The major point in there is that your attempt to cast my use of fascism as corresponding to some other and nonsensical usage was spotted. If you respond to my use of "fascism" as if it were the use you attempted to project unto my posting, you will be visible in your tactics. Those are two very different things, and your reflexive confusion of them supports my point. When I pointed out that you regard all government as equivalently evil, I was essentially quoting you in your comparisons of different governments who differ in their evil - you based your comparisons not on the ideology or principles or basis or soundness of any government, but upon your estimation of the degree of its influence. Any form of government that owns the roads is equivalently bad in that sense, in your sense. Any form of government that imposes taxation likewise, to the degree (rather than by the way) that it does. You regard a preference for a democratic government that rigorously imposes high taxes, over a strongman government that leaves most people undisturbed and untaxed, as a delusion of sheeple, for example. You have stated that, explicitly. The government is best that governs least is your fundamental principle. As you regard degrees of government as bad to worse, rather than good to bad, I translated that into more or less evil - if the word is too strong, I'm happy to use "bad" instead. Meanwhile, you provide further illustration: One obvious difference currently in the headlines in the US, with a significance amounting to approximately 8% of the highest GDP on the planet and the standard medical care available to at least 200 million people in a First World country, would be the ownership of medical insurance for that standard of care delivery - the basic medical care regarded as "First World" standard. The left wants the government to own it. "Single payer". The right - which includes the fascists - wants private insurance corporations to own it. The fascists want not only private corporate ownership of all insurance, but major reductions in governmental oversight of the insurance and the care both, coupled with revocation of current government charity or "welfare" payouts for those failing to obtain corporate employment or other means of acquiring sufficient funds for the purchase of that insurance from a private corporation. That is Trump's position. He is not "fooling" anyone with it - it is the standard Republican position, and widely supported in the Republican Party, and completely overt.
If you would quote something about my "attempt to cast", I would care, but, given that, as usual, this is not supported by any quote, why should I care? Yet another false accusation. And as usual without any quote supporting it. To clarify: I have explicitly made clear that there are some forms of "government owning" which are not evil at all, namely simply ownership by the government of whatever, if everybody else has the same right to own similar things. without any legal monopoly for the government to own these things. So, this description already contains different levels of evil - simply owning something, and owning all objects of a certain type because of a legal monopoly are different. And, of course, there are differences in taxation too. Of course, every government taxation is evil. But there is, of course, a large difference between taxing 10% or 50%. There are also differences in degree of evil relative to what is taxed - taxing consumption of alcohol and drugs is less evil than taxing food consumption in general. And taxing income is more evil than taxing the use of land. Because it is economically equivalent to partial slavery, while taxing land only to partially owning land. Fine, they all are evil, but not equivalently evil. The pickpocket is evil too, but not equivalent to the murderer. You think this makes an economic difference to fascism? "The government ... also attempted to assist Italians with the social effects of the Depression, expanding its social security system to include accident, old age, and health insurance, along with maternity benefits." This is about the original, Mussolini's Italy, see http://users.dickinson.edu/~osborne/myers/mussolini_life.htm
Yes, I do. It partly defines the ideology. You are talking about tactics, not strategy; the official and expedient reaction to the Depression in a government under pressure from people to whom it had promised much after taking power in opposition to leftwing governance. The larger pattern was a steady erosion of the political and economic power of labor, and enhancement of the political and economic power of corporate capital, throughout Mussolini's tenure. His tactics of course reflected the situations at hand. The Republicans in the US fully supported Social Security also, even after the fascist inroads after Nixon, until they got closer to power, and still give it lip service as long as they need the votes. - - - Like I said: equivalent in degree is equivalent in evil, to you. Or as I put it: "- you based your comparisons not on the ideology or principles or basis or soundness of any government, but upon your estimation of the degree of its influence. Any form of government that owns the roads is equivalently bad in that sense, in your sense. Any form of government that imposes taxation likewise, to the degree (rather than by the way) that it does" So with that established, we return to the point: the left in the US is not supporting fascism. There is a strong fascist movement in the US, with a base in a major political Party, and the support of many outside that Party - but not the Left. Trump has no Left support, neither does Cruz, nor does any other Republican candidate.
