You Fascist!

Recent news has exploded with random acts of violence, whether it be a guy on a bus fatally stabbing a girl he didn't know in front of him just because she was there, or more recently the cold blooded assassination of conservative political influencer Charlie Kirk, or even the attempt last fall on President Trump's life.

Increasingly, attempted murder appears to be a widely accepted and promoted tool to silence political differences, and particularly when those views promote political and economic freedom. A simple browsing of social media confirms this. And in many cases, the murderers, or potential murderers, will label their targets "fascists", while having absolutely no clue what a fascist even is!

In this article, I will review different political systems, so that at least my readers fully understand the differences in political systems and can speak and debate intelligently about them, unlike the lawless and clueless thugs that resort to burning Teslas, assassinating political figures, or burning American flags to make their anti-American points heard.

It is first important to understand that political systems are comprised of two spectra: a range of Political Freedom and range of Economic Freedom.

The chart below graphs these two spectra on two different axes:

On the left vertical axis, you will see "Political Freedom". The less freedom you have, the more you live in a dictatorship, whether the dictator is an individual like Hitler, or a group like you might find in Russia or China. But even in those countries, there is typically a figurehead like Vladamir Putin or Xi Jinping who has significant influence over the governing group, almost like an individual dictator. An empire like that which existed in Rome under Julius Caesar or Augustus Caesar would also qualify as a dictatorship, since those individuals held absolute power over the state, whether they were kind and capable administrators (like Augustus Caesar) or not (like Nero).

The opposite of dictatorship on the political spectrum is democracy, where the state decides nothing by itself, and every issue is put to a vote of the people.

Democracy may feel like a dictatorship if you are continually on the losing side of the votes. 51% of the people are essentially deciding the fate of the other 49%, assuming everyone agrees to such a system.

The reality is that the outcome will vary by issue, and by changing values, where the population is swayed back toward the center if an issue gets too extreme in one direction or another. Over time, the political pendulum balances.

But pure democracy is highly inefficient. When there are thousands of state issues, some large and some small, putting all those issues to a vote on every ballot can be expensive and time-consuming.

A republic attempts to balance the need to put every issue on a ballot, versus letting representatives decide most smaller issues on behalf of their constituency. Larger issues may still go to the ballot.

A republic may also be called a "Representative Government", where the people vote for representatives, who then vote on most issues on behalf of their constituents.

The United States is often called a democracy, when in fact the United States is a republic. We elect representatives who in turn make most of our laws for us. The representatives need to respond to the people, or they are voted out of office in the next election. At the same time, major issues are still on our ballots to be decided by the popular vote.

So political systems range in freedom from dictatorship, to republic, to democracy.

On the other axis, we have economic freedom. Economic freedom ranges from no economic freedom to full economic freedom.

No economic freedom is called "socialism". Socialism is NOT a political system, as many incorrectly believe. It is an economic system that says all gains and profits are shared equally by every member of the state. So if you work and produce $100 of value in a society of 100 people, you will only receive $1, and everyone else also gets $1 of what you produced.

If everyone in society produces equally, then sharing equally is not a big deal. But we all know that people don't produce equally. Some people are lazy, or even fraudulent, yet with socialism, those people would still benefit from another person's production. Because there is little incentive to produce, and some instead get handed income of others, socialist systems eventually fail on their own. Ultimately, it was this fact that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. We saw Cuba follow a similar path when Fidel Castro removed economic freedom there.

Before the socialist Soviet Union collapsed, many members of that society were famously quoted as saying, "The state pretends to pay us, and we pretend to work." Without work and production, wealth is impossible.

On the other end of the economic freedom axis is "Free Enterprise". With free enterprise, if you produce something, you get to keep 100% of the production and profits you produce! There is no greater incentive for an individual to work than such a system. Productivity goes off the charts when you are individually allowed to benefit fully from your creation and labor.

A common phrase in free enterprise is "If you don't work, you don't eat". Fear of starvation is also a good incentive to work and be productive.

