What is the most Likely path that would lead America into a Authoritarian state?

[barts]

Complete corporate control. The democratic system will be maintained as a facade but anyone who attempts to exercise his Constitutional rights to mount any challenge to corporate control will be silenced.

I don't think most people who "challenge corporate control will be silenced" for the simple reason that they will be unable to acquire sufficient power to create change. Why silence someone who most people would rather not hear?

Corporate control and values are so pervasive, and so many of our fellow citizens accept corporate values as "normal", that merely ignoring those who challenge them is sufficient.

Those who challenge or question the corporate view of our world are kooks, extremists, and freaks. McDonalds, KFC, and Pizza Hut is "normal" food. Organic whole food (in other words, real food) cooked well is weird and elitist.

[Night]

Comletely agreed, Bart's. We're "consumers" after all, which says more about the corporate view of the world than anything else I could ever say.

I believe the quickest path to an authoritarian USA will indeed be corporatism. Corporations will replace nations and governments. Perhaps corporate "consortiums" will develop. People will take the name of "their" corporation as their own last names, like I would be Bradley Intel, or Bradley McDonalds. These corporate consortiums will pool resources to purchase military equipment. They will not have defined geographical areas other than their own buildings and property.

They would have specialization schools, where people are assigned a job at birth (based off of DNA testing, which by this time will accurately determine their suitability in the work force).

If you're not a "team player", if your "quarterly productivity" goes down, or if you think independently and don't "contribute" to the "corporate family", you will be "down-sized" or "laid off", which will be corporate double-speak for killed.

This corporatist dystopia is very scary to me, and I see it becoming more realistically feasible every passing day. Corporations now aren't just more powerful than the government...they ARE the government. The same "captains of industry" also take powerful positions in government. T believe that these people are fulfilling some "patriotic duty" is naive at best.

[m5lange1]

FEAR FEAR FEAR. Scare people into giving up their rights. Make them believe that if they are still free it is allowing some terrorist to blow up their family. It is how most totolitarian states have clamped down on their populations. Make them so afraid of some enemy (real or imagined) that they sacrifice all their rights for protection.

Suspend such basic constitutional rights as requiring a warrent or trial by jury. Convince the meek and freightened that the government is ONLY going to use this against the ENEMY and that YOU have nothing to fear.

It often creeps up on people until the start waking up and realizing that somewhere along the way the lost freedom.

FEAR FEAR FEAR

BOO terrorists


BOO socialists

BOO you have to have ORDER to be safe and WE are the ones to provide it.

We will protect this nation and we may just decide it needs protecting from you and people who think like you!!!!!

[BlackSheep]

FEAR FEAR FEAR. Scare people into giving up their rights. Make them believe that if they are still free it is allowing some terrorist to blow up their family. It is how most totolitarian states have clamped down on their populations. Make them so afraid of some enemy (real or imagined) that they sacrifice all their rights for protection.

Suspend such basic constitutional rights as requiring a warrent or trial by jury. Convince the meek and freightened that the government is ONLY going to use this against the ENEMY and that YOU have nothing to fear.

It often creeps up on people until the start waking up and realizing that somewhere along the way the lost freedom.

FEAR FEAR FEAR

BOO terrorists


BOO socialists

BOO you have to have ORDER to be safe and WE are the ones to provide it.

We will protect this nation and we may just decide it needs protecting from you and people who think like you!!!!!

My thoughts as well. Maybe they need to move the fear closer to home. Change the focus to more homegrown threats.

[Meleagar]

Give the current state of America, what do feel the most likely path is to an Authoritarian state. A true Authoritarian state, likely with a suspension of constitutional rights formally or informally.

I certainly can see this has path has partly gone down by leveraging fear with the gap between civilian and military personnel where people can slip between the cracks.

What if more terrorist attacks happen on American soil?

