samsmart
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 10,315
- Reaction score
- 6,470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Just about every Democratic nation in history has failed because the people are too ignorant to spend the Nation's money for the greater good.
Democratic governments have only had a resurgence in Western civilization from the ancient Greeks only in the last 300 years, and before that the trend has been for governments to become more democratic rather than less so.
Only because of the war.
Nations go to war all the time, and if a fascist government cannot survive a war, then it is a failure.
Yeah, that was Hitler, but a large part of that was because of the fact Hitler was a mad man, not because he was a fascist.
And yet the people of that nation could not get rid of a fascist dictator despite said dictator being a madman, which shows another weakness of a fascist government.
Then I guess 95% of the Governments in history were Tyrannical.
Yes, they were.
Also, I could name you plenty of democracies where the people did have a say in the Government that were Tyrannical.
That is true. However, such democracies tend to be less tyrannical than fascist governments, especially democracies in which the power of the people is checked, but not prohibited by, an established constitution that allows for regular changes in government.
Is that why he called in the army to put down the whisky revolt?
Indeed. The quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion was not an act by a tyrannical, dictatorial government. It was done to halt an unjustified rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was enacted by farmers who were angry at a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was a major source of income for farmers who would use their extra crops to make whiskey so it would last longer and even use it as a form of currency since whiskey would last longer than their crops. They were outraged over the tax and tried to revolt. However, Hamilton and Washington were able to stop it.
This was because Washington, who was elected President via a democratic process, did not mandate the tax by fiat without regards to opposition, which is what a fascist government would be able to do. Rather, Alexander Hamilton recommended the whiskey tax to Congress to help pay down the federal debt the U.S. incurred for the Revolutionary War. The House of Representatives and the Senate, both democratically elected chambers of the legislature, debated the measure, wrote bills, passed a bill in both houses, compromised the bills between the two chambers, wrote a final single bill, passed a vote in both houses on that, and presented it to George Washington, who signed it into law.
The rebels shouted that they were suffering taxation without representation; that is untrue - they were being taxed with the people being represented via the House of Representatives and the states being represented via the Senate. Therefore, they were not suffering tyranny like they did under the British Empire, in which Parliament did not allow the colonies any representation in the House of Commons nor the House of Lords.
Again, the two are very similar, and I would also like to point out that many fascist governments did not have dictators, e.g. Japan.
Yes, Imperial Japan did have dictators. While they technically had a monarchy, in truth Japan was ruled by the military. So while the Empire of Japan did not have a singular dictator, it had a group of dictators in the leaders of the military establishment who were the ones who effectively made policies for Imperial Japan.
Last edited: