PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

Now, if someone is trying to change the laws to increase centralized authority, that's when people should start paying attention.

Then what's the line that you're going to draw? My whole point is that you can't get away with saying "don't take steps towards a fascist state," and then expect everyone to agree with you on what constitutes a step in that direction to begin with. And then when you make that argument, people like me are going to come along and say don't take any steps, no matter how subtle, in the opposite direction to totalitarianism, and then we're stuck in a perpetual state of trying to figure out what makes a step in either direction.

Well, only if you ignore a couple pages of what I said; I said I don't believe in that dichotomy, because although history is full of examples of fascism, I have yet to a see practical application of totalitarian leftism. Keep in mind, I HAVE seen that ideaology twisted to create a fascist state, but those are two different things.

The interesting thing, though, is that we actually agree that leftist ideaology can lead to dictatorships. I just don't think that translates to assuming that those dictators are applying those principles, that's a very nieve assumption. Dictators are all more or less the same, and they should be regarded as such, not put on opposite ends of the spectrum as if there's an actual diversity.

So going to your original question, there is no line to draw, only a direction to avoid. Laws that inhibit the freedom of the individual, whether justified by left or right dogma, must be challenged. Therefore, worrying about left or right ideaology in the absence of any legislation is pointless in resisting fascism. There is a uniform quality to oppressive law that we can all stand against, regardless of the source or the idealogy they use to justify it.