So then can you explain the difference? It would seem to me that forcing people to make a (sometimes life-or-death!) decision on the immediate fate of someone else is not principally different from forcing them to make a decision on the overall government policy. Either one can be seen as a duty of a citizen of a free state.

Especially since mandatory voting only means mandatory appearance in practice, you don't have to actually cast a vote at all, you just have to sign for your ballot.

Do you believe that jury duty also "goes against freedom"?

If not, then what's the fundamental difference between that and mandatory voting?

Except it's not. The point of having "none of the above" on the ballot is that, if most people choose that, elections are considered failed and have to be redone with new candidates. Given turnouts of under 40% in midterms, this would be directly applicable. The idea that you can have a legitimate government elected by less than half of those eligible to vote is ridiculous.

What an absurd setup. If there is a vetted list of candidates in the first place, why not just print all the names on the ballot?

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.