Would you accept the creation of a de-militarized fascist state?

[aelf]

Those on the Right and those who describe themselves as moderate often insist that fascists are well within their rights to express their views under freedom of speech. But you know an oft-forgotten right that was established in the last century? The right to self-determination.

Currently, fascists, neo-Nazis and alt-righters feel persecuted by the larger community, so they might want to have their own safe space where they can be free to practice what they believe and be who they are without reservation - something like a Fascist Reservation, perhaps.

Now, of course, more liberal neighbours would understandably be leery of having a well-armed fascist state near them, so the denizens are allowed only to have whatever weapons they can legally own as personal property. Furthermore, lets assume the territory they have would be landlocked so there's no real need to have any meaningful foreign relations outside of the country that ceded territory to them (it might be easier to think of this country as the USA). People would need proper documentation to travel in and out of the territory, though. Of course, inside, they would essentially be self-governing and it would be difficult to police what goes on on a day-to-day basis (lynchings, outright discrimination, and what have you), but naturally those who do not want to be inside would be relocated before the establishment of the state.

So, as a freedom-loving person, would you accept the creation of such a state?

 

[Arent11]

The problem is that we have already arrived at a point where large parts of society oppose basic principles
of modern, enlightened states. For example the mere existence of citizenship, borders & armies. This is
what Plato warned about: That republics are unstable & desintegrate into mob rule. & then, after a while,
into a tyranny.
So, first you would have to define whether you mean by "facists" actual, true facists or just people who adhere
to the laws we have right now

Assuming that you mean *actual* facists (dictatorship, military junta, draconic laws), there are a lot of
states like that that already exist. It's just that they are not run by western people.

 

[luiz]

Several states equal or worse than the one you describe already exist. We have North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia... And many other places where people can and do get killed for their political views, sexual orientation, etc. Do you support military intervention to force them to embrace liberalism? Or are you fine with allowing these "fascists" to exist?

 

[Zelig]

Look how well Israel has turned out from the last time we created an ideology-based state. I can't imagine a creating a fascist state turns out any better unless you give them some landlocked territory in Antarctica and they all freeze to death.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Would you accept the creation of a de-militarized fascist state?

Greater Germany EU ?

I dont really see how you can remove the central plank of National Socialism
The cloest would be Francos Spain with its weak military and semi isolationist policies, it still had a robust military and paramilitary forces to keep the dictator in power

 

[Hehehe]

If fascists wanted to leave voluntarily, then that would be great as far as I'm concerned. There are two problems with this however: 1. why would any country want to cede territory to them and 2. what happens to the people who are already there, living in that territory?

I don't understand why anyone would want to live under fascism but in theory I have no problems with this, aside from the two practical problems listed above. In the age of nuclear weapons, I wouldn't even be that worried about the fascist state arming itself as long as they don't have nukes

 

[Bugfatty300]

There used to be a infamous large neo-nazi owned community. The owners were involved in a racist murder and the whole place was awarded to the victim's family who promptly evicted everyone and bulldozed their houses to the ground. If they were an autonomous state then outcomes like that wouldn't be achievable without all the boring UN authorization paperwork.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems like the core element of maintaining a fascist mindset is "we are put upon and must fight back." I would assume your fascist state would refuse to stay demilitarized, and even with just their personal property of weapons would be conducting raids into neighboring territory "to even the score with their oppressors." Unless you have a plan for not only giving them their own territory but depopulating and making inhospitable a buffer of territory around them I don't think it can work.

 

[jackelgull]

Basically what tim said. Remember what happened the last time a fascist state was supposed to be demilitarized?

 

[aelf]

Several states equal or worse than the one you describe already exist. We have North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia... And many other places where people can and do get killed for their political views, sexual orientation, etc. Do you support military intervention to force them to embrace liberalism? Or are you fine with allowing these "fascists" to exist?

North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia are de-militarized...?

Are you bad at following hypotheticals?

If fascists wanted to leave voluntarily, then that would be great as far as I'm concerned. There are two problems with this however: 1. why would any country want to cede territory to them and 2. what happens to the people who are already there, living in that territory?

The answer to both questions are in the OP at least to some extent: 1. The right to self-determination - a country that strongly champions freedom of speech would conceivably also support self-determination; 2. Those living in the designated area who do not want to be there would be allowed to relocate, and, furthermore, this issue could be minimised by picking an area that is already populated largely by people who would not mind living in a fascist society.

There used to be a infamous large neo-nazi owned community. The owners were involved in a racist murder and the whole place was awarded to the victim's family who promptly evicted everyone and bulldozed their houses to the ground. If they were an autonomous state then outcomes like that wouldn't be achievable without all the boring UN authorization paperwork.

The point is that you don't try to achieve those outcomes as long as the issue is contained within the fascist territory.

It seems like the core element of maintaining a fascist mindset is "we are put upon and must fight back." I would assume your fascist state would refuse to stay demilitarized, and even with just their personal property of weapons would be conducting raids into neighboring territory "to even the score with their oppressors." Unless you have a plan for not only giving them their own territory but depopulating and making inhospitable a buffer of territory around them I don't think it can work.