One of the criticisms of free enterprise is that not everyone can work. They may be severely disadvantaged or physically unable. Are they then supposed to starve?

The truth is everyone has a God-given ability to do something. If their ability didn't include physical labor, perhaps they could inspire others or use their mind to add value.

As I write this, I am reminded of Ken Jacuzzi. From his early childhood, Ken's had his legs paralyzed by rheumatoid arthritis. Ken was never going to work on a factory floor or in a farm, or become a millionaire playing sports. But he got good at sales and business and began marketing the whirlpool tub and water jets his father invented to help ease the pain in his legs. He was determined not to let disability stop his success. Today, nearly everyone has heard of Jacuzzi hot tubs. Under a socialist system, Ken may have been more incentivized to not work or go through the trouble of running a company.

Political systems vary by the degree of political AND economic freedom they promote.

Anarchy is a political system supporting NO state power. All power is at the individual level, and supports full political and economic freedom to do as you please, while keeping 100% of your production to do with as you please.

One might think anarchy doesn't work, that it is nothing but chaos and self-interested greedy people. The truth is it DOES work, but ONLY if the citizens of that society voluntarily live responsibly, by themselves, and with each other.

Ancient Israel, before Saul (according to the Old Testament Book of Samuel), was such a society. There was no king (i.e. no government). The people were God-fearing people who voluntarily acted morally and ethically right with each other, not because the state told them to do so, but rather because they all believed God told them to. The system worked well for many years. The lack of a government maximized financial benefits to all members of society, as there were no taxes!

The United States also began with practically no government, where the only governing document was the 200-word Mayflower Compact. But again, these individuals were God-fearing conservative Christians who were all committed to living morally and respectfully together. No laws were needed to control behavior. If nobody ever murders or steals, we don't need a law that says "do not kill" or "do not steal", nor do we need a costly government to enforce it! Also, if someone was truly in need, the other members of the society voluntarily assisted as they could to help a struggling member past their troubles. Charity was a core value. They didn't need taxes and welfare laws.

Libertarianism is a political system with the least amount of government possible. The libertarian might support a military for the common defense, and become a "standards committee" to define basic economic matters like what to use as money, how to measure things, or what to name the streets. The motto of the libertarian can be summarized in the words of famed author Henry David Thoreau, "The government which governs best, governs least".

I should note that these words are often credited to President Thomas Jefferson or John Locke, but there is no evidence they ever wrote them, even if the phrase summarizes their line of like thinking. The first known written expression of the phrase is found in Thoreau's 1849 book, "Civil Disobedience".

Pure communism is a form of government that offers no political freedom, nor economic freedom. It is often governed by a committee who sets all laws, and redistributes all profits and production according to a formula.

Most western societies today fall somewhere between the extremes of pure communism or pure libertarianism. Generally speaking, they are republics offering a high degree of political freedom, while also offering a high degree of economic freedom.

As a general rule, the primary goal of western governments is to protect life, liberty, and property. These are the only measurable things you can have as an individual. But western civilization also incorporates socialist aspects and wealth redistribution mechanisms like social security, welfare, and other such programs. Additionally, political freedom isn't pure either when we consider practices like the military draft, mandatory schooling, or government dictates that you must wear a mask in public to protect someone else from disease.

Finally, there is fascism. Fascism offers no political freedom, while allowing nearly complete economic freedom. There is no disagreement that a leader like Hitler was a fascist dictator. If you didn't agree with him politically, your life was physically in danger, and he was noted to have been responsible for the deaths of over 6 million German Jewish citizens who politically disagreed with him.

Few realize that under Hitler, German business leaders became amazingly wealthy because of the economic freedom he supported. With the economic profit incentive, Hitler commissioned the construction of the Autobahn highway, the Volkswagan automobile, top performing military equipment, the invention of rocket technology, and even the jet engine. The German engineering and construction was so efficient that in just 10 years, Hitler lifted Germany out of their 1920s hyper-inflation economic nightmare, and propelled the economy to one of the fastest growing in the world.

