Was having a discussion with someone on Twitter about whether dictatorships were left or right and things got past the 140 character limit. So I'll put my arguments together here.
Dictatorships can be recognized by an assumption of absolute power. No opposition is allowed. The population only has what rights the ruling person/party allows (and usually can withdraw those "rights" as desired). But there are several paths to dictatorship in our modern world, and no, they aren't all leftist. (I'm leaving out more historical methods like conquering territory or hereditary kingships/emperors)
These gain power with a message that the common man gets a raw deal because the rich have all the money and own all the businesses and treat everyone else as serfs to be abused. Lenin and Mao are the best examples. Once given power, they have the ability to seize anything and parcel it out "for the common good" that tends to be for the rulers' good. No opposition is allowed because the Party is the worker's party so any other party would be against the workers. (Yeah right). These dictatorships are strong left wing. Under them, while the common man's condition may improve from prior conditions (if you were poor and don't offend The Party), only members of The Party will thrive. Absolute top-down economic plans just don't work.
Side note: not all leftists are working towards communism or a dictatorship. No, socialism is not a synonym for communism.
Strong Man Dictatorships
In these cases, the general populace feels put upon but rather than a primary economics argument, the dictator promises to protect the people. They'll bring "Law and Order". They'll make the country great again. Often, they'll also talk about rebuilding the military and make the country strong. There will often be a scapegoat to blame for the country's problems (Jews, Communists, whatever) and they promise to crack down on that group. Opposition parties are "discouraged" and eventually banned because Our Fearless Leader is the one who knows where our country must go so anyone challenging him wants to take the country in the wrong direction.
Once in power, these dictators often don't fiddle much with economics and those with property can keep it (unless you're a member of the scapegoated groups). Businesses may thrive under the new regime, so they support it's continued existence. And even the general populace may prosper (again, the general populace not in the scapegoated groups) and the dictator may be popular for quite a while. But eventually the despotic nature asserts itself, Lord Acton is proven right again, and they're set for revolution.
Under the normal classification of political philosophies, these dictators are right because they aren't trying to run the economy and support capitalism (within limits). Examples of strong man dictators include Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Pinochet. (And yes, Hitler was a classic right-wing strong man dictator. The fact that he called his movement National Socialism has as much meaning as The Democratic Republic of Vietnam which was neither Democratic nor a Republic.
Or for a shorter word, theocracy. We must live under the rules of God as the ruling party believes them to be. No opposition is allowed because they want to take the country away from God. The economical system is dependent upon the religious belief system, though usually restricted capitalism will take place.
In modern times, these dictatorships are almost completely Muslim. But there have been Christian dictatorships (and there are those who speak as if they want to institute it here.
Is Israel a religious dictatorship? I don't believe so, because while it does identify as a Jewish State and many laws clearly favor jews (particularly orthodox jews), one can be a citizen in good standing and yet be in a member of another religion.
In theory, theocracies are neither inherently left or right. They are almost always the more conservative wing of the religion, but that's not the same as economic conservatism.
After the revolution
Once a dictatorship is in firm control, they do start to resemble each other. Whatever the initial justification for seizing power, holding onto that power becomes the top priority. Informers, harsh punishment for those who threaten the state, etc. The early ideals (if they were ideals as opposed to just political points) become less important than staying in power. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and abbsolute power corrupts absolutely."
Posted on August 4, 2016, 2:17 am
As the three regular readers of my blog know, I was at San Diego Comic Con last year. Probably won't go back, I knew going in that I dislike crowds and long lines and learned I really hate crowds and long lines. But it does have some of the geekiest stuff released there. A bunch of trailers came out this weekend:
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
This is my "Must See" movie of the year. It's in the Harry Potter Universe, but placed several years ahead of the stories in the books and has a plotline completely separate from the books. First, I'm a big Harry Potter fan, love the world she created. Love the books but thought the films suffered a bit, because they just couldn't put all that stuff in the movies. J.K. Rowling wrote this screenplay, so it's designed for the screen. It's part one of a trilogy and looks like a lot of fun.
