being armed enables vulnerable people to prevent their exploitation.

this is a thought terminating cliche

it's one of the very real dangers people face. and firearms are one of the tools they may use to defend themselves from it.

You seriously think that the cause of modern day slavery is lack of guns?

that's not what i said. it's a bad faith argument: a strawman.

at this point i'm making due advocating that would-be slaves aren't legally prohibited the tools they need to protect themselves.

that's cold comfort for slaves

none so far, and id like to keep it that way, but there is no reason i or anyone else should become a victim for a lack of self defense tools.

there are more slaves now than ever in history. there are more prisoners, more prisons, more cartels, more police (but i repeat myself). i won't tell you how you may keep yourself safe. please return the courtesy.

there you go again, assuming things you don't know about me.

your statistics don't know who i live with, who lives next door, or how corrupt my government is. and, as samuel clemons said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

you don't know my circumstances or anyone else's.

guns are for vulnerable people who want to ensure their own safety.

But no, none of that matters. You've already figured out what I believe, and you'll tell me about it at length, whatever I have to say about it.

total lack of self-awareness

this might be a more accurate way to see it, but if the obscenely wealthy require the state and its trappings to maintain power, then functionally it is no different: the state is still primary, and all other institutions must be brought in line with its interests (which are to serve the obscenely wealthy).

if the shoe fits...

the Doctrine of Fascism quite literally contradicts their points.

it does not

in fact contradicts the point being made

it doesn't

I am not intimately familiar with the institutions in every corner of the earth, but I live in the USA, and I certainly feel that the interests of the state have subsumed all other institutions.

personally, I prefer anarchism. without a state, a state cannot coopt all of society.

mussolini specifically wanted to shift away from individualism, whereas (at least in lip service) chiangs plan was to teach democracy to the Chinese. a military dictatorship does have a lot of similarity to fascism, though. I suppose I can see where, in this one case, an agrarian societies emergence from warlordism may have been fascist.