Posted on 03/30/2004 7:27:23 AM PST by ijcr
Seeing as smoking ban laws (at least in this country) are passed by local government (the type of government most beloved by conservatives), it's tough to see how these laws would fall under this definition: there's no dictatorial government here (since these laws are passed by democratically-elected town councils, the people are free to elect new politicians who will reverse these laws), there's no centralization of private enterprise (government regulation does not equal centralization) and the other stuff (repression of opposition etc.) clearly does not apply.
When you are so deep in the hole there are only two ways to go, climb out, or do what you are doing, keep digging. Next stop, China.
Really. So, how is a local ordinance, passed by a democratically elected local governmental entity, equal to the centralization of private enterprise?
They're also at the state level. Florida and California come to mind.
No, it's just plain English, unlike your attempts to redefine 'fascist', 'dictatorial', and 'centralized'. Government enforcement of contracts made by businesses is most certainly a form of control of the business.
Thanks, but it apparently doesn't matter, since they if they don't like the meaning of the words making up the definition, they'll just redefine those as well.
Now what recent president does that remind me of?
On another note, and quite embarrassingly here in California, certain beaches have recently voted to be smoke-free. I wish I could say I was kidding.Of all the possible crimes the police should have to enforce, this really takes the cake.
Sure. They're not some directive passed by the Ministry of Social Hygiene or whatever. They represent local polities passing laws. These laws can easily be reversed if the people complain enough or elect new politicians. Are they stupid laws? Maybe. But having to suffer democratically passed stupid laws does not equal fascism.
soph·is·try
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
Libertarianism by definition is the absence of initiation of force, the threat of force or fraud. It is painfully obvious that requiring licenses to conduct business on private property, under threat of force is not libertarian in nature.
Had you not known this, your statement would be based in ignorance. Being a "right wing professor", I assumed you knew better so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and dubbed it sophistry. Was I incorrect, and it was simply ignorance? If so, my apologies.
unlike your attempts to redefine 'fascist'
My definition of fascist in post #33 corresponds to the MSN Encarta online dictionary's definition given in post #316. Furthermore, my post #300 shows smoking bans to be historic behavior of classic fascist nations.
'dictatorial', and 'centralized'
I have not referred to these terms on this thread.
Government enforcement of contracts made by businesses is most certainly a form of control of the business.
But contracts based on the threat of force if one uses one's own private property without a license is not libertarianism, which is what we're discussing. Then again, you already knew that.
With a $250 fine. And California just happens to be in a budget crisis. What an amazing coincidence!
Of all the possible crimes the police should have to enforce, this really takes the cake.
This has nothing to do with crime. They're collecting taxes.
In your libertarian utopia, any governmental regulation of business equals fascism. Too bad so few people agree with you.
100 people are on an island. They hold a vote and the majority decides to adopt "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", as the basis for all their laws.
Are they communists, or democrats? D(d)emocratic socialists, perhaps?
There is no utopia and the only one who has ever mentioned libertarians is you and the goofy pretend professor. It's an attempt to change the subject, but it won't work.
any governmental regulation of business equals fascism.
You made that up. You lied. No shock there.
Too bad so few people agree with you.
Hmmmm, on this thread it's you and goofy against FreeRepublic.
Assuming that their system of government is some type of republic/democracy, they're democratic socialists. Keep in mind, there're nothing in the US Constitution preventing us from becoming a communist nation tomorrow. The government COULD nationalize all industry (so long as it paid for it) and set tax rates at an extremely high level so as to facilitate re-distribution of wealth. Such a system doesn't hold much appeal for the American people, though.
Could have fooled me.
What kind of governmental regulation are you okay with, then?
Hmmmm, on this thread it's you and goofy against FreeRepublic.
Libertarians are a distinct minority on FR. Rightfully so- your ideas don't work in the real world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.