If so, wouldn't it be much more dangerous to allow such armed fascists to continue freely perpetuating their ideology and cause within your larger society?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The West has just created Maidanist Ukraine and militarised it. Wrong leaders chosen, so it can't match Fascism formally (as you need respectful leaders and aesthetics around them, but it is still aggressively racist) and it is a waste (but then again the sponsors of Euromaidan never planned anything good for this part of the world but to be an utility and booty for them).

There are enough examples of the sane countries in the world, which are racist-based. Like Saudi Arabia or Japan. There's no significant difference between an institutionalised racism and Islamism (Saudi Arabia). And even when there're no atrocities or institutionalised violence, but the nation is obsessed with its race and is very closed to immigration because of that, it is still racism, even if it is not that prominent by the Western formal standards (Japan).

Then there are minor examples similar to Maidanist Ukraine, like Kosova. Yugoslavia was divided very much like the Soviet Union was, through instigating aggressive chauvinism there. So the early post-Soviet states are all racist, because their self-proclaimed authorities were trying to excuse and solidify the dissolution.

And Baltic republics remained racist through all the decades to these days. The closest to a Fascist state. And not militarized by itself, being occupied

 

[Senethro]

Wow, Russians bear grudges against everyone who doesn't want to hang out with them anymore!

 

[Ajidica]

We have North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia...

Not sure why you are lumping Iran in with North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
By the standards of the Middle East Iran has pretty decent elections. (And by the standards of the rest of the world, they are far from the worst. Remind me again how long Kagame, Museveni, and Kabila have maintained a complete monopoly on political power in their country? Museveni has been in power since before I was born.) Iran had a democratic transition of power from Ahmadinejad to Rouhani and just recently had a competitive democratic election. (Where unlike America, Rouhani became president after winning the most votes.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Those on the Right and those who describe themselves as moderate often insist that fascists are well within their rights to express their views under freedom of speech. But you know an oft-forgotten right that was established in the last century? The right to self-determination.

Currently, fascists, neo-Nazis and alt-righters feel persecuted by the larger community, so they might want to have their own safe space where they can be free to practice what they believe and be who they are without reservation - something like a Fascist Reservation, perhaps.

Now, of course, more liberal neighbours would understandably be leery of having a well-armed fascist state near them, so the denizens are allowed only to have whatever weapons they can legally own as personal property. Furthermore, lets assume the territory they have would be landlocked so there's no real need to have any meaningful foreign relations outside of the country that ceded territory to them (it might be easier to think of this country as the USA). People would need proper documentation to travel in and out of the territory, though. Of course, inside, they would essentially be self-governing and it would be difficult to police what goes on on a day-to-day basis (lynchings, outright discrimination, and what have you), but naturally those who do not want to be inside would be relocated before the establishment of the state.

So, as a freedom-loving person, would you accept the creation of such a state?

Just make it work this time...

 

[luiz]

Not sure why you are lumping Iran in with North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
By the standards of the Middle East Iran has pretty decent elections. (And by the standards of the rest of the world, they are far from the worst. Remind me again how long Kagame, Museveni, and Kabila have maintained a complete monopoly on political power in their country? Museveni has been in power since before I was born.) Iran had a democratic transition of power from Ahmadinejad to Rouhani and just recently had a competitive democratic election. (Where unlike America, Rouhani became president after winning the most votes.)

I've been through this before. Iran is a theocracy that hangs homosexuals and sentences adulterers to death. It's a "democracy" where only candidates pre-approved by the unelected ruling clerics are allowed to run. I believe last time around, something like 80% of the candidates were rejected. There was a good chance Rouhani himself would be rejected - and anyone paying attention can see he was only allowed to run if he didn't change anything. Note his ass kissing to the ayatollah since his election.

Iran is undemocratic, oppressed and effed up to an unimaginable extent. I don't consider it any better than Saudi Arabia (which also has some meaningless elections, and nowadays they even allow women to vote).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If so, wouldn't it be much more dangerous to allow such armed fascists to continue freely perpetuating their ideology and cause within your larger society?

More dangerous? I don't think there is a practical way to measure that relation. Also dangerous? Clearly. That's why I oppose letting them run freely. The grim reality is that once fascists stand up they never willingly sit down, they have always had to be put down.

 

[Ajidica]

Hating on the gays? Sounds a lot like Rwanda and Uganda under Kagame and Museveni, respectively.
Multiple candidates pre-selected by an unelected body? Definite improvement over Rwanda and Uganda where the same guy has been in power for over 20 years. At least Iran gets candidates of different political ideologies to vote on.

Again, nowhere have I portrayed Iran as some sort of beacon of democracy and human rights. Iran has serious problems regarding democratic accountability and respect for generally accepted human rights. However, it certainly isn't like Saudi Arabia where anyone even vaguely opposed to the autocratic rule of the House of Saud gets their village bulldozed. Neither is Iran like North Korea for reasons that should be obvious. In North Korea there is Juche and only Juche. Iran, for all of its problems, has actual discourse between different political groups and holds relatively democratic elections.

 

[metatron]

Just make it work this time...

Dude, that map is wrong. In the lazyest and most self-defeating of fashions.
That's very mediterranian.

 

[Kyriakos]

Dude, that map is wrong. In the lazyest and most self-defeating of fashions.
That's very mediterranian.

Maybe it is a future map

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Wow, Russians bear grudges against everyone who doesn't want to hang out with them anymore!

Meh, yet another Westerner who is ignorant of uncomfortable reality... to the point of ignoring parts of the post he would like judging by his bias stances.