I'll now quote from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascism-corporations-corpo... , which thoroughly rejects that interpretation:
"In other words, corporatism in Mussolini's fascism was not a free-market capitalist system. Far from it. It did not allow for the kind of competition, innovation, market entry, and research and development characteristic of modern capitalism, and it was closely ruled in every way by the state with Mussolini at its head.
Anything that draws a direct link between what are now referred to as corporations (large, powerful private companies operating in a modern free-market capitalist system) and Mussolini's corporatism, is founded on a misunderstanding — most likely caused by the similarity between the words."
That is precisely what is happening with Western economies. Big multinational corporations dominate procurement and dictate regulation to limit competition, create barriers to enter the market and research and development out of reach for SMEs. As in marriage of corporations and the state.
> In his Dictionary of Political Thought, Roger Scruton describes corporatism in this way:
> The economy was divided into associations (called 'syndicates') of workers, employers and the professions; only one syndicate was allowed in each branch of industry, and all officials were either fascist politicians or else loyal to the fascist cause. According to law the syndicates were autonomous, but in fact they were run by the state. The 'corporations' united the syndicates in a given industry, but made no pretence at autonomy from the state.
That is nothing at all like what is happening with Western economies, so it is not "corporatism", so it is not "textbook fascism".
You can read the various definitions of fascism at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism and verify that none align with 'marriage of corporations and government'.
FWIW, surely the Dutch East Indies company was a marriage of corporation and government, yes?
I’m really sad to see that’s yet another thing the current administration is destroying
For IAL2 identity proofing, Login.gov is only for US persons, i.e. validating US-issued credentials. Meanwhile. ID.me has support to validate foreign passports.
So, if TreasuryDirect supports foreign customers, it makes sense to offer ID.me, but it seems inappropriate not to offer Login.gov for customers who are US persons!
Or does it offer less invasive ways to confirm identity, like mailing a code sent to one's long-established postal address, or an in-person visit to a local social services office?
Glad I don't actually need to login to my irs account lately.
I still pay my taxes by physical check, because they won’t let me pay digitally unless I sign in with ID.me.
Let's be honest, the US government can control basically any domain it wants. I doubt Montenegro is going to cause any problems for it.
So many privacy concerns.
ID.me is a private third party system, that I won’t ever use.