Setanta wrote:Surely you don't mean to say that we should accept a premise that Republicans, or any other politicians, are nice guys?
Some of them were -- a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, when they were young, idealistic, and out of power. But you are right: that is not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is that I'm a nice guy (no really). And I don't really
want to contemplate which side of the culture wars is producing the more corrupt politicians. I would rather live under a government that offers corrupt politicians much less to sell. The state Adam Smith envisions (slightly bigger than the classical liberal nightwatchman state) seems like the optimal size to me. Whether I'm right or wrong, I am not alone. But what chance do we have of getting there if the only practical way is by running for office -- and if people won't close down public offices once they occupy them?
dyslexia wrote:philosophical anarchy is a well reasoned response.
As a personal attitude towards politics, I got there shortly after November 9, 1989. As a way of making a difference in politics, I don't see how it's workable, alas.