Society Would Flourish Best Under Fascist Government

Before refuting my opponent's arguments, I would first like to comment that nowhere has he/she discussed WHY society should FLOURISH under liberal democracy, and not Fascism . The negation claims that a flourishing society somehow requires Western like free thought and political participation, but fails to elaborate or provide any evidence for this theory. As I argued in the previous round: a society would more likely flourish under disciplinary policy that creates order and homogeneity among disparate cultures and enforces uniform loyalty to the state agenda. This is true because of the fact that under a liberal democracy, the only paradigm to which society gives its uniform loyalty and its entire future is to the motive for profit [1], which I assert imperils society to a culture of amorality and nihilism. Since the definition of FLOURISHING provided in the first round relates to the Aristotelian understanding, which fundamentally rejects nihilism, I conclude that human flourishing is actually threatened by liberal democratic philosophy. Now, as for my opponent's argument: "Society is better in a liberal democracy because minorities can defend themselves by pointing out how proposed laws would damage their position, and also protect minority beliefs and values against a powerful majority." I do not advocate racism. A fascist ideology need not imitate Nazi policies which advocate racial "purity" or genocide(Research Falangism and Spanish Fascism). Early fascism, as conceived in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century, was a reaction against Marxism and was a purely economic ideology that was not racist. [2] The misconception that fascism = racism is a creation disseminated by the Western propaganda machine, a.k.a. my opponent's """free press"""", about which I will comment more below. "Liberal democracies have rights for the ethnic groups, as well as other sectors such as the LGBT community, the elderly, the youth, the poor, and the working class." Here, my opponent praises liberal democracy because he/she feels that ethnic groups deserve "rights". I argue that the existence of rights is a weak fail-safe to the democratic process designed to protect minorities from the interests of an oppressive Mob, of the type which only takes power in a democracy. Rights become unnecessary when the State substitutes for the Mob as the new political oppressor. Under a Fascist state, nobody, indiscriminate of ethnic background, would have use for rights, as the population would be exploited equally to assure maximum profit by the state. My opponent also raises the issue of LBGT rights. These were rights created under a soft Liberal Democratic government to protect the LGBT group from perpetrators of the kind of extremist religious ideology that would be outlawed under a Fascist government. I would actually argue that LGBTs would feel safer under a Fascist government, than under a liberal democracy. "Under a fascist government, freedom of speech is oppressed and any opposition to such laws was prohibited, unlike under a liberal democratic government where freedom of speech is a fundamental right and opposition can reflect their interpretative views on the big issues such as gender equality, socialism, free trade, and others." Neg opines that press should not be influenced by state policy. However, our celebrated "free" newsmeadia is no more impartial or accurate than state-controlled news. News networks report distorted facts and stories that pander to popular sentiment. For example, throughout the 2016 US presidential campaign, major news outlets loyal to their center and left-center audience were almost unanimous in undermining Trump's far-right popularity, and before the election these same networks very famously forecasted a victory for Hillary Clinton. Worse than just being inaccurate, modern journalistic standards in the West are also hypocritical. "Free press" is not free. voices that contradict the agendas pushed my major news outlets are essentially squeezed out of the market.[3] The free press, which functions on market principles, is subject to a market failure like monopoly. I assert that a monopoly on news/information by the state is preferable to monopoly by a corporation because misinformation propagated by the state is guided by an interest in the nation's preservation and well-being, whereas corporate networks are motivated solely by profit. As for my final point: I would like the judges to imagine a circumstance wherein the US goes to war with a Fascist state that is as populated and advanced as itself, whether it is a nation of newly discovered aliens or maybe AI, or a new rogue regime come to power in Russia. The US would very likely be defeated, even in the nuclear age, by this new imaginary fascist Superpower. I say this because the American people lack the conviction and the pride in their own principles of government necessary to defeat an army of Kamikaze-level dedicated civilian-soldiers. [1] Alexis de Tocqueville. http://izquotes.com... [2] http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com... [3] http://kotaku.com...