism as embracing a tradition rooted in the Enlightenment, the American War of Independence, the more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution, and the European Revolutions of 1848, with philosophical roots going back to the Renaissance traditions of empiricism (Sir Francis Bacon), humanism (Erasmus), and pragmatism (Niccol� Machiavelli). The original Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, attempted to establish limits on existing political powers by asserting that there were natural rights and fundamental laws of governance that not even kings could overstep without becoming tyrants. This was combined with the idea that commercial freedom would best benefit the whole of the political order, an idea that would later be associated with the advocacy of capitalism, and which was drawn from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The next important piece of the triad of ideas of liberalism, was the idea of popular self-determination. Most liberals support a combination of these ideas, although many would ascribe more importance to one of them than to the other two. |
| quote: |
| Liberalism today Political positions A caveat is in order: as with any other political philosophy, an abstract explanation of liberalism refers to an ideal. In practice, politicians make pragmatic compromises (see centrism), have personal interests, and may pander to voters, so that the ideal is never a perfect description of any one individual's politics. Further, as with any other political philosophy, liberalism in any of its forms is defined somewhat differently by its proponents and its opponents. Those who adhere precisely to a well-defined set of principles are often those who are far removed from contention for political power. That said, the policies of liberal parties are always more or less based on the right to self determination of the individual, and the reciprocal responsibility of the state to protect and promote the individual citizens which make it up. In general, liberals favor constitutional government, representative democracy and the rule of law. Liberals at various times have embraced both constitutional monarchy and republican government. They are generally opposed to any but the milder forms of nationalism, and usually stand in contrast to conservatives by their broader tolerance and in more readily embracing multiculturalism. Furthermore, they generally favor human rights and civil liberties, especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press (while disagreeing on the degree to which people have the right of economic wellbeing). However, the liberal commitment to unrestricted individual liberty is not necessarily absolute: as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre�," and liberal parties support restrictions on incitement to violence. In the penal system, liberals in most countries oppose capital punishment. Liberals believe in a free market and free trade, but they differ in the degree of limited government intervention in the economy which they advocate. In general, government responsibility for health, education and alleviating poverty fits into the policies of most liberal parties. But virtually all of them tend to believe in a far smaller role for the state than would be supported by most social democrats, let alone socialists or communists. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Am I supposed to just agree because you posted a pic? The lofty connection is a bit too subtle; why not support it with a little arguement? Perhaps a connection between which points reflect your views on the matter. The playgroud, school yard arguement of posting a Bush pic everytime a Nazi symbol shows up doesn't explain anything IMHO. Sorry, but I forgot to take my clairaudient pills this morning... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 @NeoPhono: Instead of arguing for or against the points you choose to argue the validity of the authors' data. So by that reasoning: Do you have some sort of political sciences degree? Are you a professor in a Ivy League school? Do you hold a high position in government? Are you in a think tank like the Council on Foreign Relations? Since obviously you don't, then argue why you think these points do or don't apply. If you do hold some sort of authoritative role then your knowledge is wasted on this pittance of a forum and should seek employment where your skills are needed. Discern your data, don't just use right click, copy and paste. |
Yes, because:
1-4 & 6-14 apply.
