So I'm guessing that was a no? Legislating to prevent change isn't controlling outcomes like legislating to cause it does?
No. It's not. In the same way that stopping someone from burning down your house doesn't change your condition, but burning it down does. Or preventing someone from robbing you doesn't affect you, but robbing you does. Are you actually claiming to be unable to mentally understand this difference?
And gbaji, this might be difficult for you:
Fascism- Forced rule by another party.
Liberalism- Self-government on the basis of consensus.
Except that you've replaced the definition of liberalism with the one for democracy/republic. Liberalism is about the degree of liberty the citizens have, not how they are represented. While some form of democracy is certainly the best way to go, that's not what defines liberalism. Liberalism is about not having a government that intrudes upon your life.
I don't really see why it's hard for you to grasp.
I do grasp it. You're the one operating on incorrect assumptions.
A liberal gov't should = the people, a fascist gov't = a small group of them.
Liberal government isn't just one in which the people have a say, and if you'd studied any US history, you'd understand this. One of the greatest fears of the founders was that if they didn't put sufficient protections into their system, it might become a tyranny of the majority. They absolutely understood that the mob is capable of imposing on society just as much as any king sitting on a throne. And that danger is made all the more real exactly because many people (like yourself) mistakenly assume that as long as you have democracy, you can't have authoritarianism.
That's absolutely false. You're just wrong. I can't say this more clearly.
But a liberal republic is one in which those elected by the people work for the good of all people. A fascist republic is one in which the officials are elected by the people (and I'm assuming it was a fair election) but only serve the interests of a small group of people (of which they are probably included).
What the hell are you talking about? First off, you keep insisting on bringing in a new term "fascism", which isn't present in this discussion. We're talking about "libertarianism" versus "authoritarianism". Libertarianism (or classical liberalism if you prefer) is entirely about not having a government which intrudes on your life. Authoritarianism is the opposite (should be obvious by the name). In this context, these are opposite ends of that axis. Stop pretending we're talking about something else.
That DOES NOT mean that the fascist gov't is determined to make the little people suffer, it just probably does. Likewise, a Liberal gov't doesn't screw the fascists at every turn, it just doesn't favor anyone (and when you are used to having power, you perceive it as an attack).
You're inventing definitions to make your word use work. That's *not* what the two things in question mean.