Hitler's economic and war machine was so efficient, few realize today that our world was only 2-weeks away from a different outcome if the allies didn't succeed with the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, also known as "D-Day". Hitler was approximately 2 weeks short of testing the world's first atomic bomb, just a little over 1 year before the United States, but the invasion prevented that from happening!

With fascism, while you were allowed to become wealthy, this was usually only allowed if you produced what the dictator wanted you to produce. So you only had economic freedom if your business goals aligned with the dictator's goals.

When deciding if someone is a "fascist", it is important to look at the facts. Charlie Kirk was called a "fascist" by his assassin, and many others. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

Charlie Kirk was a believer in both political and economic freedom. He was a well-respected and peaceful Christian man who outwardly and openly spoke of responsible living, helping others in need, and promoting truth, justice, and the rule of law. Fascists don't believe in political freedom, or at least not yours.

In fact, if anything, it was the assassin who was the fascist, because the assassin could not respect the right of another to have free speech! He took another person's life and denied that person their right to life and their right to pursue happiness by murdering them, instead of respecting their political freedom to express opposing views.

Most people who dislike the speech of Charlie Kirk are, in fact, communists. They tend to be individuals who do not believe in freedom, neither political, nor economic. Hence their core disagreement on the issues.

Many of these confused individuals have not moved ahead on the economic ladder, and are lashing out at others who promote economic freedom, falsely believing those who promote freedom are the source of their life's difficulties. More often than not, these individuals don't want to earn their own living. They want to instead use political power to take your wealth and take your earnings. This is not an American value! If anything, it is anti-American! There is no compatibility of communism with American values.....politically or economically. America is founded on freedom, where communism is not.

Many of these same individuals lash out in anger at President Trump, who has values similar to Charlie Kirk. While I wouldn't consider President Trump a man who is socially or verbally graceful, especially with those he dislikes, he is anything but a fascist.

Trump has never taken another person's life, liberty, or property, even as President, in violation of law. He answers to Congress, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, and has complied with the orders and laws as defined by those government bodies.

Is President Trump a dictator, or has he ever claimed to be a dictator? Not at all! Dictators would never recognize the legislative rule of Congress, nor would they recognize the judicial authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike Trump, Hitler completely abolished the Bundestag (i.e. the German congressional body). President Trump has never suggested eliminating Congress, or taken action to do so.

Those who view President Trump as a fascist are themselves looking to eliminate your political and/or economic freedom. If anything, President Trump is more Libertarian, much like Charlie Kirk. Libertarianism is the opposite of communism on BOTH axes of political and economic freedom.

But being called a libertarian doesn't sound as negative as being called a fascist. Those attacking Trump's policies disagree with his agenda of making government smaller and the removal of wealth redistribution mechanisms, restoring America to the way it was meant to be from its founding. Communists, however, thrive off the free handouts of redistributed wealth. They fear they might now actually have to work for money and gains. They fear they might actually have to pay back their student loans. And they fear they might actually have to comply with laws to legally move across the border into the United States.

I don't see libertarians assassinating those who promote America's core values of political and economic freedom. Instead, I see those who hate freedom lashing out and assassinating those who love political and economic freedom, all while calling freedom lovers "fascist".

If you are going to call someone communist or fascist, at least take the time to learn what a fascist is. If you have called someone a fascist, particularly President Trump or Charlie Kirk, you can start your political education by looking in the mirror and asking yourself why you hate freedom and personal responsibility.....the founding principles of America, and the principles promoted by Charlie Kirk and President Trump.

It may be that you truly do not believe in freedom, politically or economically. And if that is true, the best course of action for you would be to follow Rosie O'Donnell or Ellen Degeneres and leave for a political destination that better aligns with your core values.

If you change your mind later, wanting to return, with any luck, the communist country you moved into will offer the same freedom to allow you to leave as you had here in America. But probably not, because they don't believe in your political freedom.