The way it is currently happening and has been happening for quite some time - at least since the Wilson administration - is the long, slow increase in the size and regulatory powers of the federal government. The liberal/progressive path (as we know it today) led to the authoritarian regimes of germany & italy, where the state was wedded with big business and revolutionaries in the street and everyone was forced to conform to the state-issued view, and individual freedom was considered bad for society.

[NoJingoLingo]

But what circumstances would get us there? A theocracy would generally be a authoritarian state.

It won't be theocracy or a swift take-ever of the government by some sinister force that will establish an authoritarian state. We're already halfway there. It will be the slow and steady implementation of new regulations and laws to limit the citizen's power to resist state authority. The ruling elite want to regulate every aspect of our lives, from where you can exercise your right to free speech to what kind of light bulbs you can use. Indiana even has gone so far as to say that you have no right to resist an illegal police search of your own home. A theocracy is the least of our worries.

FEAR FEAR FEAR. Scare people into giving up their rights. Make them believe that if they are still free it is allowing some terrorist to blow up their family. It is how most totolitarian states have clamped down on their populations. Make them so afraid of some enemy (real or imagined) that they sacrifice all their rights for protection.

Suspend such basic constitutional rights as requiring a warrent or trial by jury. Convince the meek and freightened that the government is ONLY going to use this against the ENEMY and that YOU have nothing to fear.

It often creeps up on people until the start waking up and realizing that somewhere along the way the lost freedom.

FEAR FEAR FEAR

BOO terrorists


BOO socialists

BOO you have to have ORDER to be safe and WE are the ones to provide it.

We will protect this nation and we may just decide it needs protecting from you and people who think like you!!!!!

Of course it's fear that will get us there, that's how religion works. Corporatism can only go so far, as we can see, people WILL begin to see the damage corporate rule will do to the world. Theocracy however... it's god's will, mysterious yes, but don't worry because the bible is all you need.

[BlackSheep]

The way it is currently happening and has been happening for quite some time - at least since the Wilson administration - is the long, slow increase in the size and regulatory powers of the federal government.

Many federal governments around the world have much more power over the nation than the USA, why do you think this will lead to an authoritarian state?

The liberal/progressive path (as we know it today) led to the authoritarian regimes of germany & italy, where the state was wedded with big business and revolutionaries in the street and everyone was forced to conform to the state-issued view, and individual freedom was considered bad for society.

Neither Germany nor Italy have authoritarian states. I am confused as to what you are talking about. How does liberal/progressive path lead to everyone being forced to conform to the state-issued view, and individual freedom is considered bad for society?

From what I can see the liberal/progressive path has lead in the opposite direction. Rights for people to practice their own way of life rather than needing to conform to the societal norm. It is inherently progressive to allow minorities to have the vote and equal rights; to allow all religions the same rights; to eliminate discrimination against misunderstood people. Could you give me some examples of this?

[Meleagar]

Many federal governments around the world have much more power over the nation than the USA, why do you think this will lead to an authoritarian state?

Because history shows us it does.

Neither Germany nor Italy have authoritarian states.

I meant under Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom began as socialists and then turned to nationalistic socialism, which Mussolini termed "fascism".

How does liberal/progressive path lead to everyone being forced to conform to the state-issued view, and individual freedom is considered bad for society?

How does it not? The progressive view is about enforcing "fairness" and "equality" upon the population, which necessarily means increased regulation about every aspect of our lives. If everyone is forced to have healthcare provided by or regulated by the government, then the government has a feduciary obligation to try and keep people as healthy as possible, which means regulating diets, exercise, risky behavior, etc. We already see this being attempted.

If the government is in charge of "environment protection", then it can say where businesses can be built, how they are built, what kind of machinery can be used, what kind of processes, according to what specificationsd, etc. If it is in charge of public eduction, it can mandate certain books, views, ideas, beliefs be taught.