LOL. If a fascist government is doing the same as what you propose, he is doing this for tactical reasons only, because the strong Italian left has forced him to do this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, and the leftwing also still give it lip service, until they have power and become bribed not to do anything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, they are all saying the same, doing the same, but the fascists say this only as lip service, and do it only a little bit, and because the left is that strong, but the left say what they really want, and if they do only a little, this is because the right is so strong that it prevents more. This is the really radical difference. Satirical mode off. Is there anything more serious you can offer as a radical difference? So you simply repeat your accusations after my long response, with an irrelevant one-line justification of your ignorance of what I have explained. This is joepistole level. So, no, there was nothing established. For the same reason why joepistole's "this is fact" cries do not transform his propaganda claims facts. You have been, until now, unable to show an essential, radical difference in the economic system of fascism and your preferred system.
Well, here is the thing comrade, fascism isn't an economic system...oops. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a political system. It's one of the many facts you are either ignorant of or summarily and without merit routinely dismiss as NATO propaganda. "Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4] Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6] Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism And the great irony here is that you support and love one of the worlds leading fascists (i.e. Mother Putina).
Yes, but this political system is connected with some general ideas about the economy, so that it makes sense to talk about the economic system of fascism. Fine, and now take care about the "syndicalism" part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism writes about it: and your own quote also gives more hints about the economic ideas of fascism: Fine. What the left proposes today is also a mixed economy. iceaura has defended here such ideas, with health care managed in a socialist way and Iphones in a capitalist one. And where you can find today the most stringent fighters against globalization, for protectionism and interventionist policies? On the left or on the right? The economic system of Russia is, of course, also not that different from that of the West, thus, fits indeed into fascism too. There are, essentially, three economic systems worth to be distinguished: The free market, which is supported by libertarians, communism, where the state controls the whole economy directly, and everything else between, which one can name "mised economy" if one does not want to anger those who defend it, but "economic system of fascism" is also accurate enough. In this "mixed economy" we have the institution of private property, and we have some group of superrich property owners which directly cooperate with the political power, and the competition, which would appear in a free market, is severly distorted by this political cooperation between the superrich and the political power. I'm a libertarian, thus, I do not like the Russian economic system. But in comparison with the economic systems of the West, the differences are minor, and it is not really obvious which economic system is worse from libertarian point of view. There is, in particular, a quite moderate tax rate in Russia. But there is also a lot of bureaucracy.
There is no "but". Fascism isn't an economic system as you previously asserted. It's just that simple.
Yes. As simple as the fact that I have not previously asserted such things. Think about the difference between the fascism being an economic system, and the fascism having one. Or of talking about the economic system fascism or the economic system of fascism.
Nothing to do with a "strong Italian left". Everything to do with a numerous Italian people and an emergency. That's not what happened before. Where do you think Social Security and Medicare and the like came from in the first place? Satire is impossible for you. Poe's Law. There is nothing so obviously false that you will not claim it sincerely. I pointed out that you compare governments by degree only: more is worse, less is better, of any given governmental action. You then post a paragraph of such comparisons. I quote them as evidence. What's the problem? That was never on the table. What you asked about was a significant difference between the policies supported by the American left and the policies supported by the American fascists. I pointed to ownership of health insurance. The difference is stark - governmental vs corporate ownership - and significant - upwards of 18% of the GDP is funneled through health insurance. The Left in the US is not supporting fascism. You were in error to claim that, and the error is kind of silly - the people supporting fascism are supporting a rightwing ideology. That is different from a leftwing ideology. The people supporting leftwing ideologies are called "the Left", and the people supporting rightwing ideologies are called "the Right". This confuses you for some reason. The most apparent possibility is that you can't tell the difference between a rightwing and a leftwing Statist, because you have a theory that tells you there aren't any significant differences between Statists.
Oh, so you don't remember writing, "You have been, until now, unable to show an essential, radical difference in the economic system of fascism and your preferred system"? Fascism isn't an economic system as you clearly wrote.
