"Under Ortiz's proposal, a customer's only chance for a taste-bud sensation would be once the meal actually arrives at the table. Then, the diner could heap out the sodium aplenty -- but only then. "This legislation will give customers the option to add salt after the meal has been prepared for them," the bill reads....But he defended the piece of social engineering, suggesting that people in this state consume far more than the 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day that they need. "The fact is, [salt use] brings some ramifications regarding heart disease" and other health problems, Ortiz said, adding that "if this legislation gets passed, we'll save close to $32 billion in" public health care costs."
Nutrition "is not a private matter" urges a Hitler Youth manual titled Health Through Proper Eating. I'm sure many of you know that Hitler and Himmler were an avowed vegetarians. Rudolf Hess was an advocate for holistic medicine. "Dachau had greenhouses where medicinal plants were grown. Some of the experiments done on prisoners tested herbal remedies" and the most virulent anti-smoking crusaders in the world up until that time were the Nazis. Professor Robert Proctor of Penn State University when interviewed about his book The Nazi War on Cancer stated that ""Do we look at history differently when we learn that Nazi leaders opposed tobacco, or that Nazi health officials worried about asbestos-induced lung cancer? I think we do," writes Proctor, who teaches the history of science at Pennsylvania State University. "We learn that Nazism was a more subtle phenomenon than we commonly imagine, more seductive, more plausible. We learn that the barriers which separate 'us' from 'them' are not as high as some would like to imagine." Peirrelemieux.org writes.. "(Professor) Proctor takes care to distance himself from libertarians who would see fascism's invisible fist in today's repression of smoking: "My intention," he writes, "is not to argue that today's antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures are in principle totalitarian -- as some libertarians seem to want us to believe" (p. 277). This is just logic: if F (fascism) implies P (public health), it does not follow that P implies F. Of course." Link
Once again, it seems that the ideals to the right of the political spectrum translate to greater freedoms for individuals than those on the left.
(The above poster translates to ""Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity. Become a member!")
62 comments:
I think that legislation regarding the sodium use in food preparation in restaurants is ridiculous. What every happened to supply and demand? If people do not desire sodium in their foods, they will stop purchasing food at restaurants and some smart entrepreneur will start a restaurant chain that doesn't use sodium and make a lot of $.
I found your quote from Proctor, that:
"Nazism was a more subtle phenomenon than we commonly imagine, more seductive, more plausible. We learn that the barriers which separate 'us' from 'them' are not as high as some would like to imagine."
interesting.
Is this an attempt to smear health concerns with charges of Nazism?
Nobody is trying to "smear health concerns". Just like many things that the Nanny State wants to impose on us by force of law, health is a wonderful thing, but it is none of their business. If the government would stick to its legitimate constitutional mandates of common defense, keeping peace and order, ensuring equal justice under the law, and otherwise leaving us to pursue our own happiness, everything else would take care of itself (and we would not be paying confiscatory taxes either.)
http://mdcrustacean.blogspot.com/2010/02/required-reading.html
Oh my God.
The Nanny State.... You fat Americans really believe that the patriotic right to kill yourself via sodium and processed fast food. Regulation needs to be imposed because most people are too stupid to say no. In Canada, we actually had to have laws imposed on us because people do not seem to know enough to practice the judgement not too smoke in cars with kids in them- same thing. Sodium, while essential, is really bad for you over certain levels. Take in enough on an ongoing basis and you slowly dehydrate and age your cardiovascular system. Sorry, on the side of the "Nanny State" because the size of the American waistline is a point of national concern.
The Nazi "parallel"... Nice, would not expect any better from you.
And this is a war-era poster, there are plenty of war-era health posters from the U.S.A. and the U.K.
Before the war, the Reichgesundheitsfiihrer Conti stated that each German was "responsible for their own health" and tried to spread volksheilkundliche. This was before the war when Conti replaced Arthur Giitt.
Sorry, Reichgesundheitsfiihrer means Head of the Ministry of Health.
