Benevolent fascism

[infoterror]

Say that tomorrow my friend Ed became benevolent fascist dictator of the United States.

His acts are:

1. All cars are destroyed, to be replaced by bikes, public transit and horses.

2. All shopping is consolidated into single districts once every five miles.

3. All communities are localized, and cities subdivided.

4. All people under 120 IQ points are shot; criminals and perverts are shot; scumbags and liars are demoted if not shot.

5. All mass media is dissolved and replaced by local newspapers.

6. All pornography, ripoff cheapshit products like the Franklin Mint, new age religious scams, et al are banned.

7. Churches are taxed.

8. Ethnic groups are isolated and repatriated.

9. An elite is formed of our smartest, healthiest and best in character people.

My question is:

Would we be worse off, in terms of the function and end result of our society?

If society ran more effectively, toward higher goals, would we be happier?

Are there any tangible disadvantages of the above, such as the economy shutting down or fire raining from the sky?

What are the advantages of the above? -- Do they outweigh the advantages we have now? Do they fix problems we have now without introducing problems of the same size.

Benevolent fascism is an alternative to the corporate-religious-gov't-media control we have now, which might be construed as predatory fascism.

 

[Blowtus]

What is the function and end result you aim for?

Arbitrary lines in the sand seem a terribly simplistic way to achieve what look to be your goals. A compromise scenario (weighted votes, higher taxes on those elements deemed dangerous to society, etc) seems to me a more positive way forward than either extreme.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Say that tomorrow my friend Ed became benevolent fascist dictator of the United States.

His acts are:

1. All cars are destroyed, to be replaced by bikes, public transit and horses.

2. All shopping is consolidated into single districts once every five miles.

3. All communities are localized, and cities subdivided.

4. All people under 120 IQ points are shot; criminals and perverts are shot; scumbags and liars are demoted if not shot.

5. All mass media is dissolved and replaced by local newspapers.

6. All pornography, ripoff cheapshit products like the Franklin Mint, new age religious scams, et al are banned.

7. Churches are taxed.

8. Ethnic groups are isolated and repatriated.

9. An elite is formed of our smartest, healthiest and best in character people.

My question is:

Would we be worse off, in terms of the function and end result of our society?

If society ran more effectively, toward higher goals, would we be happier?

Are there any tangible disadvantages of the above, such as the economy shutting down or fire raining from the sky?

What are the advantages of the above? -- Do they outweigh the advantages we have now? Do they fix problems we have now without introducing problems of the same size.

Benevolent fascism is an alternative to the corporate-religious-gov't-media control we have now, which might be construed as predatory fascism.

#4 is a value judgment made on a test?
being a criminal or a pervert is subject to the laws and who is making them. Shot for speeding, j-walking, parking on the street overnight, are these not laws and by-laws that when broken make you a criminal. What about people put in jail for possession of marijuana. Clearly most of them harm no one by having it. As for scumbags and liars, I agree.

#6 is 3 very separate things. People can't film sex anymore? Religion should be dismantled not just new age bullshit. What is Franklin mint?
#9 who is judging their character?
in #8 what happens if you are from multiple ethnicities?where do they go?

 

[JoeVice]

there would be mixed reactions.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It's not exactly how I would run things, but yes it would be an improvement on the increasing nightmare we have right now. It is purely theoretical since there would be a lot of complicating factors, such as a probable civil war kicking off and an even more likely intervention by foreign forces who wanted to stop what was happening. And the whole thing would fail without a healthy birth rate too.

 

[infoterror]

Arbitrary lines in the sand seem a terribly simplistic way to achieve what look to be your goals. A compromise scenario (weighted votes, higher taxes on those elements deemed dangerous to society, etc) seems to me a more positive way forward than either extreme.

What is less arbitrary about your solution? I think that word has been inherited from somewhere that is not topical.

The "positive way forward" you suggest will take a very long time, during which time it will become corrupt and subverted. That seems counterproductive to me.

 

[Scourge of God]

The positive way forward you suggest won't happen at all, so how is it any better?

Some of your proposals are great:

Go ahead, ban the useless products of mass pacification.

Killing off those who have shown themselves incapable of abiding by even the minimal standards of ethical conduct imposed by the consumer democracies is a great start too.

Nationalism and repatriation? Awesome.