And if I would write about the economic system of the old Greeks it is not my intention to claim that the old Greeks are an economic system. And if I talk about the economic system of Poland I do not claim that Poland is an economic system. If there is something wrong with my use of the word "of", please tell me about this, I'm not a native speaker. Fine, means you have taken back your accusation that I claim that "all government is equivalently evil", and accepted that I distinguish different degrees of evil by different governments? Not really. Here is what is on the table: Your quote This is not at all about significant but minor policy differences. but it is not a radical difference from the fascist economic system, as has been shown by the original example. And you are in error accusing me of making such claims (and, as usual, without quotes). My claim is that there are no radical differences between the economic system supported by various fascist ideologies and the one supported by the non-communist (that means, essentially all modern) left. Your references to actual political differences between US left and US right are not really interesting in this context, given that above ideologies are international and already quite old now. If you look at these actual differences from a more general point of view, they look much less relevant. There was, for example, a lot of anti-capitalism and anti-globalism in the Nazi movement (directed in particular against the jewish, speculative capital) which you can find today in America on the left side much easier than on the right one. As far as necessary, after removing openly antisemitic elements, but I doubt that showing disfavor to names like Goldman Sachs will cause big problems in the Occupy Wall Street community. And all the environmental movement was in the past a traditionally right-wing one. And having gays in the political leadership is not really a problem for fascists too, like the SA leader Röhm (who was murdered only after the Nazis had taken power, and not for being gay, but for being too much left), or Ljaschko in the Ukraine today. So even the ideological questions are much more diffuse. Instead, in the past there was a real, radical difference in the economic concepts. Complete state ownership with a planned economy of the communist left, vs. corporatism of the fascists. (With corporatism being shared by social democrats.) Today, the communists are no longer a relevant force on the left, so, the difference has disappeared. Of course, you have a point that IMHO the distinction between reft and light is quite irrelevant. They have to look significant for the sheeple, that's all.
Your notion that the difference between government ownership of health insurance and private corporation ownership of health insurance is "minor" is key to your claims. To the extent that such a difference is major, you would be in the wrong entirely about the left and the fascists in the US - agreed? And on the basis of that theoretical presupposition, you claimed that the left in the US was supporting fascist ideology and political organization. It isn't. So now is the time to correct your theory, in light of the facts. Nationalism is associated with the rightwing in the US as well, and the Nazis of course were not in the least anticapitalistic - they thought the (mythical, to a degree) Jewish bankers were leftists and globally conspiratorial, but that's proof they were crazy, not that capitalist banks were leftwing institutions in their (or anyone sane) eyes. Not in the US. You seem to be confusing leftwing ideology with the circumstances of particular situations. As with all folks of your persuasion, you have confused "left" with "authoritarian". So all Statists are the same - because they are all authoritarian. So no more arguments when I point out that you can't tell the difference.
Given that the claims I have made are general, and not specific to the US left vs. US right, how can I be in the wrong entirely about the left and the fascists in the US? The US left and the US right are particular instances of no special interest for me, beyond the point that they are also examples of the left and the right. The question who owns a particular industry is, indeed, minor in comparison to the traditional difference between communism and fascism. It is in no way a radical one. No. I made no particular claims about the US left, and the argument was about their economic proposals. So, we have yet another strawman. I have no problem to "admit" that you have you have successfully defeated that strawman. LOL. Even the English Wiki (which you can safely considered as presenting mostly left mainstream prejudices) has a separate "Anti-capitalim" section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism in the Nazism page. About environmental movement coming from the right: Indeed, my claim was based on Europe. And not only about the Nazis which have cared a lot about this, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany And, no, it is you who confused accidental ideological preferences in the left vs. right propaganda games with relevant questions. Yet another unbased accusation. I do not care about the democratic vs. authoritarian issue, because I do not consider this difference as very relevant for individual freedom. About reft-light differences being irrelavant: No. If I think the difference between red and brown T-shirts is irrelevant this does not mean I cannot tell the difference. So, again, it would be nice if you, whenever you make a claim about what I think, support this with a quote supported by a link to the source of the quote. Given your record of distortions, it seems time to reject every claim about me not supported by quotes with links as a defamation.