"Regulation needs to be imposed because most people are too stupid to say no."
Tink, ironically, I agree with you on the health concerns, but you have spoken like a true statist, whether from the left or the right. Tell me, who are the anointed ones who are not so stupid, who possess the wisdom of the ages and should therefore have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? What are their qualifications? Once they have been given the right to tell us what to eat, what other aspects of our lives will they be given the right to regulate? Where will it stop?
TMC
Here is the thing. I am Canadian, and see this very differently than you. Most of these "Nanny State" type of changes are from grass roots movement. In Canada, this type of issue is dealt with very differently. Citizens band together in the community, and begin to lobby. As their power builds, and they begin to work with their local politicians and eventually, it becomes a bill. Then, it goes to a vote and becomes a law. So, concerned citizens who do not like people smoking in their cars go through this type of process to get offending parties accountable to the law.
In the States, and especially with the food industry, grass roots efforts at any type of regulation have failed because of the corporate lobbyists that specifically protect the interest of the business they represent.
Last time I was in the United States, my eyes burned. Not only was there row after row of processed, sodium, and trans fat laden foods, but the size of the people was completely unacceptable. Most people were obese. Not to say that it is not like that here, but we have had more regulation and it is not as bad.
So, I ask you this. Would you rather have corporation serving their bottom line making you all fat, or a government that is actually trying to impose a less than minimum attempt at regulation of one component of this. You can choose to sit in your hillbilly paranoia, and fear government control. But, the next time you are in a grocery store, and you see kids with Type 2 Diabetes, maybe you will understand that most people lack the discipline not to eat your bastardized food supply.
Sigh, this is where Americans are so fucked up and lost.
We will sit back and allow our government to throw us into wars that we cannot afford, take our money to bail out multinational corporations, allow corporate lobbyists to have more power than the grassroots concerns of proactive citizens, none of that is worth protesting. But, if you try to tell us what to eat- fuck you, life and liberty all the way. Maybe this is just collective paranoid defense mechanism because you all understand how fucked you are.
MCT- I suggest you contact your local Member of Congress and ask him the following questions:
Tell me, who are the anointed ones who are not so stupid, who possess the wisdom of the ages and should therefore have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? What are their qualifications? Once they have been given the right to tell us what to eat, what other aspects of our lives will they be given the right to regulate? Where will it stop?
See how long it is before he ups his security after hearing your question.
Once again, it seems that the ideals to the right of the political spectrum translate to greater freedoms for individuals than those on the left.
?
You do know that the Nazi Party was a right wing nationalist party, right?
I prefer not to have salt in my foods or on my Fries. That is my choice. I don't need a bunch of political hacks telling me what or how to eat.
I would imagine some prefer an apropriate amount of salt in their foods but I have seen some at eateries dump teaspoons full of salt in their foods. DUH? The same goes for Caffeen drinkers dumping heaps of sugar in their coffee. WTH?
You do know that the Nazi Party was a right wing nationalist party, right?
Based on what, might I ask?
Is this an attempt to smear health concerns with charges of Nazism?
I think what Prof Proctor was getting at was...""My intention," he writes, "is not to argue that today's antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures are in principle totalitarian -- as some libertarians seem to want us to believe". This is just logic: if F (fascism) implies P (public health), it does not follow that P implies F. Of course."
Tink: The title of J.D.'s post is all too appropriate.
And yes, I prefer dealing with corporations (those evil bogeymen of demagogues) because if I don't like what they have to offer, I simply exercise my freedom to take my business elsewhere. Government bureaucrats, on the other hand, are not that easy to get rid of. It is tough enough to get rid of elected officials, particularly at the federal level.
"I think what Prof Proctor was getting at was..."
He wasn't asking if Proctor was trying to smear health concerns with charges of Nazism. He was asking if YOU were trying to smear health concerns with charges of Nazism.
Based on what, might I ask?
Based on the political spectrum.
