fascism is not corporate government. this comes from Mussolini’s (ghost written) quote. He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.
The difference is…
Jon Irenicus- if it’s not the fault of the market than those fault is it?
The two legged herd animals who tolerate it.
fascism is not corporate government. this comes from Mussolini’s (ghost written) quote. He spoke of corporations as understood by Italians in the 1920s, meaning, more like stakeholders - not corporations as we might understand them today.
Yeah, Italian fascism derives from English guild socialism. A corporation is simply a group of owning/concerned parties, the modern usage is quite different. By the classical terms the US Federal Government is a ‘corporation’, that is a body that is corporate or incorporated.
fascism from english guild socialism? How so? In the same way trades unions are, say?
Apparently the best academic definition of (the core) of fascism is “pallingentic populist ultranationalism” – a phoenix-like rebirth of the nation. (Prof Roger Griffin) In such a sense, the close relationship between state and private sector has absolutely nothing to do with it, though such notions seem common on the internet, especially amongst americans (and conspiracists.)
[BTW Why do you have a crude anti-socialist Mussolini quote as a tagline?]
You pay too much attention to labels and not enough to substance. For example, Hitler was socialist because the State directly regulated industry to the point where it was the de facto owners. Any other definition of ‘socialism’ is rather irrelevant for political economy.
What is that supposed to mean? The USFG is a corporation by any terms.
Does an owner of a piece of land not have the right to regulate who else can come onto that land? Of course any reason for a regulation would be purely arbitrary, but that is true for any kind of regulation of anything, whether your own property or that owned by someone else. This is what property is…something a person has claim to control or regulate. You control who drives your car. You control who lives in your house. You control who gets what food from your fridge or pantry. You control what you trade for other things. You control your own body.
So if an owner of a section of land finds someone on his land (whether invited or not) speaking things he does not want spoken, does the owner not have the right to regulate his property and impose conditions that person must agree to in order to remain on this property, such as not speaking of things the owner finds objectionable? Of course the owner of a piece of land can say whatever they wish on their own land, but is also regulated when on someone else’s land. Currently, the first amendment seems to be intended to at least allow “free speech” on government property (although we know the government does in fact restrict such speech on it’s property).
So of course free speech would exist in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. You can speak freely on your own property, and on the property of others as long as they allow others the right to free speech. For a government to allow anyone to say anything on anyone’s property is to restrict the property owner’s ability to regulate their own property, hence a violation of their “rights”.
EDIT (in continuation of the above):
The enactment of a “free speech” law is in effect the partial socialization of land. Partial control/regulation is removed from private owners of land and transfered to the government. Any land owner attempting to reassert their full ownership of their land and regulating speech on it does so at the risk of the government initiating violence against them.
People that believe everyone should be able to speak what they wish on anyone’s property always (assuming a free market) have the option to attempt to purchase the right to speech regulation from land owners and then allow anyone to come onto that land to speak what they wish. I would speculate that most land owners that sell you this right will not sell you absolute speech control over their land, but only speech control of some part of the population that does not include themselves (or their family and friends).