Since they are examples of the left and the right in reality, when they conflict with your statements about the left and the right your statements have come into conflict with reality. Do you recall what Popper recommended in this kind of event? And so the mainstream prejudices are your source of support? The Nazis talked a good, appealing game against the global Jewish banking cartel they claimed had humiliated and oppressed Germany. They even named their Party a "Socialist" Party. Socialist was a good thing to be, in Germany between the Wars. They then put together a cartel of German corporate capitalists with strong ties to capitalist corporate support in the US and elsewhere, and organized their entire war effort around it, along with the rest of their government. They even ran the concentration camps for capitalist profit - hiring out the labor to industrial production. So since there are no communists involved, the difference to the American people between the Medicare they have now and what they would have for health insurance without it is minor, as is the 7% difference in GDP between corporate and government health insurance. Got it. That wasn't the topic. The topic was your inability to distinguish Left from authoritarian, which is what leads you eventually to confuse the American left with American fascism. In the US the environmental movement has important support among some rich people, but politically it is associated with the Left. That is largely circumstantial, one of the circumstances being that government regulation of corporate behavior is absolutely necessary, and government ownership of such commons as the water and air inevitably involved, so that the folks who are anti-government tend to oppose environmentalism because of its association with the great evil. In the US they tend to be capitalists, these people - rightwing. So by default the remainder are more proportionately left. Of course it's neither a right or left issue, beyond the initial recognition that one is dealing with a commons and therefore will need a government. If the topic is the distinction between red and brown T-shirts, and you confuse a red one with a brown one, and when I point out that you have done that you declare the difference between the shirts irrelevant, you can't tell the difference between red and brown T-shirts.
This is what you claim to have shown. Unfortunately, you have only claimed this. Take a look at the pure logic. Essentially, my point is that there are no essential differences. If the US left and right would be the only left and right on the planet, you could simply show some essential differences between US left and right to prove me wrong. But what if for some "essential difference" between US left and right we observe that the Nazis have supported the position of the US left, and, say, some European left have supported the position of the US right? Is, then, this particular "essential difference" really an essential difference (even if it is essential for the US today)? For the same reason an admission of a suspected criminal is usually considered as support for the accusation. An in general unreliable source like Wiki for politically relevant questions can be quite reliable once it acknowledges things which one would suspect to be denied. Whatever, Wiki seems in this particular question much more reliable than you. Even if only for the simple point that they support their claims with sources and links. Such GDP numbers are quite meaningless. If I get a medicine or some medical help, the payment for this is done through insurance. Which usually does not much, if anything at all, except managing the payments. The real work is done by others. The producers of the medicine as well as the medical personal may remain private even if the insurance is government-owned. But your 7% number includes all the payments going through the insurance. Else, the simple radical solution of no health insurance at all would immediately give a 7% GDP economy, simply by making the whole insurance bureaucracy unnecessary. No, even the Soviet bureaucracy has not made that large costs. Thus, as usual, a polemical invention which you have not supported by any quotes, thus, not worth to care about. Oh, something I can more or less agree with. Except that there is no distinction between left and right in the pro- or anti-government direction. In the US, the right may be a little bit more anti-government. The general rough rule is that the left wants more government in economics, the right more in social life. This is only a very rough rule, with a lot of counterexamples. But some general rule that pro-government means left would be laughable for everybody with some 68 background (even if a lot of the 68 anti-government was not really anti-government but only against this particular government, favoring instead Ho Chi Minh). If ... Which is, as usual, only a polemical analogy, not supported by anything but your polemics.
