Anarchy In The USA?

Re: Anarchy In The USA?

So often it seems--as is clearly the case here--that people toss these terms around because they don't understand them; or in your case, you seem to want to apply it to Republicans because you don't understand them.

Republicans and others like me (libertarian) don't have some rabid desire to do away with government. For my part, it isn't even "small" government that I desire, but rather a federal government limited to its Constitutional mandates. (Can you see the difference?) If the federal government were twice the size it is today, but every bit of it was needed to meet its Constitutional mandates, I'd not be mindlessly clamoring for "smaller" government. Likewise, if pulling back the federal government to perform only those functions the Constitution requires of them and empowers them to do made it necessary to increase the size of state governments in order to take on some things the feds would not be doing (and should not have been in the first place) I would have no beef there either.

Anarchists share far more with liberals than conservatives. For one, Anarchists have no interest in seeing a Constitutionally limited government in this country, while liberals seem to have almost as little interest therein. Anarchists want each person to decide for himself what rules he will follow in life. Many liberals want liberals to make those decisions for everyone, and many conservatives would likewise impose conservative mores on society even where the constitution denies them this power. I would see us follow the Constitution as best we can, wherever the Constitution speaks on an issue, and if the Constitution is mute where we have come to believe it should take a stand, we must amend it rather than simply ignoring it or finding new powers in the spaces between the ink lines on its pages.

No, Republicans are not anarchists; neither are Democrats. Only anarchists are anarchists. But if you care to consider whether a group may be--by its words and actions--helping to drive society towards chaos and destruction and away from order and prosperity, then I think you have to take a long, sober look at what liberals are saying and doing today.

Of course, as I think of it now, I realize that I am wrong to suggest that left-wing liberals are more akin to anarchists than right-wing conservatives; I see now that both groups seek an authoritarian government that dictates behavior, values and societal norms for all. The only real difference--and it's a big one--is the behavior, values and societal norms each would foist upon us all, were either given the chance.

Hopefully those two poles will continue to cancel each other out, and those of us in the middle will remain to decide such things.

Dys

So you don't like any form of gov't------what do you intend to do when the anarchists destroy this gov't and replace it with their brand of socialism---- do you have a plan? After a while the elitists who will control that society won't much like your constant criticism and they will come for you and your computer.

I only know one person who claims to be an anarchist, and honestly, I think dys is just jerking my chain on that one.

Roger

I would have agreed once that anarchism is a joking matter except I now believe it is but a short step to anarchism from the position of destructive lies told now by the desperate left such as Krugman, the New York times, the Boston Globe and the Dems as led by Peloshi and that grand X-KKKer Robert Byrd.

Roger is one of the most decent and well thought persons i know, i think however there are the non-conformists who make no conscious effort to not conform, but do so out of their essential nature. They shun joining groups because they understand, innately, the danger inherent in group "thinking." (Which too often in history spawns "mob mentality" which in turn spawns evils such as riots, lynching, wars, and religion.) This type of non-conformist requires a rational, valid reason before she or he will engage in a group / social behavior: they are therefore generally loathed, misunderstood, reviled, and even abused by the majority (i.e., the conformists).

(It is hardly worth adding that nearly 100% of conformists believe they are non-conformists. The tiny fraction of conformists who recognize and accept their conformity are to be praised; the others are to be pitied for their lack of self-knowledge.)

What happens when the latter type of non-conformist runs up against Organized Conformity (i.e., GOVERNMENT)? When this happens, the non-conformist has no choice but to be an anarchist, out of self-defense. I consider it a self-evident fact that abusive government engenders anarchy: it is the natural response to tyranny. It is also, I think, the appropriate response.

The chief problem facing the non-conforming anarchist is that the Government almost never understands the fact that it is abusive and therefore deserves criticism and opposition: the individuals steering the juggernaut of Government do not understand that the system they build, enforce, and defend is often abusive, debasing, insulting, enslaving, tyrannical, and contrary to ethical, decent, rational behavior. Government, being a product of mob mentality, is fundamentally anti-individuality. There can be no formal redress, rectification, or remedy by the Government because the Government does not comprehend the fact that it is abusive and dehumanizing, and therefore sees no reason to cease its abuse.

so rail against me or rail against anarchy Perception, but with some degree of an open and thoughtful mind you just might find I offer a point of view that does have some merit even if you dont agree with it.
btw telling me i am full of bull **** is hardly conducive to further dialogue and is seldom considered a polite form of address.

Perception be careful with your analogies. Your statement defines both as opposite extremes of the spectrum and thus to be equally avoided.

Dys wrote:

"btw telling me i am full of bull **** is hardly conducive to further dialogue and is seldom considered a polite form of address".

When have you ever offered me the courtesy you seem to want from me?

BTW-----I have often thought your offerings present a point of view that is not only worthwhile but occasionally brilliant-----have you ever thought that your attitude is just as much a turnoff as most of the lefties on this forum think mine is?

Acquiunk wrote:

Perception be careful with your analogies. Your statement defines both as opposite extremes of the spectrum and thus to be equally avoided.

After a second look at my words, you are technically correct but how could anyone of sane mind consider "private enterprize" an extreme point of view?

Careful with the sticks there, kids ... Oh, and try to not step in the horseshit .... errr, uh, "Ruminant Excreta", either. It makes a mess.

Timber

You sure know how to kill a fun thread-------Ruminant Excretia-----gotta remember that

Perception:

But what about the GOP with it's cadre of religious and free-market fundamentalists and media empire (see http://www.fair.org).

Neoguin

What about it? Your link didn't work but I found the FAIR web page----the only article close to current was 09/16/03 about Clark----that was before his announcement-----give me something specific and current to go on.

Perception- You are indeed correct. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of American History in the last two centuries knows that organized violence is almost always on the left.

The Haymarket Riots are atypical example.

A stationwagon full of charred freedom riders, a campus littered with bodies bleeding from National Guard Bullet Holes, or a skinhead rampage trhough an amusement park would be examples of a different type. So too would be just about the entire pre-WW1 History of The US Cavalry, or the traditional role of The US Marine Corps in the Caribbean and Latin America. Then again, I guess that could depend on how you define "Organized violence'.

Timberland:

Nice catch!

While it seems that Dys and I never seem to agree, I am inclined to agree that he seems to be one very sharp character, and while some here seem to hurl their comments with the intent of pissing others off, I've always assumed that Dys simply doesn't care. (That's NOT an insult, Dys.) My take on Dys is that he weighs in here with what he thinks and just isn't concerned with how anyone might feel about his opinion. I find that kind of refreshing. Dys seems like a genuine person caught among a bunch of posers.

Timber, thanks for taking the offensive on the offensive notion that most organized violence is from the left. There's only a few on this forum who have trouble with semantics and they are the same ones who selectively pluck out facts to support their dubious version of the truth.

I'm not referring to organised violence. Its the unorganised that you've got to fear. With your lack of social safety nets how many more people become homeless every day. And when the sad and destitute finally outnumber those who have still got something, how long before they start fighting with the only weapons available. And it's not like weapons are particularly hard to get for Americans!!!

But the consertatives will continue to trot out their worthless tripe. They won't pull their heads out of the sand until they get bitten on the arse.