Read my quote again...

"...it will almost certainly be private company rules (you cannot get on this plane, you cannot be seated in this restaurant, etc) that will drive vaccine adoption and not gov't pressure and that makes sense and is absolutely fair in any version of a 'free market'....


I am speaking to those who represent they want a free market and to pursue that ideal.


Gov't/Corporation blending would be furthered by having gov't dictate to corporations or gov't appointed moderators embedded in corporations controlling content.

So again, as I said prior "...Umm the private sector making rules for their own companies, employees and customer engagement is the exact opposite of fascism..." when my point it about pushing gov't out instead of bringing them in.

Fascism is about power and control. Who is making rules-- whether it's corporations or government-- doesn't really matter. Read what I wrote again.

Vaccination = fascism definitely isn’t another bog-standard far-right trope.

Try to be more dishonest about characterizing this discussion please. You haven't gone far enough.

"[We have to?]... make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life..and the window to do that is really narrowing......so that's why I think the CDC and the Biden administration needs to be a lot bolder and say "if you're vaccinated you can do all these things..here are all these freedoms that you can have, because otherwise people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway"

I mean yeah-- this is how I've characterized fascism for 15+ years. Back before covid was even a dream. It has little to do with vaccinations per se, Trolly, it is about using them as a control mechanism-- that's where the fascism comes in.

Seems like a very bad characterization.

Fascism is the ideological opposition towards democracy, using an autocratic military state led by a dictator or martial law that embraces political violence (physical violence, jail, torture and extrajudicial executions) to oppress political opposition.

Here is a picture of what that looks like:

Through semantic drift, it has now come to mean any sort of control freak in a position of power, or policies generated from the state (or even corporations) that inhibit individual liberty.

Not too many hours ago you were opposed to semantic drift.

But sure, if you just mean fascism like it is thrown around in the Twitter-verse every time someone sees a government intervention they don't like, by all means.

That's not a very a powerful statement, however.

Luckbox are you familiar with the economist michael hudson?

I've never been opposed to semantic drift. I posted a John McWhorter article discussing it that I said was "not that special". I assume that's what you're talking about otherwise idk.

I am not but I'll look him up right now. What's to learn from him?

Okay, I guess I'm a fascist then. I favor both the state and corporations having the ability to put in place policies that inhibit individual liberty. For instance, the speed limit on roads inhibits the individual liberty to drive at higher speeds. Or no shoes, no shirt, no service store policies inhibit people's individual liberty to shop naked.

Have you considered anchoring the meanings of words to something more substantial than whether people on the internet accuse their partisan enemies of being {x}? Because your current method of declaring that political ideas mean whatever hazy thing you think they've drifted to is stupid. Communication relies on words having meanings we both share in common, and our internet experiences are too different from each other to function as a shared basis for the meanings of words.

I expect people to understand that there is a difference between saying "no shoes no shirt no service" is fascism, or "we need to carrot and stick them with vaccine passports" as fascism, vs gas chambers as fascism.
And if people are unable to make such distinctions, then that's a good way to filter out people who lack the ability to engage in constructive conversation. I can make a lot of posts and I can be precise and conceptual or I can be bombastic and hyperbolic. I still expect people to be able to figure things out.

Really think you would like him. I brought him up bc of an interview I listened to a few days ago, but can't find it. He discusses how fascism is the marriage of corporation and state and in the u.s. this wedding is ofc with the banks

He has a lot of great stuff beyond that which ofc I can't get into all of it here

I remember one interview where decades ago he had written a book on the u.s. practice of financial imperialism, and was invited to the white house to explain it to them

Lol. I read his wiki and I do remember one of his Harper's pieces predicting the housing market collapse. But his focus on debt and predatory finance from a Marxist or psuedo-Marxist perspective looks interesting.

Nah, you're filtering out people who use more precise definitions or understand what fascism actually is, not people who can't engage in constructive conversation. Blocking people from entering your store because they might have a deadly disease seems to me more easily justified than because they aren't wearing shoes. And neither case seems to me even close to fascism.

So you're saying that on average each American has had COVID 1.7 times? I don't know how you're unskewing these polls.

Sure, people have the right to say stupid things. You should be more interested in demonstrating that they aren't stupid rather than asserting your (not questioned) right to say them.

Yes companies banking decisions for their business that no one is obligated to use or support has nothing to do with fascism

Do you think that in this thread we'll be able to figure out who the people who support authoritarianism are, vs the people who support freedom, just by merely talking about vaccine passports?
I do.

I mean for me personally, I'm not too interested in any sort of debate on vaccine passports.
My mind is made up and was made up before covid was even a thing. I was never going to support them and I never will. It's the sort of thing that I would never in my life would have-- even if it meant people bleeding out their eyeballs.
It is good this thread exists though so that we can document this all. But there isn't going to be a sense in anyone trying to tell me "you know what maybe we should create a two-tiered society on the basis of vaccines". Sorry...but I'm calling that fascism.

I'm not interested in arguing with you about how dangerous COVID is. I accept the standard numbers from places like Johns Hopkins that more than half a million Americans have so far died from it. My argument is mostly that your definition of fascism is dumb because it is too broad. Private property rights inevitably restrict other people's liberty. Using a definition of fascism where private property is fascist makes the term useless except for trolling purposes.

Okay.

That is just your characterization of what I'm saying. That is not my definition of it or why I consider vaccine passports fascistic, whether they come from gov't or private sector.
You are taking the private sector part and equating that to mean "private property", but I don't draw any sort of hard and fast line between government and the private sector. It's a false dichotomy in my view. Government provides cover for corporations and corporations provide cover for government. Sometimes they may seem to come into conflict, but generally work together to advance the interests of Power.

Thus, according to your definition, a corporation's usage of their private property rights are necessarily fascist.

It is your definition, if you don't like the implications of it, then use a different definition. If you disagree with my claim that private property rights restrict other people's liberty, give me an argument why that is false.

As for the relevance, a basic part of private property rights is the right to bar entry to your property. Corporations have private property rights in their stores, and thus have the right to bar entry to some people, eg people not wearing shoes or a shirt. They also have the right to bar entry to people on health grounds. Many businesses currently bar entry on the basis of whether you are wearing a mask. Barring on the basis of vaccination is conceptually the same.