The "far right" is discernibly conservative in outlook. It sees violence and dictatorship as a means to maintaining the status quo.
from Fascism and the Far Right.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YYdTvMmSYpEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"You do know that the Nazi Party was a right wing nationalist party, right?"
Left or right does not make a dime's worth of difference. Statism is statism. Period. Some in this comment string have placed "Conservatives" on the right side of the political spectrum. Depending on what spectrum you are looking at, I suppose that is a convenient label.
Like many conservatives, I prefer to call myself a "classical liberal". Before modern left-wing statists hijacked the term, liberal was a term reserved for people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others of our founding fathers, and the ideals that spawned the American Revolution. Though the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constituion differed in the particulars, they commonly cherished individual freedom and loathed the idea of a powerful central government that would inject itself into the lives of individuals. The latter is what they specifically sought to avoid when they drafted and ratified the constitution, which unfortunately has since been twisted, turned on its head and interpreted as meaning the exact opposite of its original intent.
Once again, it seems that the ideals to the right of the political spectrum translate to greater freedoms for individuals than those on the left.*
*Offer void if individual is not white, straight, Christian, and male... and as long as you don't have them there progressive ideas in your head.
Don't question JD's knowledge of Nazis.
It takes one to truly know one.
Don't question JD's knowledge of Nazis. It takes one to truly know one...
Maryland Crustacean - adored you comment:
Tell me, who are the anointed ones who are not so stupid, who possess the wisdom of the ages and should therefore have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? What are their qualifications? Once they have been given the right to tell us what to eat, what other aspects of our lives will they be given the right to regulate? Where will it stop?
I couldn't agree more.
The Food and Drug Administration?
That got me thinking about Somalia. Here's a country that should be JD's dream. No government interference there.
According to Awes Sh. Muheidin Amin, business found there was more profit in selling fake medicine. They now make capsules of flour and chalk. I read that 90% of their medicine is fake. I read that thousand of people die a year after being sold unsafe food.
But oh yeah, the without government interference, everything should take care of itself, right?
Wow, Tracey.... I just hear a paranoid version of that famous hillbilly American conspiracy theory that totally diminishes any rational thought about any issue.
@ MCT- In your own twisted way, your comment actually made sense, if it was that simple. I agree, that if it was that simple, you can avoid the corporation by simply choosing another business. Strangely though, I have found that many Americans actually will side with corporate interest because you all have this insane notion that you can get a piece of that pie too. However, what makes this very complex is that those politicians that you mistrust are actually controlled by the corporations. If you think that this is not true, I would encourage you to do some research of your own. This is why food regulation is almost impossible in your country. Corporations have alot of money invested in assisting you all to an early death with their foods, and that has made any efforts on the parts of politicians futile. Here is an article that kinda summarizes the seriousness of this issue that is fairly concise if you are interested.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023459_health_foods_processed_foods.html
I walked by a McDonald's today. I thought of this blog. The only other thing that I can think of that is as destructive for your body than having that for lunch is to have a cigarette in the sun. Fast food is the new cigarette smoking, and they had to regulate that industry too. Those guys should have been thrown in jail.
By the way, it is nobody's business how much salt you add to your food. But, the next time you buy a can, or go to a restaurant, check out how much salt is already in the food before you eat it. This is what they are targeting. You get a "food" that is already overly and heavily salted, and then people add more. Check it for yourself if you do not believe me.
What should be considered a nanny state anyway?.
Maybe its a nanny state that doesnt allow drunk drivers free use of public roads,because if folks dont want to get killed by drunk drivers they could always simply choose not to drive.Problem solved!
And maybe all pesticides, herbicides, insecticides etc should be allowed to be freely used,if folks dont want to die from them.Then they need to be sure to find out for themselves what to keep away from etc, so as to be sure not to become poisoned.If they get poisoned before they learn,then thats just tough titty for them!.We cannot go protecting folks otherwise we have nanny states.