The more government is in charge of, the more regulation exists, and the less freedom any individual or business has. What does "individualism" mean if virtually all behavior is regulated? What am I free to do? Become rich? No, because of redistribution. Grow my own food? No, because of FDA regulation. Build my own house? No, because of construction and zoning ordinances.

From what I can see the liberal/progressive path has lead in the opposite direction. Rights for people to practice their own way of life rather than needing to conform to the societal norm. It is inherently progressive to allow minorities to have the vote and equal rights; to allow all religions the same rights; to eliminate discrimination against misunderstood people. Could you give me some examples of this?

In order to eliminate inequalities of any system and keep them eliminated, or to ensure the safety, the system must be entirely regulated and controlled. To make any system equal and fair, one must eliminate it's capacity to be unequal and unfair, which requires extensive regulatory, behavioral and economic authoritarian control.

And this doesn't even address the real problem of increased federal government power: corruption. As the government has more regulatory and legal control over our lives, institutions and businesses, it's power to corruptly manipulate resources for the benefit of those in power increases.

This is what FDR did; he taxed the wealthy and come election time redistributed the wealth to a few key locations for a few weeks in government programs to buy votes. How else did he get elected 4 times overseeing the worst economic disaster in American history? This is exactly what both the Republicans and Democrats do with federal funds; they redistribute the funds into the hands of those why will serve their ideological wishes.

It would be a miracle beyond any claimed religious event for a huge government to not become corrosively corrupt and send the money and power taken from the masses into thier own hands and for their own benefit.

That's the real problem with large government; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more corrupt it will become.

Put them in charge of the media with the FCC or with new laws that govern what can be broadcast, or what kind of political content can be distributed on the internet, and then all you have left is a complicit apparatchik media relying on redistributed government funding.

Such governmental power always leads to fascism, because that is human nature. Eventually, the predators find a way to game the system and use it for their own ends, which is why government systems need to be as small and as limited as is possible.

[NoJingoLingo]

Because history shows us it does.



I meant under Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom began as socialists and then turned to nationalistic socialism, which Mussolini termed "fascism".


How does it not? The progressive view is about enforcing "fairness" and "equality" upon the population, which necessarily means increased regulation about every aspect of our lives. If everyone is forced to have healthcare provided by or regulated by the government, then the government has a feduciary obligation to try and keep people as healthy as possible, which means regulating diets, exercise, risky behavior, etc. We already see this being attempted.

If the government is in charge of "environment protection", then it can say where businesses can be built, how they are built, what kind of machinery can be used, what kind of processes, according to what specificationsd, etc. If it is in charge of public eduction, it can mandate certain books, views, ideas, beliefs be taught.

The more government is in charge of, the more regulation exists, and the less freedom any individual or business has. What does "individualism" mean if virtually all behavior is regulated? What am I free to do? Become rich? No, because of redistribution. Grow my own food? No, because of FDA regulation. Build my own house? No, because of construction and zoning ordinances.



In order to eliminate inequalities of any system and keep them eliminated, or to ensure the safety, the system must be entirely regulated and controlled. To make any system equal and fair, one must eliminate it's capacity to be unequal and unfair, which requires extensive regulatory, behavioral and economic authoritarian control.

And this doesn't even address the real problem of increased federal government power: corruption. As the government has more regulatory and legal control over our lives, institutions and businesses, it's power to corruptly manipulate resources for the benefit of those in power increases.

This is what FDR did; he taxed the wealthy and come election time redistributed the wealth to a few key locations for a few weeks in government programs to buy votes. How else did he get elected 4 times overseeing the worst economic disaster in American history? This is exactly what both the Republicans and Democrats do with federal funds; they redistribute the funds into the hands of those why will serve their ideological wishes.

It would be a miracle beyond any claimed religious event for a huge government to not become corrosively corrupt and send the money and power taken from the masses into thier own hands and for their own benefit.

That's the real problem with large government; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more corrupt it will become.