No, your "point" was that there were no significant differences between the Left and the fascists, in the US, right now. Since you didn't know anything about the Left in the US, and since your theory that tells you what is "essential" or not in such matters is screwed up, you guessed wrong. Unless one had, as so often before, got the bias or lean of the propaganda involved completely backwards - so that one's suspicions were wrongheaded in the first place, even when faced with what reads quite obviously as propaganda (out of context quotes and the like instead of economic policy and structural description). That's one of the dangers of treating the entire world of information as a propaganda operation set up according to one's own "theory", and never fact-checking it. Apparently, you are unaware of the following: There is - and has been for more than fifteen years - a lavishly funded propaganda operation in the US (by the Koch brothers and several other like-minded capitalists) to relabel the Third Reich as a leftist, socialist, anti-capitalist regime, and fascism itself as a leftwing ideology. Its supporters have spent many millions of dollars, supported major media efforts, provided "think tank" sinecures and book guarantees and TV exposure and so forth for pundits (such as Jonah Goldberg) willing to advance their agenda, and so forth. They also have a significant presence online. When you read Wikipedia, you have to keep that in mind. The purpose of all that has not been disclosed, but there is an obvious possibility which is in fact - as we see with you - near to having been achieved: to remove the stain of the term - "fascism" - from their own political efforts and agenda, which are fascist. The reliability of your source is not the problem here. In my world, the amount of the money handling devoted to various factors of the economy is meaningful when evaluating the significance of those factors. There is no such "direction". You are circling vaguely around the notion of an authoritarian/libertarian axis, but if you ever get it straight you will find that there are quite significant differences in imposition of midrange authority by the left and right. These are especially significant in the US, with its concentration of wealth and power in private capital. And this would be very interesting in the case of Trump, who has hijacked the US fascist movement from its US capitalist support and foundation, from the people who built it, by the simple tactic of taking over their communication media.
We see a combination of a claim what was "my point" without any support by a quote, thus, a defamation, then a defamatory claim that I don't know something. You cannot do without this? So you think that Wiki is distorted toward the right, not the left? Fine, and easy to understand given you own prejudices, which are far more extremal than the average distortion of Wiki. As usual, you continue to make claims about what I believe, which are not supported by any quote, and, as usual, completely off. The internet is certainly not "a" (one?) "propaganda operation". There are a lot of actors, many of them trying to distribute propaganda, so that there is a lot of propaganda in the net. But this is unproblematic for people who have learned to extract useful information even from a single propaganda source. And, as usual for defamations, it appears that it is you who believes in one propaganda operation. Any information can be useful, but one has to understand that health insurance is not 7% of GDP, but only something quite weakly related to these 7% of the GDP. Significant maybe. This does not mean relevant or big.
Of course not. I think there has been a millionaire funded and concerted propaganda operation to relabel the Third Reich as a leftist, socialist, government, and fascism as a leftwing ideology, for US political purposes. I can name the funding sources, and point you toward the major sources of the various misrepresentations etc involved ( specific think tanks, pundits, and authors). This propaganda effort is comprehensive (book tours for authors such as Jonah Goldberg, media catch phrases and sound bites on all the major TV and radio, etc) and of course includes an online operation. Notice how the section you swallowed is written: Out of context quotes from Nazi propaganda ministers, opinions and side comments without direct meaning, no economic or political analysis of what the Nazis actually did. You might as well call the Nazis socialist because they named themselves "Socialist" - and Coca Cola the "real thing", while you are at it. Similar to your posting about Mussolini - all about what was promised to the suffering, nothing about what was actually done by the powerful. Fascism is the ideology most devoted to theater, to false presentation, to the Big Lie as a basic tactic. Corporate capitalism is the characteristic and intentional economic system of fascism, in the US and everywhere else. It is therefore not a leftist ideology. No Wiki subheading of weird little quotes can outweigh the actual economic and political organizational policies of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain; the changes made in Pinochet's Chile, or the Generals's Argentina. It is problematic for you. You keep getting suckered. I quoted it the first time, directly referred to it every time since. It's in #102. You should not allow your own deflections to mislead yourself. Health insurance in the US funnels about 20% of the GDP through its hands, one way or another. There are few, if any, larger domestic economic issues - the impact includes everything the economy affects. The 8% was only a minimum number for describing the difference between government ownership and private corporate ownership. In the case of the US, there is probably no bigger domestic political issue, no more important area of economic policy. The US health insurance setup is a disaster, economically as well as ethically. And the US Left opposes, directly and completely, the fascist Party's proposals and policies for health insurance.
