For those who think gun control provides a large benefit, consider that murder has already become a minor problem in the US -- around 1/20 of what it was during colonial america. Suicide is much more common (and not easily reduced with gun control). Gun control is usually badly written (e.g. restricting rifles, which account for a tiny fraction of murders) and clumsily implemented and poorly enforced, and surely won't bring murders to zero.
Compare to a situation like Venezuela, where the military is literally blocking food aid from hungry people. I wonder how long that would last with civilian gun ownership?
Also, the details matter a lot. What percentage of civilians? Absolute numbers? Pistols or rifles? How are loyalty lines drawn geographically?
There are also all kinds of other political games the people in power play other than direct military confrontation. Leaving you unprotected (e.g. strict gun control and long police response times) amongst criminals is one way to make your rights useless.
Edit: I see wikipedia mentions the move to electronic record keeping instead of adding it to your passport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_I-94#Automation_at_sea_an...
It only works for foreigners, I believe, as U.S. residents don't need I-94 forms (the old cardboard slips). I'm also not sure if it works for Canadians, as Canadians can also travel to the U.S. more easily.
Countries that lack strong bilateral cooperation with their only land neighbour have to use other methods, like exit controls.
From what I can tell, if you are a republican corporatist, you are sometimes called a neocon. If you are democratic, then the term is neoliberal.
I might be missing some subtle distinction between the terms, but I think these definitions are basically accurate.
Neoliberalism is focused on economics, not military policy, and advocates free movement of goods, capital, and (sometimes) labour to build a global interconnected capitalism. It's probably the 'consensus' position amongst policy elites in most Western countries, though is suffering blowback from varying groups including economic nationalists (who dislike its open, cosmopolitan, nature and lack of concern for the nation) from the left (who dislike its promotion of the interests of capital over the needs of workers) and from localists (who dislike its homogenising qualities and dismissal of the value of 'place').
I think most people just mean by corporatists 'beholden to corporate interests' rather than specifically 'corporate fascists'; in either case they probably don't mean the original meaning of corporatism, which was control of the economy via negotiation between organised interest groups representing sectors of the people (farmers, businesspeople, industrial workers, etc.) This was prominent in Italian fascism in the 30s and had echoes in various other parts of the 20th Century such as the institutionalisation of trades union bargaining in some social democratic countries from the forties onwards.
There's a disturbing trend of governments applying technology to bureaucracy to better track and control people. For example, there's no document you can easily forge to get past the face recognition and fingerprint reader at the US border.
Under a tyrannical government, these technologies could kill millions of people, but under a normal regime they provide minimal benefit to society, like maybe they catch people overstaying their visa or whatever.
Strange times.