I've been REALLY skeptical of this movie. I hated Man of Steel and didn't like Batman v. Superman much more. So the news of building into a Justice League movie sounded bad. But... this trailer gives me hope. It's not nearly as dark as the first two, either in the color scheme or in tone. And yet they're clearly preparing for an epic fight. And yes, Aquaman is a badass as the King of the 7 Seas should be. It's just a trailer so plenty of time to mess it up, but there's some hope.
Similarly, as part of the fruit of the poisoned tree of Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman, I've been skeptical but the buzz has said that this would set its own tone. This trailer sets that. I'm loving that the Amazons are WARRIORS. Yes, they go into war in completely inappropriate garb, but it's a comic book. As for Wonder Woman herself, I like the way the costume works in action. And the shield standing up to the rifle shots, great. (Probably made of vibranium) I hope the glow on the magic lasso gets toned down a bit as they finish production, but other than that, look and feel is spot on.
And it also does have it's lighter side. Etta Candy was always good for a laugh and it's now a laugh with some snap. Steve Trevor is properly confused and off his game dealing with the Amazon Princess.
Posted on July 23, 2016, 4:40 pm
Last updated on August 2, 2016, 2:23 pm
OK, it's time for some serious gun control. Here's my plan. No, the NRA won't like it. This is a feature, not a bug.
For the purpose of this act, a gun is defined as any weapon that fires projectiles at high speed with the potential to kill. This includes handguns, rifles, semi-automatics, etc.
Regulation of sales
#1 Anyone who sells more than one gun in a year (other than to a registered and licensed gun seller) must be registered and licensed as a gun seller. An unlicensed seller can only sell a gun owned for over a year. Licensed gun sellers must be licensed by the federal government and the state government. ANY infraction of laws concerning gun sales will result in a permanent loss of the license to sell guns. As part of the licensing, a gun seller must post a bond which will be forfeit if the license is revoked for cause.
#1a A gun sold by a non-registered gun seller must have been owned for one year. The seller is responsible for ensurring that the new owner register the gun to avoid the implications of Section 5.
#2 A registered and licensed gun seller must submit a potential buyer to a full and complete investigation. This will explore (a) criminal convictions, (b) mental health issues, (c) restraining orders, (d) recent passage of gun safety program, (e) inclusion in the terrorist watch list, (f) whether a gun has been purchased in the past 60 days. This investigation may take up to two months.
#3 Any individual can only purchase one guy every 60 days. Exceptions will be made for registered gun clubs, security companies, or other organizations as set forth by Congress.
#4 Anyone purchasing a gun or getting a carry license must have taken an approved gun safety course. This course will include graphic depictions of the victims of gun violence, safety issues, the law, and passing a “shoot/don’t shoot” simulation (the simulation can be done on a computer). A 51% score will be considered passing to purchase a gun, a 95% score will be considered passing to get a carry license.
#4a Every gun will be sold with a locked case. The code for the case will be sent to the owner 12 hours after the purchase, by SMS message, email, or paper mail.
Responsibility of gun ownership
#5 If a gun owned by a person is used to kill or seriously wound someone else in any situation other than self-defense, the gun owner is subject to negligent homicide charges. This includes the gun being stolen, a child finding the gun and accidentally killing someone, suicide by other than the owner, other accidental shots, etc. If the owner is a corporation, the president of the company will be subject to those charges. Exceptions can be made for on-site use at gun clubs or training organizations provided the person shot had signed a waiver.
#5a All guns must be registered with the weapon type, serial number, picture, owner name, address, social security number.
#6 Within the boundaries of a city with a population over (size to be determined), all guns taken out of the owner’s property must be carried within a locked gun safe. Anyone caught with an unlocked gun will have that gun seized and be arrested for 30 days. Individuals can apply for a license to carry up to two handguns. Applications must include reason for carrying the gun, passage of a gun safety course with a 95% score within the past six months. Any carry license shall be suspended while under a restraining order, and for one year after hospitalization for mental issues. States and/or cities can add additional requirements for receiving the license. In 2020, these carried guns must be equipped with smart technology ensuring that only the owner can operate the gun.