Some are good in theory, but probably impractical:

Mass transit is a wonderful idea, but the current infrastructure is woefully inadequate to support moving everyone everywhere by mass transit. The project of actually building the infrastructure up to the necessary levels would require a committment of resources on a level I don't think you can even imagine. Bikes are not a viable alternative outside of very densely populated areas, nor are they a viable alternative for families. Horses are not available in sufficient numbers, and to be every day transportation, they require experienced riders, of which there are very few (especially among your elites). You're talking about a project of decades just to get rid of personal automobiles. Decades during which corruption and rot are very likely to set in, destroying whatever promise your program might have possessed at the outset.

Localization likewise would require massively altering the fundamental infrastructure of daily living. The way food production is distributed alone would require essentially the abandonment of most of the major population centers, as well as the retraining of much of the population, if local self-sufficiency is to be ensured. This is yet another almost inconceivably enormous project likely to take decades, if it can be accomplished at all.

Some of your suggestions are simply insane:

Killing off everyone under a ridiculously high IQ threshold? All that accomplishes is filling up the graveyards and shrinking the scale while increasing the intensity of the basic problem of democracy (where every man is king). The basic reality of life (which healthy societies codified in their caste systems) is that some people are need to lead, some people need to see to the spiritual health of society, and most people need to shut up and shovel shit in the fields. The shit shovellers always have and always will resent that. But if the dude shovelling the shit has an IQ of 120, he's a hell of a lot more likely to act on that resentment, and act in a way that really can upset the whole social applecart (in effect, that's exactly what led to democracy in the first place - oops).

 

[Blowtus]

What is less arbitrary about your solution? I think that word has been inherited from somewhere that is not topical.

The "positive way forward" you suggest will take a very long time, during which time it will become corrupt and subverted. That seems counterproductive to me.

Well, no less arbitrary, but more shades of grey to account for error and uselessness within the arbitraryness.

Certainly, were you at this point invested with a large heaping of power, my suggestions may take longer to achieve the social change you so desire, in aim of your as yet unstated end goal. I am unconvinced that rapid social change is something we are particularly equipped for, seems a great way to develop a huge resistance. The current regime of incrementally adding law upon law for our 'safety' is generally very accepted, as it is taken in small steps.

The appearance of 'reasonable-ness' to the populace you wish to control would seem fairly useful to me - instilling them with fear is no doubt an ok way to get them to perform certain actions, but getting them to actually *want* the same thing as you is orders of magnitude more powerful. I really think you'd be a shit dictator basically

 

[JColtrane]

If this is supposedly set in the U.S., how exactly is eveyone going to determine their ethnicity? Should those who do not know their specific origin (probably because it is so various) be added to the "stupid" people who should be shot?

Also, in order for someone to be a master, there must be a herd. Killing off those with low I.Q.s would just perpetuate the same problem: those of lower I.Q.s would group together, and then the group of people with higher I.Q.s would ask them to be killed off for the betterment of the society--wash, rinse, repeat; ad infinitum.

 

[derbeder]

why is anyone even responding to this rubbish?

 

[JColtrane]

why is anyone even responding to this rubbish?

Love the honesty (and the British vocabulary)

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

why is anyone even responding to this rubbish?

The ability to consider other possibilities should always be welcomed in this decaying world. Responding is a way of putting your own point forward and should be equally welcomed. Not responding is what is sinking humanity ever deeper into its own corpulence.

Scourge of God takes a more rational approach. Thinking and questioning are oft forgotten abilities of man... embrace them.

 

[petehis kahn]

Would we be worse off, in terms of the function and end result of our society?

Yes, I would suppose if a deranged lunatic did somehow gain power and set about a deranged lunatic Fascist regime then I guess we would be.

If society ran more effectively, toward higher goals, would we be happier?

Are there any tangible disadvantages of the above, such as the economy shutting down or fire raining from the sky?

Well I don't know sparky, how about the destruction of most of the work force with your elitist bullshit IQ requirements.

How do you expect society to function? I know that it is a fairly average debating technique to propose that your opponents ideas rest upon a cloud of magic, hopes, dreams and fairy dust, but that is exactly what your ideas are built on.

An IQ over 120 indeed, that would be over half the population and the most likely part of the population to perform undesirable labour. If you actually thought that would be a good idea I suspect you would be waking up with the exterminators at your door.

What are the advantages of the above? -- Do they outweigh the advantages we have now? Do they fix problems we have now without introducing problems of the same size.

How would creating a class system based upon intelligence, health and "best in character" solve or improve anything? In fact who makes the judgement on who is sound in character... why it would be you

Yes, creating an elitist nerd society is bound to make things better.