Put them in charge of the media with the FCC or with new laws that govern what can be broadcast, or what kind of political content can be distributed on the internet, and then all you have left is a complicit apparatchik media relying on redistributed government funding.

Such governmental power always leads to fascism, because that is human nature. Eventually, the predators find a way to game the system and use it for their own ends, which is why government systems need to be as small and as limited as is possible.

All entities need boundaries (regulations), period. Without them there is unnecessary suffering, period. Without regulations and consequences for ignoring them, business' will do long term damage for short term gain.

[NoJingoLingo]

duplicate

[BlackSheep]

Because history shows us it does.

Can you show support that with something actual examples?

I meant under Hitler and Mussolini, both of whom began as socialists and then turned to nationalistic socialism, which Mussolini termed "fascism".

Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf Hitler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really doesn't seem to match.

How does it not? The progressive view is about enforcing "fairness" and "equality" upon the population, which necessarily means increased regulation about every aspect of our lives. If everyone is forced to have healthcare provided by or regulated by the government, then the government has a feduciary obligation to try and keep people as healthy as possible, which means regulating diets, exercise, risky behavior, etc. We already see this being attempted.

If the government is in charge of "environment protection", then it can say where businesses can be built, how they are built, what kind of machinery can be used, what kind of processes, according to what specificationsd, etc. If it is in charge of public eduction, it can mandate certain books, views, ideas, beliefs be taught.

The more government is in charge of, the more regulation exists, and the less freedom any individual or business has. What does "individualism" mean if virtually all behavior is regulated? What am I free to do? Become rich? No, because of redistribution. Grow my own food? No, because of FDA regulation. Build my own house? No, because of construction and zoning ordinances.

I am not suggesting no degree of liberty is lost, but it does not lead to authoritarianism. We lose liberty with every law, but we also gain. Laws stop people from infringing on others rights and in process lose some of their own. One loses rights in any society, but the net gain is greater.

In order to eliminate inequalities of any system and keep them eliminated, or to ensure the safety, the system must be entirely regulated and controlled. To make any system equal and fair, one must eliminate it's capacity to be unequal and unfair, which requires extensive regulatory, behavioral and economic authoritarian control.

Saying it must be entirely regulated is extreme and unsupported and it does not require those degree of control. Societies that are not progressive limit votes to certain classes of people; Limit certain powers and roles to certain classes of people; People who are rich and powerful are unchecked; They allow the enslavement of people; they allow the misuse of children etc.

And this doesn't even address the real problem of increased federal government power: corruption. As the government has more regulatory and legal control over our lives, institutions and businesses, it's power to corruptly manipulate resources for the benefit of those in power increases.

And that is why there is a process to deal with that corruption and again your estimation of control is overestimated.

This is what FDR did; he taxed the wealthy and come election time redistributed the wealth to a few key locations for a few weeks in government programs to buy votes. How else did he get elected 4 times overseeing the worst economic disaster in American history? This is exactly what both the Republicans and Democrats do with federal funds; they redistribute the funds into the hands of those why will serve their ideological wishes.

Do you have support for this? Certainly corruption does occur. Often contracts are handed out to favored companies as well.

It would be a miracle beyond any claimed religious event for a huge government to not become corrosively corrupt and send the money and power taken from the masses into thier own hands and for their own benefit.

That's the real problem with large government; power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The bigger and more powerful the government, the more corrupt it will become.

Odd in my experience many of the cost corrupt countries are not large at all.

Put them in charge of the media with the FCC or with new laws that govern what can be broadcast, or what kind of political content can be distributed on the internet, and then all you have left is a complicit apparatchik media relying on redistributed government funding.

And yet Fox News still exists.

Such governmental power always leads to fascism, because that is human nature. Eventually, the predators find a way to game the system and use it for their own ends, which is why government systems need to be as small and as limited as is possible.

Please support this claim.

[Dismay]

What is the most Likely path that would lead America into a Authoritarian state?

What do you mean 'lead'? That presumes America isn't one currently.