Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

[HappySqurriel]

Mr Khan said:

mrstickball said:

Mr Khan said:

The key is that economic liberties need to be balanced with economic rights: we have a human right to the health care we need, to at least a secondary education, to food and shelter, and to a healthy living environment, and that's where we need certain restrictions on economic liberties which impugn those rights

Just like how we enter into the social contract for mutual protection (e.g. you have reasonable assurance that i am disincentivized from shooting you in the head, so long as you forfeit your right to shoot me in the head if you so chose), we enter a social contract for a certain degree of mutual prosperity

I draw the line further in than Communism, simply because Central Planning clearly cannot work (largely because it would be the same business analysts who don't know dick about where consumer tastes are going in the private sector that would be planning this for the public sector), but i do say that our goals should be primarily utilitarian, as in what is best for the many, rather than driven by self-interest

 

....We need to restrict rights to ensure that we have other rights? Really?

In my view and experience, re-distribution of government to ensure education, health care, food, shelter, and so on has always been a losing proposition when compared to charities that service these needs. Government has a tendency to create gross inefficencies with redistribution, as they always cater to the lowest common denominator for services, whereas private institutions can tailor programs and packages to ensure said needs are met in a far more efficient manner.

"Give rights, get rights" is the foundation of all politics, and is a simple bartering mechanism as is foundational to economics. To better ourselves economically, we become dependent on others who are interdependent on us, through specialization and all, and that is how rights work too, and the prime outlet of the welfare state is that we all give a little so that some or all can benefit more

The only people who don't think that way are very hard-right anarchists (a rare breed indeed, as anarchists usually envision some sort of stage 3 Communism)

As for progressivism, yes, it hinges on the idea that not all political beliefs are created equal (as is clearly the case in the end, the question just being exactly what is the right way), that some ideas are right and that others are counterproductive or just plain wrong. It assumes a certain level of arrogance to be sure, but don't all belief systems really?

Rights and responsibilities/obligations are intrinsically tied together, and for every right you have there is a corresponding responsibility/obligation that you must fulfill. As a citizen you never give up a right to gain another right, you give up a right to gain freedom from an obligation. In some cases we fully embrace this trade-off, as is the case with removing the obligation to protect ourselves from the acts of others in exchange for the right to pursue justice/vengeance on our own (also known as the criminal justice system); but, more often than not, people want freedom from their obligations while still keeping their rights that depend upon these obligations (for example, people want to be free of the obligation of  working towards their own success [welfare] while still keeping the rights that allow them to fail [legalized drugs as an example]). The system that results from incomplete trade-offs is unstable and is bound to fail.

Progressive ideology is based on reducing/eliminating people's obligations with little regard for personal rights ...

Conservative ideology is based on preserving rights with little regard for unreasonable obligations