I know.... Forget about smoking. Let everyone light up in public so that we can all get cancer while we eat food in restaurants. Or, just legalize all drugs so that the government cannot restrict your access to narcotics, and you can all self medicate your own pain with narcotics at home. Or, lift the laws so that you can freely apply violence while disciplining your children and animals. And, continue to feed your cows their own flesh so that the entire nation can get mad cow disease.
"Once they have been given the right to tell us what to eat, what other aspects of our lives will they be given the right to regulate? Where will it stop?
Maybe, the next time that you get pneumonia, and there is no antibiotic that works for you because you have built up passive resistance to it because it has already been fed to the beef that you clog your arteries with, you can continue your fight to deregulate because you do not know where it will stop.
Get your head out of the sand.
Hey Real JC!
Actually-- here is the argument: Eating foods considered to be unhealthy lead to higher health care costs. If we want to bring down health care costs, we have to regulate foods considered to be unhealthy- for if people do not eat them, they will not get disease. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.
In short--- if someone is rich and can afford the consequences of eating foods considered to be unhealthy, fine, let that person eat up. But most people are not rich and need insurance. These same people want insurance to be affordable. The way to make insurance affordable is to take disease which is preventable and prevent it.
And this is where you get laws wanting to make salt illegal. I am not saying I agree with it, but it does seem like a good argument.
“Don't question JD's knowledge of Nazis. It takes one to truly know one...”
“I just hear a paranoid version of that famous hillbilly American conspiracy theory that totally diminishes any rational thought about any issue.”
“Sigh, this is where Americans are so fucked up and lost.”
Etc. etc. etc.
It was once said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That saying obviously does not apply here, but here is a corollary: “Insults, foul language and ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of someone who is either lazy or devoid of a rational argument.
I encountered this phenomenon from when I first started blogging a couple years ago as a lone conservative voice on a generally left leaning site. I finally found it necessary to call them on the carpet with the following post:
http://downwithabsolutesblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/%ce%bc%cf%89%cf%81%ce%bf%ce%bb%ce%bf%ce%b3%ce%b9%ce%b1/
“Insults, foul language and ad hominem attacks are the first refuge of someone who is either lazy or devoid of a rational argument.
Insults were not anyones first comment.
And the fact that one is insulted does not make one more correct.
Exactly, that was certainly not my first comment. Nevertheless, he does not like what I have to say and he is deflecting from the content. He has no other argument, nor does he have any rhetorical defense against anything that I discussed. Blah, blah, blah.
Just to clarify, the first instance of personal name calling occurred with the following comment;
Tink, ironically, I agree with you on the health concerns, but you have spoken like a true statist, whether from the left or the right.
From www.thefreedictionary.com/statist
stat·ism (sttzm) n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
statist [ˈsteɪtɪst]n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an advocate of statism
I didn't think you would find the statist moniker insulting since it is precisely and objectively what you are advocating. I used an objective term, unadorned with choice adjectives.
The "far right" is discernibly conservative in outlook. It sees violence and dictatorship as a means to maintaining the status quo
The right IS conservative. Since when has the right wing cornered the market on violence and dictatorship?
Furthermore, how does the small-government conservatism that I embrace in any way resemble Nazism? Name a few examples for comparison. About three would suffice.
The far right, not the right.
Furthermore, how does Communism resemble Anarchism? Both are left wing ideologies. How does Social Democracy resemble Autonomism? Both are left wing ideologies.
If you are struggling to understand the political spectrum, remember it is "progressive" to the left and "conservatives" to the right.
Tutto nello stato, niente al di fuori dello stato, nulla contro lo stato.
MDC, might you show off your mastery of the Italian language and translate this for us?
Once accomplished, who would like to guess as to who these words are attributable to?
A. Ronald Reagan conservatives, or..
B. Fascists
A motto of Italian Fascism; “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”
Some of their other slogans were:
“War is to Man as Motherhood is to Woman.”
Credere, Obbedire, Combattere (“Believe, Obey, Fight”)
and
Molti nemici. Molto onore (“Many enemies equal much Honor”)
Now, what's your point?
