“You can trust me. I’m always right, and I never lie.” – George Tirebiter
It is also worth noting that the accepted name for this is not fascism but technocracy.
Fascism is a very different phenomenon; in particular, it is something that happens when a certain kind of radical mass-based political movement comes to power. (See Fascism: A History, by Roger Eatwell.
He’s not insane!
I disagree: the former is still a subset of the latter. It’s still authoritarian; it’s still not democratic.
No, fascism is a subset of authoritarianism. Technocracy is, arguably, a subset of authoritarianism (or arguably not), but it is not arguably a subset of fascism; if it is authoritarianism at all, it is authoritarianism of a very different kind.
See, e.g., the mid-20th-Century Technocracy movement: Its goal of a state-managed economy was superficially similar to Stalinism, but it was not Stalinism; it involved none of the ideology of class conflict or revolution. Nor was it fascism.
Furthermore, authoritarianism is the antithesis of libertarianism, not the antithesis of democracy.
This, BTW, is why I have always resisted the fashionable-on-the-left trend to characterize the Bush Administration as “fascist.” The W Admin is certainly authoritarian, to a degree perhaps unprecedented in American history (discussed in this thread), but at heart it is not populist but elitist (in the social as well as the institutional sense), and its rise to power lacked the essential element of streetfighting brownshirts.
But the W administration does meet FDR’s definition of fascism:
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism–ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
That’s why Beijing has such a pristine environment.
The current administration harnesses the populist feelings of the religious right, stirred to a fury by right-wing talk radio.
It is common for the right to castigate Ivy Leauge liberals, even though many of them are graduates of thos very institutions. W is nothing like Buckley.
Damn it, 48 posts in and I get scooped. The worst countries, environmentally, are the authoritarian regimes, because people facing the burden of environmental problems have no say in government.
I also find it funny that I recognize a whole bunch of posters as global warming deniers from the global warming threads in GD. Apparently, equating climate change and totalitarianism and being ignorant on science go hand-in-hand.
I dunno about you guys, but I’m quite looking forward to the impending meteorological crisis. I’m a nobody, but at least in the post-apocalyptic waterworld I can be somebody, a lone renegade answerable to no one, impressing hot babes with my selection of canned foodstuffs. Man, that would be sweet. Bring on the Hummers, I say.
Wow, I was SURE BrainGlutton was going to defend Kunstler against the sarcastic mention by Tuckerfan. Shows you what I know. 
Yeah, you can trade a can of tuna for a hummer.
Look, we can argue all day over whether to blame AGW, al Qaeda, or preschool recruitment by the homosexual cabal —the important thing is we can all agree that this “democracy” thing has become a liability.
I, for one, find this renewed spirit of bipartisanship refreshing.
Whatever the form of government, my take on all this is that we can’t stop global warming. It’s here, it’s too late, and all we can do now is plan how to deal with its inevitable effects.
Maybe they have some sort of mathematical model that predicts good results from authoritarianism. 
Now that’s just cruel.
Regards,
Shodan
Well if you think it’s too late, then by all means let’s stop trying to avert it. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I went for the rollyeyes.
If we can’t stop it, we can stop adding to it. We can work on cutting the amount we’re driving it. Remember we’re talking a lot of ocean front cities that’ll be under water. Millions of displaced. It’ll potentially wreck the world economy for decades. Increasing international pressures could lead to warfare. It’s a big deal and we should take it as such.
Or maybe they just believe it based on nothing but a gut instinct and profound ignorance that they aren’t willing or able to remedy. You know, like you disbelieving AGW.
Cue R. Lee Ermey:
"I don’t know, but I’ve been told … "
“Polar bear pussy is mighty cold …”
“I don’t know, but I’ve heard say …”