About the prejudice of Wikipedia being possibly right: Fine. I think Wiki is quite reliable in the scientific domain (as far as mainstream science is described) and a more or less reliable presentation of the mainstream position (or the prejudices of the mainstream) in political questions. One can expect a distortion toward the position presented in mainstream media, and it is quite well-known that there is some preference for left-wing positions among the mainstream journalists, so that correspondingly a left-wing distortion of Wiki can be expected. But this distortion toward the left is not a very strong one and can, indeed, be reverted in some particular questions. If we disagree about this (I expect this) this is only a minor disagreement. Fine. As far, this is only an ad hominem argument, thus, does not show at all that the thesis itself is wrong. Given that I have read Goldberg, and his arguments seemed imho quite good (for example, supported by quotes, which you obviously do not like), I will not care until you present some arguments about the content. These have been, at least, arguments about the content - namely, quotes. Of course, quotes may be out of context. But even out of context quotes change the argumentative situation: Once the quote has been given, the remark that it may be out of context does not count. You have to show, by providing the context and showing that the context changes the meaning, that it really is out of context. Your ideological rant against fascism as the ideology most devoted to theater is irrelevant, given that fascists can as well claim that communists have been much better in this game, and above claim that the Western democracy is clearly superior to above, scnr. LOL, therefore. So we are back to the question about the important radical differences between corporate capitalism and the actual socialist ideas about economy. Define them, and justify them. Show that they are relevant. Not with claims but with arguments, supported by what supports arguments, like quotes. No. You "directly referred" to it not even now. I have to read the whole #102 to guess which point you you seem to think justifies your claim The problem is that the whole #102 answer does not even contain nor the word "US" nor "now". It is mainly about that there are differences between different evils. The word "fascism" is mentioned only in the last paragraph, which is about the difference between left and fascism in general, supported by a reference to Mussolini, thus, not at all about the US now. So, it seems quite obvious, that you have good reasons not to quote me. If you would, your distortions would be too obvious. Whatever it is, the argument remains unchanged - this number does not really matter. Fine, full agreement. Because this is my point. There are no really important domestic economic issues between the left and the right if this is the largest one. And this particular issue is not only one which the original fascist Mussolini has essentially realized (for whatever reason) what is proposed by the left. The point being? Of course, in elections there should be always a point where there is some disagreement. And this disagreement will be presented as very very large, to create the impression to the people that they make really important decisions with their vote. In fact, the question if something is heavily regulated by the state or directly owned by the state in a particular domain is nothing which distinguishes fascism from the non-communist left. There may be some vague preference on the left for direct state ownership, where fascists would prefer a heavily regulated but private ownership. But this is nothing one could name a radical difference. The really radically different variant - communism with state ownership of all means of production - is dead, the left has accepted a quite large sector of private ownership. It insists on heavy state regulation, but this is inherently not a difference to corporatism.
If you look at the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Revolutionary War and the forming of the USA, what was totally unique about that time in history, was humans had liberated themselves from a monarchy and formed a government of the people and by the people. The US was a whole new type of country. This was sort of unique to all of human history, from Pharaoh to the then present. Monarchies are the epitome of big heavy handed government. It has its tentacles in all aspect of life often out of greed and paranoia. The formation of America went against the trend of human history by forming a limited government; non monarchy. The founders were not interested in big government, micro managing the affairs of the citizens. The Democratic party, will not admit this, but they favor a return to monarchy rule. They were the political party of slavery, where southern land owners were like aristocracy who could dictate all aspects of their slaves lives. If you have ever been down south in the USA, people are nice, but many still have that monarchy wannabe nature. It was not coincidence that the democratic party media equated President Kennedy and his family to Camelot. The Democratic party has been looking for its next royalty since then. Monarchies imply big and heavy handed government, where the serfs are heavily taxed to support the royal whims and high and excessive overhead. People like Cruz and maybe Trump don't think in terms of the democratic party monarchy model of government; king and his court have special lord over the minions. Cruz thinks in terms of the original intent of forming the USA, which was freedom from monarchies via the limited power and scope of government. The minions never needed big government. That was a rip off from top, down. Communism and Socialism is another name for almost Monarchy. If you look at Cuba and Castro, his family gets to keep power like king to prince. This the dream of the democratic party leaders. It does not matter if Castro violates human rights, since the divine right of the king makes this legal.