Good translation, Jill, but the point is obvious and is in keeping with the original point of the post, namely: Extreme ideologies of the left and right (Communism/socialism and fascism/naziism respectively) have this in common: the mighty power of the state to control people's lives. It should give pause to those who claim to be somewhere in between and yet do not seem to mind ever increasing government control over their lives.
@MCT- So far, you have listed no argument about content. You have no defense except for two things. Which, is very clearly a concrete issue to you.
1. The government is controlling your life by attempting to protect you from the Frankensteinsh toxic substances that your nation calls food. And, to some extent we do too because of the American influence on our lives. However, we have regulation in place.
2. It is okay because you believe that having a corporation control is better than the government, even though the corporations have rendered it impossible for any such action to occur.
Nevertheless, and Jill is right. No matter how much you sneer and patronize, you are dead wrong, and have no argument back. No matter how you deflect, bad food will kill you. So, keep eating your beef, drink your your American milk. Enjoy your liberty at McDonalds with all of the sodium that a body can take. Good luck to you the next time you have an infection and require an antibiotic.
No matter how much you sneer and patronize, you are dead wrong, and have no argument back. No matter how you deflect, bad food will kill you
The thrust or the argument put forward by Ortiz is that chefs cannot use salt in cooking...at all.
Salt shakers on the tables would be (generously) permitted, of course. Who knows if the individual will lavish even more salt on the food that comes to the table, with the shaker, then they would have received if the chef had been allowed to use it in his recipe?
Now, what's your point?
OK, Jill, let's take this slowly. First, 2 questions to you.
1. Do you think that Communism as practiced by the former U.S.S.R. is to the left or right of the political spectrum?
2. Was Ronald Reagan to the right of the Communists?
Sigh. To respond or not to respond? Oh well, here goes.
I thought that the general thrust of this post had to do with whether the left or the right side of the political spectrum was more oppressive. My point all along has been that both the left and right extremes—communism and fascism respectively--are equally repressive. In fact, both of them are socialist-statist-collectivist in their basic philosophy, elevating the power of the state over the rights of the individual. The only difference I see between the two is that fascism is more nationalistic in nature. After all, “Nazi” and “National Socialism” are practically synonymous, as are Communism and International Socialism. Though they are viewed respectively as two extremes of right and left, when you examine each system’s power of the state over the individual, they are remarkably similar.
You seem to be hung up on the health and food issue and, as I said before, we do not disagree. I am very health conscious. But I exercise my free choice when I decide to not patronize MacDonalds. I asked what I thought was a very fair question:
“Tell me, who are the anointed ones who are not so stupid, who possess the wisdom of the ages and should therefore have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? What are their qualifications? Once they have been given the right to tell us what to eat, what other aspects of our lives will they be given the right to regulate? Where will it stop?”
Indeed, where will it stop? You believe it is legitimate for the government to regulate the salt content of the food you eat, but unless you are pristine and pure as a fresh driven snow, how will you react when the government decides to start regulating your pet vice?
Again, we can all agree on the desirability of certain outcomes, whether they be health and proper food intake or general welfare of society, but the question is how to achieve noble ends without giving too much power to the government. Frederic Bastiat said it well:
“Because we ask so little from the law — only justice — the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist. But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization.
"We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence. …
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. “
I get very uncomfortable about a government—particularly a far away central government that is not immediately accountable to the will of the citizenry (as would a state or local government)—to inject its mandates into the lives of individuals and entities. The American philosophy of government is that the government that governs the best governs the least. Alas, that used to be the American philosophy of government. If only it were still so.
http://mdcrustacean.blogspot.com/2010/02/required-reading.html
Actually, MCT, I can agree with you on one thing. If I had to live under George W Bush, I probably would fear government control also. I have never had the "privilege", and every so often I try to remind myself of this so that I can have some empathy for the paranoia that seems to characterize the American public.
