you have an interesting definition of Fascism, as you define it as any system that accounts for the externalities of corporations. I do not support Greenpeace in particular, as I believe their stance on nuclear power to be wrong, but I find your arguments against environmentalism to ignore the human costs associated with environmental catastrophes. Environmentalism is not only about caring for animals. The way that I see it, life is rather hard to exterminate and that nature will eventually adapt to whatever way we change the planet. Chemical pollution poisons human water supplies while smog poisons our lungs. It is the poor that have to live with these consequences more than anyone. Is any law that protects us from mercury in our water supplies inherently fascist?

interesting that the housing bubble occurred under Bush then...

So you believe that because such authority can sometimes be justified that an instance where reasonable options were untried is justified?

The Cultural Revolution was not historic or influential? Are you joking? It was the catastrophic failure of the Cultural Revolution that led to the capitalist transformation of China. Few events in our recent history have had such an impact. Additionally, you emphasize the activism present in the Cultural Revolution and imply that it was mutually exclusive with repression of individuality. The Red Guard enforced their revolutionary ideals on all. Individuality was suppressed even within the Red Guard as no one was safe from their attempts to root out anyone not fully committed to the ideals.

I sense much fear in you. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
Political disagreements aside, such racism will lead only to more suffering. There are Americans that I know that are afraid of red states. They fear that religion will destroy science and corrupt academic knowledge. They fear that warhawks will pick a fight we not only can't win but might actually lose. This fear drives them to ponder if the blue states should just succeed even if it would require a war. You are underestimating the suffering that such hate can cause. Imagine if a powerful nation became afraid of you.

Troops were doing the arresting? I was under the impression that the reason we did not have evidence enough to legally imprison the detainees was that they were handed over to us by bounty hunters or foreign governments.

The government is not the only organization that can exert control on you and limit your freedom. By controlling the market some are capable of eliminating choice on services which in turn have a drastic impact on people's lives. If you cause enough financial harm to others you take away their ability to compete freely with you. Though it is more subtle, it does have a direct impact on personal freedom. To say that regulation is equivalent to censorship is a horrendous misrepresentation.

If I had the points I would mod you up. Well said.

Interesting, one of the things blamed for declining CD sales was the increasing use of concerts by artists to make money. Content producers often do want monetary recognition of their work, though this is not universal, but the truth is that they are screwed over more by the content controllers than by P2P. Associations such as the RIAA were not formed in order to protect artists, they were formed because protecting artists was profitable and they wanted money. They protect artists whether they want it or not.

Heh, the point was that while they were from NH they did not recognize it and wanted to be independent. This lead to the splitting of NH and the formation of Vermont.

We cling to it because in the long run it works. We have a problem with expanding executive power, but its emphasis on personal liberty above governmental power is a necessary check that protects us from irreversible damage to our system in periods of brief instability.