If you want to start banning tech on the grounds that it is only accessible to the rich(er) folk and confers advantages, we should probably start with the Internet.

Fascists economics are economics run by the state, with a number of state-backed corporations. However, the meaning of the word "corporation" in fascist parlance is very different from the regular meaning of that world in English language. It's supposed to be more of an association based on some common industrial affiliation, to act as a single body (hence "corpora") representing the common interests of its members, rather than as a profit making engine. For example, industrial associations are fascist corporations, but so are trade unions and trade guilds (which fascists pushed as an alternative to unions). The proper translation of this term to modern English is "corporate group", in sociological meaning of the word.

This is very different from the present corporation-dominated Western capitalism. Such existed back then, too, and fascists were very much against it.

90% of the work is trivial. But there's a lot of it, so it still takes up most of the time.

If you go around Iceland asking for dóttir to ravish, I suspect it won't be long before you get a taste of some öxi delivered by an angry víkingr.

Well, do you still have elections?

Why bother, though? Since, as you've said, Iceland is tiny, the cost of such an operation would far exceed the gains to be had from forcing long copyright terms on them.

So what you're saying is that the Piraty Party of Iceland is basically the political wing of Alestorm?

His statement is still true, though. Even the most right-wing liberal European parties are nowhere even close to fascism (which doesn't believe in liberties for businesses at all).

Can you show an example of how the New Right supports Italian corporatism (which has a very distinct meaning of the word "corporation")?

A lot of people (esp. libertarians) don't realize that the original definition of free market was all about competition, and not strictly about regulation (so regulation that guarantees competitiveness, such as monopoly busting, is in fact an integral part of it). In today's libertarian parlance, free market = unregulated market.

That's not quite true. You can absolutely publish your identity, and you can verify it (with digital signatures etc). What you can't do is tie it to your real identity. But when all your reputation is tied to that market in the first place, it doesn't actually matter.

It's an oft-repeated adage, and is obviously wrong (or rather deliberately ignores the bigger picture). Yes, expenses of businesses are passed on to their customers, but the reverse is also true: expenses of customers are passed onto the businesses just the same (if I have less money, I buy less stuff). Money doesn't flow like a river in economy, it doesn't have the beginning and the end - it's a never-ending loop. It doesn't make any sense to focus on the business -> person part of it, and ignore the equivalent person -> business part. But if you do that, then the argument doesn't really make any sense: why is it wrong to tax the flow at one point, but not the other? The whole "double taxation" thing makes zero sense, because all money is double- and triple- and quadruple-taxed as it changes hands - tax is on the flow, not on the money itself!

That's true of any tax or other measure, though. I mean, GOP has done essentially the same to minimum wage, by refusing to adjust it for inflation. At this point, it's actually less in terms of purchasing power than it was in 1960s. It doesn't mean that we can't try to do something better.

I'm fine with eliminating corporate income tax, if we then start taxing capital gains at a proper rate (i.e. at least as high as regular income).