My point is is this- There has to be something done to protect the public, both from themselves, and the corporations that continue to exploit you and make you sick.My point, all along has been to actually be critical of what you are critiquing. On the bus today, on my way to work, I looked at a billboard advertising salt restriction. In Canada, you cannot even buy cigarettes in the open. They are behind the cash in a locked panel. I have no problem having regulations placed on these things. Sometimes, it just has to be done.
JD- you do not get it. They need to stop salting food altogether. They are actually putting the onus on the individual to determine it, not having it given it to you like that. It is actually giving you control, which is something that I would think that you would like.
Tink, less intrusive, I think, than banning chefs from using salt would be this idea by the state of Alabama for employeees on their health plan...
"The state of Alabama has given its 37,527 employees until 2010 to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge its overweight workers who don't try to slim down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthful behaviors.
Alabama already charges workers who smoke -- and has seen some success in getting them to quit -- but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many people in the Deep South: obesity" Link. It seems to be more of a carrot-stick approach.
MDC, you bought up a couple of interesting points, such as...
My point all along has been that both the left and right extremes—communism and fascism respectively--are equally repressive
This is where we disagree. I mentioned the book Liberal Fascism to you in the past and I hope that you get yourself a copy. Fascism is a left wing ideology. Think about it.
Communism: (From Merriam-Webster) "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production"
Fascism: (from Answers.com/Business Dictionary) "Doctrine; collection of concepts; and dictatorship by government of a country, often involving hostile nationalistic attitudes, racism, and private economic ownership under rigid government control.
Conservativism: (from Answers.com/Philosophy Dictionary) "conservatism can be taken to imply a laissez-faire ideology of untrammelled individualism that puts the emphasis on personal responsibility, free markets, law and order, and a minimal role for government
Now look at this political spectrum and tell me what you think...
Communism (state-owned and run industry)-->Fascism (State heavily regulates and influences industry and wants individuals to be subjugated to the State)-->Conservatism (think "small-government, Ronald Reagan conservatism" where there is less government involvement in business regulation and in peoples lives)
Sure, Hitler and Mussolini were to the right of the Soviet Union, but it's not very hard at all to be to the right of Marxists-Leninists.
JD- At least it is an approach.
That's not how the political spectrum which has been in place for hundreds of years works.
JD- At least it is an approach
But the "salt thing dooms those who have the ability to take the fork out of their mouths to eating dull, bland food and the other method only affects those who are obese.
That's not how the political spectrum which has been in place for hundreds of years works
It may run counter to the so-called "conventional wisdom", howvever, one is left to explain how Hitler leap-frogs reagan and we get back to more big government when moving from left to right on the political spectrum.
I think the sad reality here is that nobody wants to be on the end of the spectrum that identifies more of it's policies with 1930's National Socialists.
Now look at this political spectrum and tell me what you think...
Where does Anarchism fit on your new political spectrum?
It may run counter to the so-called "conventional wisdom", howvever, one is left to explain how Hitler leap-frogs reagan and we get back to more big government when moving from left to right on the political spectrum.
The left-right political spectrum is not about the size of the government. That is not what it is a measure of.
I think the sad reality here is that nobody wants to be on the end of the spectrum that identifies more of it's policies with 1930's National Socialists.
Now there is a revealing statement.
I think the sad reality here is that nobody wants to be on the end of the spectrum that identifies more of it's policies with 1930's National Socialists.
Sad but true. A very poignant look into post George Bush America. Take away our salt, we will call you Nazi's. Sigh.
Where does Anarchism fit on your new political spectrum?
Anarchy: (from answers.com) "1.Absence of any form of political authority."
Since there is literally no government, I wouldnt even put it (anarchy) on a political spectrum.
The left-right political spectrum is not about the size of the government. That is not what it is a measure of
A more accurate assessment (IMO) would show that freedom increases for individuals as they move away from big-government and more towards less government intrusion into their lives.
Take away our salt, we will call you Nazi's. Sigh.
Well, I see we've come full-circle here. Who was it that said "Nutrition "is not a private matter"?