#6a Members of security organizations can issue more powerful weapons to members on duty. These guns must be collected from security officers at the end of shift. The responsibilities and penalties of Section 5 still apply.
#7 Outside of the the cities listed in #6 - Any state, county, municipality, or property owner can demand that the same limitations on carrying be upheld. Clear signs must be posted telling gun owners of this fact, unclear signage can be used as a defense. Additionally, property owners can ban the carrying of guns even with license. Again, clear signage is required.
#8 No limitation is placed on guns kept on the owner’s property. Those who feel the need to build a large collection of weapons for hunting or protection or other reasons may do so, albeit very slowly. However, the penalties of Section 5 would apply even on the gun owner's private property.
#9 In the first six months of this act, gun owners may turn in their guns for a tax deduction equal to the market value of the gun prior to the passing of this act. These guns must be turned into a recognized law enforcement agency that must ensure the destruction of the weapons. Any guns turned in that were not destroyed and used under circumstances listed in #5 will subject the leader of the law enforcement agency to the penalties listed therein. Guns not turned in or sold to a licensed gun seller must either be registered within these six months or be made permanently inoperative.
#10 In the first twelve months of this act, the license requirement is waived under Section 6 (though restriction on weapon types still applies).
Posted on June 17, 2016, 5:11 am
Last updated on July 22, 2016, 5:26 pm
(1) The candidates are put in soundproof booths. They can hear all that goes on, but the mic is controlled
(2) Only one candidate's mic is live at a time. A candidate can signal the moderators that he or she would like to respond to something.
(3) When a candidate starts throwing around insults, or saying something known to be false, the microphone is shut off.
(4) If the microphone has to be shut off three times, the booth is lowered from the stage and the debate continues without that candidate.
(5) Any candidate refusing to participate will be the subject of at least 5 prime-time television ads describing them as a coward who apparently doesn't have the self-control to think they'll be able to handle the debate format.
Posted on February 28, 2016, 6:52 am
I've been arguing in various forums the pro-rights side with regards to the Apple vs. FBI disagreement. Someone responded with "It's Principle. Are you for America or not?"
Here's my reply:
Oh yeah. "Are you now, or have you ever been a communist" "America, Love it Or Leave It" - Sonny, I'm 56 years old and I've seen that felgercarb thrown around time and time again by people who don't have an actual argument but hope they can scare people into supporting them.
Oh, and yes, I am for America. A country founded on the idea that citizens are not serfs or the property of the state, but free individuals with inalienable rights. Some of those rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, but as the Bill of Rights itself points out, it is not an enumeration of the rights of the citizens but a few called out for special concern.
Privacy is key to those rights. Self-determination is also at the core. The FBI is asking the court to take away the self-determination of those at Apple to create the code they choose to build reflecting the values of Apple and its employees and instead create a tool that Apple considers immoral and dangerous, one that endangers the privacy of every Apple customer - and insists that Apple give it their approval by digitally signing it.
I say NO! NO! This is America. This is a land of rights. This is wrong.
Does that mean some bad guys may escape justice, even very very bad guys? Perhaps (though it should be a message to the FBI to pursue other leads, which they are doing). But we have many protections for individuals that sometimes let bad guys escape justice. We don't let the police beat confessions out of people. We let people talk to lawyers, doctors, and priests and have those conversations beyond the reach of the law. We allow companies to sell and individuals to buy paper shredders. We do this because the horrific acts of bad people, even terrorist attacks like San Bernadino or even 9/11, do not change who are unless we let it. We remain America after attacked. But if we turn our back on our heritage and our fierce determination to protect our liberty, we would no longer be America.
It's principle. Are you for America or not?
Posted on February 25, 2016, 9:01 am
Looking for the old Domesticated Arcades site? See it here
This blog is powered by an experimental program called RSB for Really Simple Blog. RSB ©2015 by Donald Brown. Thanks to the people at Twitter for a really cool API and Dave Winer for inspiring me on this.