Straight —» Arrow's Link
To me the two theories originate from opposing values. socialism strives for an equal society and is based on the idea of democratic ownership and redistribution of wealth. fascism strives for the imposition of national and racial superiority and advocates economic growth fostered by national companies and corporations.
However, they do share some similarities....they are both strong ideologies. they both imply strong governmental involvement in economic and social life, they both have the power to create strong social movements and they both oppose free markets and capitalism. Finally....they both need a strong government and leader.
So far the world has never seen a nation that is both at the same time....but we might get there in this country if it keeps going the wrong way that's for sure.
Actually socialism requires elements of fascism to exist. And vice versa.
*unless you are gay, an immigrant, a non-Christian, pro-marijuana, etc etc
There are plenty of freedoms that those on the "right" are looking to curtail and shut-down. Social conservatism tends to be at odds with "freedom" in many instances.
As was stated at our founding "A government that will only work for a moral and religious population."
If people do not control their own immoral and unhealthy activities (with personal and social responsibility), government controls increase. That is not a conservative solution.
If you can't see that, a guy is pretty naive...
X2
Cheating on your spouse is considered (by most....) to be highly immoral. It is not illegal. Nor should it be. But there should be IMO a societal judgement or stigma. By the same token it also should not be legitimized by statute.
Morality in and of itself should not have legal standing. But a decent and "moral" society needs those guidelines, like road signs or the painted lines on a highway. Guardrails even.
You're proving my point HA/KS - it all depends on your definition of "immoral or bad." Conservatives are all for giving up freedoms if they deem them "immoral or bad." I'll maintain that I want the government deciding as little as possible what is immoral or bad for me. There are obvious acts that warrant it - murder, robbery, rape, etc. There are plenty of acts that have been deemed "immoral or bad" that take on a much more subjective feel.
I'm speaking purely towards instances of individuals wanting government control over things I believe the government should stay out of - for example, who you want to marry, whether you feel like indulging in marijuana, making "Sharia" illegal, etc. There are existing laws and there have been attempts to legislate control over these things. And it has nothing to do with personal and social responsibility in many instances - rather a subjective view of what is "right" and what is "wrong."
I understand plenty where libertarianism overlaps with what is deemed as "conservatism" and "liberalism" when viewed in context of the current political system in the USA. Which also means I understand where "conservatism" has separated from it's libertarian roots.
Should any form of "marriage" be outlawed?
Should any substance be illegal for individual use?
Should any "religious" practice be outlawed?