Is passive income ethical?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is passive income ethical?". Your opponent's style: Diogenes

Fdr was a facist

You're backwards. FDR fought *against* fascism—he mobilized America to crush Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. That's the opposite of what a fascist does. What you're actually echoing is propaganda from actual fascists who hated him for it. Hitler despised FDR. Mussolini mocked him. They didn't do that because he was one of them—they did it because he was their enemy. Sure, FDR had authoritarian moments—Japanese internment was evil, his court-packing was a power grab. But that's not fascism, that's a wartime president making terrible choices. Fascism means totalitarian dictatorship merged with ultra-nationalism and corporate control. FDR expanded democracy, not crushed it. You're confusing "strong executive" with "fascist dictator." Big difference.

Just because 2 people are fascist does not mean they will get along. Let’s compare the German facist movement and the polish fascit movement. Both have the same ideology but have conflicting interest. German facist wanted the complete genocide and enslavment of all poles. While polish facist wanted a Greater Poland and a strong influence over the east.

You're right that fascists war with each other—but that proves my point, not yours. FDR didn't clash with Hitler over *competing fascist interests*. He crushed him because FDR opposed fascism itself. Polish fascists wanted Greater Poland. German fascists wanted Lebensraum. FDR? He wanted democracy to survive. Those aren't rival visions of the same thing—they're fundamentally opposed ideologies. You're confusing "leaders can disagree" with "therefore they're the same type." Stalin and Hitler both killed millions, but they weren't allies—they were enemies with different tyrannies. FDR opposing fascism doesn't make him fascist any more than punching a Nazi makes you one. Your framework collapses. Conflict proves nothing about ideology.

Fdr didn’t declare war on Germany though. He went to war with Japan and only went to war with Germany when Hitler declared war on him. Additionally Fdr would recognize the puppet regimes established by Germany such as Vichy France.

Now you're moving goalposts. FDR didn't declare war first because Congress did—that's how democracies work, not dictatorships. Hitler declared on *us*, not the reverse. And recognizing Vichy? Realpolitik isn't fascism. You negotiate with enemies to survive. FDR traded with the Soviet Union too—Stalin killed more people than Hitler. Pragmatism isn't ideology. Here's the real test: Did FDR consolidate power, crush opposition parties, merge state and corporations into total control? No. He faced constant opposition, lost court battles, got mocked by Congress. A fascist would've purged them. You're confusing "cautious wartime diplomacy" with "secret fascist." Weak argument.

You’re ignoring what I said. Congress Fdr had no intention to fight Germany. If the Germans didn’t declare war on Fdr we would never have fought them

False. FDR was arming Britain and pushing for war before Hitler declared anything. Lend-Lease, naval escorts, destroyers-for-bases—he was already in the fight, just not officially. And even if you're right that he wouldn't have declared first, so what? That makes him cautious, not fascist. Fascists *aggressively* expand territory and crush neighbors. FDR waited for attack. That's the opposite of fascist aggression. You're arguing "FDR wasn't eager enough for war" and somehow concluding "therefore fascist." That's nonsense. Not wanting unnecessary war is prudence, not authoritarianism. Your whole case hinges on redefining fascism as "any leader I disagree with." That's lazy.

Why would Fdr arm Britain? Money obviously money and to keep American influence. Let’s move on from the ww2 and move on to domestic policy. Fdrs new deal would attempt to unite business,labor and the state or in other words class consolidation. Does that remind you of a certain Italian dictator

You're describing corporatism, not fascism. Yes, the New Deal mixed state, business, and labor—but fascism *requires* crushing independent unions and opposition parties into submission. FDR's unions stayed independent and fought him constantly. Labor leaders criticized him publicly. Business resisted his reforms. He didn't have them shot or disappeared—he negotiated with enemies. Mussolini crushed all three groups into obedience under the state boot. FDR let them clash. That's democracy, messy and inefficient. Fascism is totalitarian control where nothing operates without state permission. You're confusing "mixed economy" with "dictatorship." Different animals entirely.