A. Nazis
B. Reaganites, or
C. Libertarians?
JD:
If I understand you correctly, you see fascism as not on the far right of the spectrum, but on the far left, albeit to the right of communism. I guess you can make that argument if you redefine the traditionally understood left-right spectrum to mean left = statism/opppression, right = individual liberty.
I think we agree in concept that both communism and fascism represent state oppression, though the latter perhaps not as much. Instead of completely expropriating private industry, Mussolini only gave the state 51% ownership!
My point was slightly different. Namely, the insistence on viewing communism and fascism along the political left-right spectrum, with American liberalism and conserative as somewhere in between, simply does not work. The two extremes have actually come full circle and are remarkably similar in their government oppression and statism.
Either way, we are still in agreement in our abhorrence of statism in whatever form it takes and our love for individual liberty.
I rememberr my U.S. History teacher in High School recounted how Hitler said to Stalin: "The scum of the Earth, I believe?" and Stalin replied: "The bloody assassin of the workers, I presume?"
And then my history teacher said, "And they were both right."
A more accurate assessment (IMO) would show that freedom increases for individuals as they move away from big-government and more towards less government intrusion into their lives.
Maybe you can call it the JD Curtis Freedom scale, either way it's not the Left/Right political spectrum.
Since there is literally no government, I wouldnt even put it (anarchy) on a political spectrum.
Anarchism, not anarchy.
It's like the difference between conservatism and conservation.
Wiki:
Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain [10] supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.
and
Anarchism is a political philosophy with many heterogeneous and diverse schools of thought, united by a common opposition to compulsory government.
And yet this definition of "anarchism' sounds quite like anarchy. From The Free Dictionary...
Anarchism: n. 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity" (Bertrand Russell).
And yet this definition of "anarchism' sounds quite like anarchy.
No it doesn't.
Anarchism is a political philosophy, an ideology, a doctrine. Anarchy is what will happen if this ideology is followed.
Anarchism still sounds like government "should be abolished".
Where does Anarcho-syndicalism fit on the "JD Curtis Freedom scale" and on the actual political spectrum.
When you say "A more accurate assessment (IMO) would show that freedom increases for individuals as they move away from big-government and more towards less government intrusion into their lives." do you mean that if the govenment consisted of one person, freedom is near maximized?
You are still not understanding the difference between an ideology and the result of that ideology.
The early movement skewed highly homosexual.
The salt ban would be keeping with the "Nutrition "is not a private matter" mindset of the Nazis.
I don't care what you eat Chris. Neither would Rush Limbaugh I would imagine. Just look at the guy.
There was a war on. All countries involved taught nutrition as important.
We all need the wonders of JD to look at history. Let us look at the "discoveries" he has made recently. Nazis were gay.... And, actually using health promotion for people makes you all under the control of Fascists, which by the way, are an example of the extreme left, not right. And, George W Bush was not a dictator, and the corporations are not trying to control the people. And, all of us folks of the "Atheist Faith"(my favorite, and perhaps the most telling) are on that left of fascists.
You are trolling my friend. You are not even trying.
There was a war on. All countries involved taught nutrition as important.
But ant wars being fought by this country right now G20, arent affecting consumption at home..
The assemblyman even states outright that he's doing so to reduce costs.
Let us look at the "discoveries" he has made recently. Nazis were gay
No, that the Nazi leadership skewed disproportionately gay. especially early on in their movement.
actually using health promotion for people makes you all under the control of Fascists, which by the way, are an example of the extreme left, not right
You're beginning to see the 'left-right' light Tink. Look up and see if conservatives are advocating any such measures.
And, George W Bush was not a dictator
What what you posit to support that he wasnt?
and the corporations are not trying to control the people
Google "corporatism" along with "fascism' and read what pops up.
all of us folks of the "Atheist Faith"(my favorite, and perhaps the most telling) are on that left of fascists.
I'm aware of at least one website of atheist conservatives. Do you think that most atheists are to the right of the political spectrum?
Post a Comment