The new fascism

The Washington Times ^ | May 16, 2002 | Richard Rahn

[Poohbah]

Fer instance, dollars to donuts Moscow has a anti-missle system. Ground to air nukes, I imagine.

Well, that much is open-source: they have nuclear-armed interceptors around Moscow.

However, there is a world of difference between having nuclear-armed interceptors, and having nuclear-armed interceptors that will actually intercept incoming warheads.

[rdb3]

There's huge relevence. But you answered in the negative, so I'll take your word for it.

[TheDon]

The post I was commenting on:

Surprising words for a "mainstream" economist such as Rahn.
Also surprising to see this in The Washington Times.

I was wondering why the poster thought such words were surprising coming from someone associated with the Cato Institute.

[First_Salute]

Has to do with commerce or freedom, which came first?

I am aware they are entwined, but you could fool the many "higher-ups," and as such lofty people, they are indeed all too often, motley fools; for the highway they build to prosperity in tyrannical lands, is a pipeline for bitter returns ... "so much for" "open borders" in the purposeful absence of "legal controlling authority."

There is plenty to be said for national sovereignty and the maintenance of Liberty and private property; especially nowadays when what ought to be being said, is hardly uttered from the "higher-ups" at all.

[logician2u]

You never asked me.

But now that you have, I'd be happy to elaborate.

Since we've been through Round One on the definition of mainstream, I'll confess to a poor choice of words. Perhaps "reputable" or "well-regarded" is a better modifier (although if used in a news article, I would be the first to ask, "According to who?"). As opposed to, say, George Reisman, Richard Rahn has no ideological baggage other than his long-time association with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

My surprise was in part due to the title, "The New Fascism." Them's fightin' words. Rahn is known as a strong voice for lower taxes, deregulation of business and free trade. But he, along with the Cato Institute, generally avoids picking fights. Cato likes to dress up their annual report with photos of visiting politicians, which demands a whole lot of restraint when you know most of those invited to speak are at odds with Cato in many important policy areas. I think it has something to do with drawing more flies with honey than with vinegar.

So when Rahn writes so boldly that "The new fascism is not just a danger for Europeans; it is a present danger for us," I get the sense he is not just warning us about the Gepharts and Daschles and other Democrats who have not quite given up on the wonders of socialism.

He is addressing the bipartisan effort to enlarge government. He indirectly takes W to task for reneging on his free-trade stance, for signing into law the campaign finance reform bill, for increasing agriculture subsidies, for the surge in domestic federal spending. Are these valid points, or can you suggest others? Education funding, maybe?

All this has been hashed out many times on this forum, I know. We are divided, as you would expect with a number of FReepers more devoted to their party than to the ideas that were once held as more important that politics, such as freedom of speech, press, financial privacy, the sancity of private property. Partisan politics causes a temporary blindness in some people, I've noticed.

So it's refreshing to see the The Washington Times run a dissenting view, as alarming as it may be to some. Remember, not everyone in the country is as well-versed as FReepers are on the various "isms." They may have heard of fascism but thought it died with Mussolini or Franco, and would never in a million years believe that it was a close relative of socialism. Isn't it "right" and socialism "left," afer all?

Richard Rahn succeeded, I believe, in showing that it's statism in all its varied disguises we need to worry about.

[copycat]

Then again, last time I was in Russia the old Communist economists were insisting everything would have worked out "if only they had more funding and a little more time".

Are you quite sure they didn't come to America and take over the NEA?

[metesky]

This would include neo-Marxists, assorted 'communitarians', and you Rooseveltian types.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt.
;O)

[TheDon]

...it's statism in all its varied disguises we need to worry about.

I'll second that!

[rdb3]

You need to research this more carefully. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but if you think Russia's media has truly been "liberated..."

[rdb3]

In the name of civility, don't worry about it.

[Constitution1st]

That's rich; it seems to be that you have the agenda to push. All that codswallop about primordial soup, and "trillion" of tons of raw materials- that are much like what we have today- and blah, blah. No facts, no anything logical to defend what you say! And lots of illogical and downright laughable comments.

It so happens the scientist I heard was a bio engineer.

But, that's enough for this topic. I really don't care to discuss it further with folks who mislabel my info incorrect strawman, and have nothing to defend their own views, and fill the space with bluster.

[Constitution1st]

It's not my argument that is the strawman, strawman; there are no "experiments" that prove dna can form, and you know it. It's you that should not be pulling people's legs, although I must admit to having the best laugh of my week at your expense! ROTFLOL.

Yes, "bajillion" and all them thar sci-en-ti-fic words! Ain't they a wonder to behold!! The facts are mind-boggling, and just all over the place. Such a plethora of "Scientific Info" produced by and just waiting to be harvested from ole lexcorp, yes indeed! Right here on the Free Republic. Pardon me while I take time to breathe!

Just where would we be without such "scientists" as you, eh lexi; just where would we be! LOLOLOLOL!