I'm starting to like Hayek's model the more I think about it, dbl. After making my post, I think it's just too cumbersome to label any type of tyrannical government with a mere "right-wing" or "left-wing" designation.

And interesting link, tgas. I notice no mention of right-wing or left-wing on that page, either. I especially like the quote about avoiding fascism by maintaining order:



Sounds like anyone dedicated to preserving the fundamental principles of the Constitution is about as far from a fascist as can be...

The parallel between which things? Between what you were comparing? Conservatism and fascism?

As I said,



As far as Ang defining right-wing as fiscal liberal, also see quote. The answer is more or less the same.

Yah. de Tocqueville was 200 years ago dude. About as useful as defining modern Chinese politics by reference to the Ming dynasty.

Yeah, I think Hayek's model makes much more sense than the traditional linear model.



I could not agree with this statement more!

Comments removed - personal attack

... read his book Democracy in America.

I thought this quote was telling:

“Fascism is a form of political and social behavior that arises when the middle class, finding its hopes frustrated by economic instability coupled with political polarization and deadlock, abandons traditional ideologies and turns, with the approbation of police and military forces, to a poorly-defined but emotionally appealing soteriology of national unity, immediate and direct resolution of problems, and intolerance for dissent.” (Chuck Anesi, 2008)


Some of that sounds sadly very familiar of late.

Well, maybe not quite...but I think I understand what you were getting at.

Aristotle was once the unquestioned authority on things scientific - some of it turned out pretty good, quite a bit of it didn't. The Bible has some excellent ideas for getting along with one another, and some real stinkers. Seeing commentary in the light of its times is valuable, whether it is historical or contemporary.

Actually dick was completely wrong about the relevance of the observation I cited from de Tocqueville - Americans have never known the tyranny so familiar to Europeans for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And anyone with even a hint of familiarity with American history would have known that immediately.

Dick's little rant made absolutely zero sense and had no relevance to my citation of de Tocqueville.

My bad. See, I thought this was a thread about current political developments; if I'd realised dblb's post was a historical treatise, I would have kept my mouth shut.

Or in other words, in a thread about fascism - something that didn't exist as the name of a political concept before the 1930s - what on earth is the point of waffling on about what a Frenchman said - 100 years before that - about the origins of the United States 80 years before he was writing. I mean, it may be interesting, but so was the War of Jenkin's Ear, but that's no reason to post about it in this thread.

I can't quite decide whether you are simply too slow to understand my point or whether your post suggesting it had 'no relevance' is merely posturing.

BTW read de Tocqueville years ago. Also Darwin, Carlyle, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Hassett and Benaud.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read the entirety of my post you would have comprehended to context of the citation and would have thought better of making the response you made.

You accuse me of being "slow" or "posturing," I subit this is precisely the characteristics displayed by your post.

Re-read my ENTIRE post and realize my citation of de Tocqueville's OBSERVATION (not any theory of his respecting government) was entirely appropriate and historically true.

My post was one that expanded on Hayek's model of the political spectrum - and Hayek wrote about this in the 20th century as a direct observer of the birth of fascism and socialism/communism.

In other words, your focus on a mere mention of de Tocqueville's observation that America had never know true tyranny was COMPLETELY irrelevant to the overall thesis of my post.

PS: Regarding your reading list, you are not the only one here who has read a book or two. My personal library (books I actually own) also contains Hobbes, but also Plato, Moore, Russell and yes, even Marx. But it also has Smith, Montesquieu, Mises, Burke, Tocqueville, Popper, Hayek, Freidman, Hazlett, Durant, Buckley, and Sowell just off the top of my head. And that's a narrowly focused section of my personal library, it is much wider in scope than that. And again, these are just those that I own. There are many more that I've read over the years borrowed from libraries.