| Revision as of 04:58, 8 December 2005 editRJII (talk | contribs)25,810 editsm →afd result← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:06, 8 December 2005 edit undoRJII (talk | contribs)25,810 edits Problem Wikipedian #172Next edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. | An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ==unethical actions by ]== | |||
| The result of the vote was the article was to keep. 172 has taken it upon himself to go against that conclusion and redirect the article. This is highly unethical. He's also modifying/vandalizing the vote for deletion page page ] after the close. A clear violation of policy. Just noting this for the record. Don't ever let this guy become an adminstrator. Or if he is one, revoke is badge. ] 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:06, 8 December 2005
The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy. In addition, there are no self-described "economic fascists" and fascism itself never placed too much emphasis on economic policy. I see no reason why this article needs to exist. Information on the economic aspects of fascism can and should be included in the main article. At the very most, this article should be a redirect to corporatism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where does the article say that a mixed economy would be economic fascism? The definition clearly says economic fascism is an "economic system," and notice it says "heavily regulated." And it doesn't matter if the definition is only supported by libertarian sources. Unless you can find definitions from non-libertarian sources then you are unjustified in your complaint. It could be that only economic libertarians use the term. And about redirecting to corporatism ...corporatism is just one aspect of economic fascism. There definitely needs to be an article dedicated to the economics of fascism. RJII 05:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- The definition may say that economic fascism is an "economic system", but it does not explain what separates "economic fascism" from all other economic systems that involve a combination of private ownership and government regulation. In fact, the definition implies that any and all systems involving such a combination are somewhat fascist - an extraordinary claim which is absurd at worst and held by a fringe minority at best. Under such a definition, Louis XIV and Julius Caesar were fascists, along with pretty much all other national leaders in the 4800 years of history before the idea of exclusively private (laissez-faire) or exclusively public economies was invented. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It implies no such thing. The essence of economic fascism is heavy government control over privately-owned means of production. This differs from other economic systems, such as capitalism, where the means of production are both privately owned and privately operated. And, it differs from socialism where the means of production are state-owned. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- How heavy is "heavy government control", and what kind of control are we talking about? There are still thousands of pre-modern rulers who imposed heavy control over their economies. Should we count them all as fascists? Was Ancient Egypt fascist? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- When does a mound become a hill? I don't know. At some point control becomes "heavy." At what point is it ok to call a market a free market; at what level of regulation does it no longer make sense to call it a free market? These kinds of questions can only be left to personal judgement. At some point government control is so heavy-handed that it's economic fascism. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- How heavy is "heavy government control", and what kind of control are we talking about? There are still thousands of pre-modern rulers who imposed heavy control over their economies. Should we count them all as fascists? Was Ancient Egypt fascist? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It implies no such thing. The essence of economic fascism is heavy government control over privately-owned means of production. This differs from other economic systems, such as capitalism, where the means of production are both privately owned and privately operated. And, it differs from socialism where the means of production are state-owned. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- The definition may say that economic fascism is an "economic system", but it does not explain what separates "economic fascism" from all other economic systems that involve a combination of private ownership and government regulation. In fact, the definition implies that any and all systems involving such a combination are somewhat fascist - an extraordinary claim which is absurd at worst and held by a fringe minority at best. Under such a definition, Louis XIV and Julius Caesar were fascists, along with pretty much all other national leaders in the 4800 years of history before the idea of exclusively private (laissez-faire) or exclusively public economies was invented. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism, because fascist economic policies were by no means unique enough to constitute a separate economic system in their own right. If only economic libertarians use the term, then the article should mention the fact that the existence of "economic fascism" is a libertarian belief. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I mentioned that already. I said that it's mostly economic libertarians that use the term. You're treating laissez-faire advocacy as if it's a fringe view, but economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is a fringe view. Libertarians get about 1% of the vote in the US. Firebug 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I said in "intelligentsia." And, were talking about economic libertarianism here. Those who favor de-regulation and privatization are economic libertarians. That view is definitely not confined to the US Libertarian Party. RJII 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm treating the existence of a separate fascist economic system as a fringe view, which it is. And support for privatization and deregulation may be mainstream, but actual libertarianism (opposition to any and all government intervention in the economy) is certainly not. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Most economic libertarians aren't absolutists in that way. Very few are against all intervention. RJII 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- In resarching on Google, I'm finding people on the left using the term as well. RJII 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is a fringe view. Libertarians get about 1% of the vote in the US. Firebug 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I mentioned that already. I said that it's mostly economic libertarians that use the term. You're treating laissez-faire advocacy as if it's a fringe view, but economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today. RJII 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- The consensus opinion among non-libertarians is that there is no such thing as economic fascism, because fascist economic policies were by no means unique enough to constitute a separate economic system in their own right. If only economic libertarians use the term, then the article should mention the fact that the existence of "economic fascism" is a libertarian belief. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
"Fringe view"
I find "economic libertarianism is mainstream in intellgentsia today" an extraodinary claim, and suggest that it might be key to the dispute. Jkelly 02:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians. That may have not been the case in the 1960's and 70's but this is 2005. You've even got laissez-faire advocate Alan Greenspan running the Federal Reserve in the US (here he is praising free markets in a recent speech ). Look at some of the Nobel prizes for economics in the just the last 10 years. Interventionism is out of favor. RJII 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians": Prove it. I'd like to see a cite for this. And Alan Greenspan is not a laissez-faire advocate - if he was, he never would have accepted the job running the Fed in the first place, since the very existence of the Fed is against laissez-faire theology. Firebug 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. You don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to properly be called an advocate of laissez-faire. If you at least favor a minimization of economic interventionism you're an economic libertarian, in common understanding. RJII 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. Of course it is an absolutist term. Laissez faire is used to distinguish between those who want a mixed economy (of whatever degree) and those who want absolute untrammelled capitalism. That is how the term has always been used. Neither Greenspan nor Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush were economic libertarians or advocates of laissez-faire. That is traditionally reserved for fringe figures like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. Firebug 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Adam Smith is commonly recognized as the father of laissez-faire economics (capitalism) and he certainly did not advocate a total lack of government intervention. To be absolutely laissez-faire you have to be an anarchist. By the way, Milton Friedman is certainly not "fringe." I don't know how old you are, but advocacy of free markets is mainstream today (I'm not sure about among common folk, but certainly in academic circles). RJII 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. Of course it is an absolutist term. Laissez faire is used to distinguish between those who want a mixed economy (of whatever degree) and those who want absolute untrammelled capitalism. That is how the term has always been used. Neither Greenspan nor Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush were economic libertarians or advocates of laissez-faire. That is traditionally reserved for fringe figures like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul. Firebug 03:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "Laissez-faire" is a relative term --almost no one means it in an absolute sense. You don't have to be an anarcho-capitalist to properly be called an advocate of laissez-faire. If you at least favor a minimization of economic interventionism you're an economic libertarian, in common understanding. RJII 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- "There are more laissez-faire economists today than Keyenesians": Prove it. I'd like to see a cite for this. And Alan Greenspan is not a laissez-faire advocate - if he was, he never would have accepted the job running the Fed in the first place, since the very existence of the Fed is against laissez-faire theology. Firebug 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
afd result
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus-default to keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
unethical actions by 172
The result of the vote was the article was to keep. 172 has taken it upon himself to go against that conclusion and redirect the article. This is highly unethical. He's also modifying/vandalizing the vote for deletion page page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2 after the close. A clear violation of policy. Just noting this for the record. Don't ever let this guy become an adminstrator. Or if he is one, revoke is badge. RJII 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)