EDIT: Although I don't think we're quite there yet, atleast when it comes to our domestic policies. It's certainly the direction we seem to be headed though.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X The thing is, Fir3start3r, if you want to believe that the argument is just a Liberal vs Conservative one - well, I'll just say you could very well go to your grave trying to figure it out because that's not where the focus of the argument should be. Anyway, I hope that one day you may better understand the endless circle in which you're arguing by trotting that old, worn, Liberal vs. Conservative line. It's just ignorant in light of the fact that world politics are rough-hewn from a never ending pallete of contiguous, but assorted hues. (It's far from being black and white, or Liberal vs Conservative.) |
| quote: |
Do you think the US or your country qualifies under the 14 points? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 What you can do is argue whether or not these points apply and stop defending Dubya. By defending him you're denying the points and leaves you in the position that you agree with the points stated. Unless you can prove otherwise you're pretty much telling me that it's okay to lock up people with no right to trial and to torture them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Um...hello? Did you actually read the question regarding the poll are you still too busy trying to figure me out?? You're just as lost as Trancer-X when it comes to my reply in this post. Did you not hug Trancer-X when you rolled over this morning? (kidding!) I post points regarding how I feel my Canadian government and I'm defending Bush? Riiiiiiight.... You guys seriously need to climb some other tree because I've already answered my apparent "pro-Bush" stance >>HERE<< So step off already... |
| quote: |
| A caveat is in order: as with any other political philosophy, an abstract explanation of liberalism refers to an ideal. In practice, politicians make pragmatic compromises (see centrism), have personal interests, and may pander to voters, so that the ideal is never a perfect description of any one individual's politics. Further, as with any other political philosophy, liberalism in any of its forms is defined somewhat differently by its proponents and its opponents. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Duh, I was responding to your post where you are quoting all those sources regarding your "Liberal" party. Substitute "Liberal" with "Conservative" and you have the same shit being said about the government in my country. Jeeebus, is that so freakin' hard to figure out?! |
| quote: |
Should I start quoting my own posts so that you might finally get the hint? (Hint meaning, "hey dumbass, look at THISSSSS!!!!") |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X You're either amazingly stupid or f**king delusional. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r You're the only one substituting and putting words in my mouth. That wasn't the intent at all... If you want to substitute Liberal with Conservative and then make some flaky, psychosomatic connection with Bush everytime I talk about the Canadian Liberal party then be my guest. |
| quote: |
| Who are the neo-conservatives? Ex-liberals, socialists, and Trotskyites, who rafted over to the GOP at the end of conservatism's long march to power with Ronald Reagan. A neo-conservative is more likely to be a magazine editor than a brick layer, he's likely to be a resident scholar at a public policy institute such as the American Enterprise Institute. - Pat Buchanan, as printed in the American Conservative |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r No but you could start posting some actual support for the question being asked in this thread; that would be a start. I guess getting my face is distracting huh? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r If you knew anything about Canadian politics you'd know I'm right... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Uhhhhh, where in my post did I say ANYTHING about Bush? I guess I'll have to repeat myself once again... I was talking about the general misuse of two words which really pertain to ideologies and not political parties. Anyway, the Neo-cons aren't really conservative, they just adopted that platform because it was popular - so any argument you make to the contrary is null and void. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 What you "found" on the net is actually a comment posted by someone who runs a blog. That person just chooses to bash as if he the blogger actually is a credible source. His is plagiarized commentary mixed with text of the newspaper online article. He offers no worthwhile information. You actually went for the first hit on a Google Search for Lawrence Britt didn't you? Too bad, I was really looking forward for your original ideas. As for your second part: Chip Berlet is recipient of Ford Foundation money. Some would argue that the Ford Foundation is a CIA front. This same entity has funded Planned Parenthood and other population studies. But as with any conspiracy theory it must be in the movies starring Bruce Willis or Nicolas Cage for it to be credible information. Organization: Political Research Associates Purpose: To study the college and university campus leadership and outreachprograms of major national organizations and social movements andtheir relationship to political environment on campuses Location: SOMERVILLE, MA Program: Peace and Social Justice Unit: Governance and Civil Society Subject: Civil Society Amount: $ 175, 000 Year: 2002 Click for wayback machine archive Anyone can look at the original text here: Fascism Anyone? City: Looking at the world right now, do you consider the US a fascist state? Britt: No. By definition it's a democracy. My article is a cautionary tale. This is what I've researched; this is what I've seen; this is what's happened in the past. You can draw your own conclusions: No, this has nothing to do with the United States; or, there are some disquieting trends here that we certainly have to be aware of, and the powers that be exhibit many of these characteristics, and we'd better damn well be careful. Fascism in America? |
| quote: |
| The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations. The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries. At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question. The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights. Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people. Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty. The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security, for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort. The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind. |
| quote: |
| The key element in a free society is that individuals should wield control of their own lives, receiving the benefits and suffering the consequences of all their acts. Once the individual becomes a pawn of the state, whether a monarch or a majority runs the state, a free society can no longer endure. We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual freedom is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it. - HON. Ron Paul (January 31 & February 2, 2000) http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/c...00/cr020200.htm |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono That's exactly why I didn't post my own thoughts on the matter, I went for a source that did have some objective validity. I can post my thoughts on the issue all I want, but I wanted to find some sources from people that I felt did know what they were talking about. I'll post my opinions, and the facts I know such as in medicine/biology, but I don't see other people getting upset when quotes are used from others, so I'm not sure why I'm in a different boat. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 John Foster Dulles (Council on Foreign Relations founding member) whose brother Allen brought about the Central Intelligence Agency when Allen was in it's predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X It's funny you should mention Allen Dulles. I was just talking about him the other day... http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...118#post5091118 |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.