Hey guys I am making a society but there will be an elite group of people based on height. Only the tallest and coolest guys will be able to rule. All people under 5'11 will be executed. Who is with me.

Benevolent fascism is an alternative to the corporate-religious-gov't-media control we have now, which might be construed as predatory fascism.

Well I suppose cutting your dick off with a blunt knife is an alternative to boredom in a way.

 

[petehis kahn]

Killing off everyone under a ridiculously high IQ threshold? All that accomplishes is filling up the graveyards and shrinking the scale while increasing the intensity of the basic problem of democracy (where every man is king). The basic reality of life (which healthy societies codified in their caste systems) is that some people are need to lead, some people need to see to the spiritual health of society, and most people need to shut up and shovel shit in the fields. The shit shovellers always have and always will resent that. But if the dude shovelling the shit has an IQ of 120, he's a hell of a lot more likely to act on that resentment, and act in a way that really can upset the whole social applecart (in effect, that's exactly what led to democracy in the first place - oops).

If I can argue with you here for a moment.

I would argue that the applecart needs to be upset (or in effect kicked over) every so often. There is certainly nothing wrong with people questioning their place within society and revolting against it.

I would argue that there exists problems right now (media, welfare and the like) that does lead to the creation of a happy subjected lower class.

I mean if you are for this then you really should be pro the items that keep the poor happy. Like pointless TV and other mind numbing things.

 

[derbeder]

The ability to consider other possibilities should always be welcomed in this decaying world. Responding is a way of putting your own point forward and should be equally welcomed. Not responding is what is sinking humanity ever deeper into its own corpulence.

Scourge of God takes a more rational approach. Thinking and questioning are oft forgotten abilities of man... embrace them.

well if there is some position that is explained well and argued for, then it is worth considering. the original post here is neither. it simply does not deserve a response. being lectured by you on the need for thinking and questioning is, of course, priceless.

 

[Scourge of God]

If I can argue with you here for a moment.

I would argue that the applecart needs to be upset (or in effect kicked over) every so often. There is certainly nothing wrong with people questioning their place within society and revolting against it.

I would argue that there exists problems right now (media, welfare and the like) that does lead to the creation of a happy subjected lower class.

I mean if you are for this then you really should be pro the items that keep the poor happy. Like pointless TV and other mind numbing things.

I'm for things that have prospects of actually working in the long-run. For instance, I'm for a system that keeps the people at the bottom from revolting by giving them a society that WORKS. Killing everyone and banning cars isn't that society.

 

[Shiny McShining Rodriguez]

well if there is some position that is explained well and argued for, then it is worth considering. the original post here is neither. it simply does not deserve a response. being lectured by you on the need for thinking and questioning is, of course, priceless.

Your contribution was no more deserving but I attempted to answer your question for you. I gave my reason for interest in the topic, and by your own reasoning you apparently found some value in it because you have responded in kind. I challenged your thinking, and from it you have strengthened your own position by rebutting my claim, perhaps not priceless as sarcasm, but valuable non-the-less.

You obviously think very highly of your standpoint or you would not have questioned others for opposing it. Like the Christian who attacks the rationale of those who won't believe because surely no one would turn down a place in heaven. Well, your non-responding is not everyone's cup of tea either.

 

[derbeder]

what the hell do you think anyone has challenged anything here? a bunch of statements cobbled together don't result in an argument. if you actually wish to challenge some position, then you had better state what it is, describe your alternative clearly and state your reasons in favor of your position. of course, not every post need do all these things.
i still am not responding to anything in the content of the original post, as should be obvious.

 

[infoterror]

#4 is a value judgment made on a test?

Let me ask you this:

Is it possible for someone with an IQ of 105 to be smarter than someone with an IQ of 125?

Not so, as we can see from the examples of history.

So while you criticize "a test," you forget that it is more accurate than the SAT, GED, GRE, et al for predicting intelligence.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Let me ask you this:

Is it possible for someone with an IQ of 105 to be smarter than someone with an IQ of 125?

Not so, as we can see from the examples of history.

So while you criticize "a test," you forget that it is more accurate than the SAT, GED, GRE, et al for predicting intelligence.

My problem is that you would see someones worth based only on a test, rather then the person themselves. People you deem stupid can excel at things physically giving them a physical intelligence that others may never achieve. There are plenty other reasons to keep lower IQ people, its just the scum, and trash that needs to go.