In 2006, then prime minister Blair said that the “traditional civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong, as just made for another age.” Soon after, his home secretary John Reid elaborated. The previous age—the postwar age—began in response to concerns about the threat the “fascist state” posed to individuals, Reid said. Today, the threat comes from “fascist individuals,” not fascist states.
This, after Pinkoski's description of the subsuming of private enterprises under government control in a way that is fascist in all but name, is telling.
2 comments:
Look at how convenient that is. You are now fighting against bad people instead of bad ideas.
Fascism originally referred to a system of government that got into bad odor when the conspiracy between government officials and robber barons got too tight and cozy. The failure was in the direction of totalitarianism, and was merely a different flavor from the communist brand.
Now, people seem to use "fascist" to denote nothing more complicated than "inclined to exercise power in a way I resent," as if it meant bully. That fits with the notion that the really dangerous fascists are now individuals: that guy has too much power, and I don't like how he uses it.
Now, myself, I'd look to a system of government and private institutions that made it most likely that I could combat such a person, either on my own or with the help of, say, a justice system or the cooperation of like-minded souls. I'd like to see competition in the free market, so no one bully would be likely to exploit a monopoly in something I can't do without. No totalitarian government has a credible claim to do any such thing, whether it's fascist or communist or theocracy. No private institution is likely to be able to help once the totalitarians have crushed them all.
Post a Comment