Seriously Stoic, what is degeneracy, who decides, and in accordance with what moral code? You can’t simply label any behavior or physical characteristic you find offensive as degenerate and make it the state’s mission to stamp it out - well, actually, that’s what fascists do, i suppose - but that’s the very reason most people don’t like fascism, because eventually everyone starts to find that something they like to do is on the government’s list of degenerate behaviors, or some physical trait they possess meets some archetype of degeneracy that someone in power made up. Well, people don’t like to be persecuted, and so they don’t like fascism.
Stoic, if you’re trying to paint fascism in a positive light, I gotta tell ya…that’s not going to be very easy to do. I mean, you can keep saying that people don’t understand what it is, but at a certain point, you’ll be the only one using your definition, and then we’re just arguing definitions rather than getting to the meat of what everyone believes. I mean, when someone says, “fascist”, they mean, “like the nazis”, but they really mean, “like you’d view the nazis if you were a jew in germany”. In the end, based on what you’ve said, I wouldn’t want fascists around. The whole authority to administer a moral code over a society thing just doesn’t do it for me. Seems like about the slipperiest slope I can think of. Who knows? Maybe I don’t know what fascism really is, and in reality it’s all flowers and happiness because we wiped out the degenerates.
Pretty good question about degeneracy uglypeople, I mean, here we are, on a philosophy forum, starting off a conversation as though we can just ignore all the problems that come along with prescribing a particular morality and then enforcing it on another group. Talk about an ethical shit storm…
Smears, I’ve just come to the conclusion of enforcing social codes by the threat of or actual applying of torture and death.
It skips all the unnecessary philosophical nonsense and gets straight right to the point.
I don’t care about debates with other people. I don’t want to debate other people. I just want people to do my bidding and they’ll eventually see things my way…
I am also not worried about painting my beliefs in a positive light. I just want people to fear and respect them.
I just do the negotiation thing for kicks. In real life, I take what I want. Ask all my friends. They know.
That’s the only way to roll.
Behavior/actions partaken by persons that is detrimental to the Community/Nation as a whole.
The community, those fit to decide such things in the community.
Whatever one the Nation holds.
Thats the reason degenerates oppose Fascism. Because unlike our current plutocracies a Fascist state would take actual action.
This is a line of thought born from selfishness and cowardess.
You’re kidding? The politcal ideology thats been the top enemy of the establishment leading to it being villified for 70+ years, is going to be hard to show in a positive light?
I might as well give up and become a social democrat…
Because you are immoral?
I’m not painting Fascist societ as a lovy dovy utopia, but I sincerely beleive the lot of the people would be better off.
Problem is without enforcing morality you end up having a morally relativist society and the slippery slope that leads to is an disgusting scenario.
Stoic, how are you distinguishing Fascism from Socialism?
Socialism is toothless, Egalitarian, Pacifistic, Internationalist, Secular, Materialistic.
Basic stuff of course there’s is more that distinguishes them.
And how is Fascism different in each those regards?
Whats the opposite of those things?
So it’s the same ole left hand - right hand bit, superman vs invisible man. The left hand sprays on the stink and the right hand executes judgment for not smelling right. Both hands serving the same demented mind standing on both sides of every fence, diminishing support from which ever side at just the right moment to ensure more absolute control while always hiding in the shadows. No life but its own.
I prefer the enlightened, sentient governance. I certainly agree with a degree of authoritarian rule. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. But of course, the problem is that if it isn’t exactly the right impossible, only the wrong things are possible.
Stoic, your tyranny sounds too lite for my tastes like your leaving the gloves still on.
I prefer direct feudalism where people will do what they’re told or be dragged off somewhere in the middle of the night.
I don’t understand why you people have to complicate things with fake moral imperatives or dichotomies. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me.
Too much effort also. I prefer the simple way by contrast.
My morality is the sword where in the modern sense the gun.
You live by it and die by it as well.
Stoic, thanks for calling me immoral…I guess.
Why does your conception of morality seem to entail a use of force against others to sway them to your will when you and I both know, that the philosophical debate about right and wrong is unsettled?
I don’t understand how one misses the history of authortarian rule. Authority, no matter how controlling or brutal in it’s enforcement, it eventually becomes corrupt and sparks revolution against it. Sure, it may take a few hundred years, but in the larger picture, it is just a temporary structure that gives way to the next idiom of human exploration.
I invite anyone who espouses authortarian rule to show the first successful governance by authority. If such a system were the result of the utopic vision, then where is the sustainability ?
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of man will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.-Alexander Hamilton”
“In any moment the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Social policy and community require action, we can not sit on our hands and allow degeneracy to rot out our society because of some anxiety. We can not philosophise forever always being unsure always beleiving we are coming closer to the truth by day so postpone the decision for tommorow.
We all general understand what is considered as good and bad and until somthing change that makes us rethink such things then we act accordingly.
And those that disagre conflict sometimes violently and he who wins decides what is seen as good.
This is true for all old systems that lose their way.
I think it predates written records and the human species.
Whats does this have to do with anything? Does something need to be utopic in order to be valid?
The seed of ALL error/sin is Presumption, “act now, we don’t have time to think!”
Focus more precisely on exactly what constitutes degeneracy" and eventually it all works out as you are presuming now. The difference is that you will be applying your authoritarian rule in an actual positive direction rather than the typically presumed and erroneous one that has proven itself to be insufficient for thousands of years.
THAT is the erroneous Presumption.
You do NOT know good from evil.
You presume incorrectly.
But you CAN know the real difference.
Until you figure that out, nothing will change but the names… and the technological means to force erroneous presumptions until all hope is totally gone (not that far away).
Then your only alternative is to do nothing.
Which can also be a great evil.
The alternative that I would recommend is to focus more precisely on what REALLY constitutes good from bad, void of ALL presumption until you have that ironed out.
THEN you have a world of actions easily discerned.
Without discernment, you can be nothing but evil.
Your acting as if this isn’t exactly what ideologies do, Establish what they beleive to be right and wrong.
How ironed out they are depends on the ideology.