For the most part, Republicans use religious rhetoric, which is illogical. Democrats use emotional rhetoric (the poor, minorities), which is also illogical. But none of it matters anyways because they don't do 99% of what they campaign on. Both are lobbied for by the exact same corporations and will both do exactly as they say for the right price. This is why Obama is 99% like Bush, and it's why Romney will be 99% like Obama if he wins. Corporations own all of the candidates every election and they throw money at congress that they can't resist. It's why all government is inherently evil. Like religion, it's one of those human creations that keeps on giving.
If a Republican is not one of the following, they're okay to me: Michael Bachman Newt Gingrich Ron Paul Rick Sanatorium Mitt Romney A Democrat/Liberal A nutty conspirator (like the Rockschilds)
But it's worth noting that those Dixiecrats, who were alienated by the sudden progressive values entering the party via the North, and who realized they could more easily sway their southern constituents through Republican small government, jumped ship in 1964. More than that, Democrats then and now, and even going back to the '40s with the New Deal, were still about worker's plight, the social safety net, etc. That bit has not changed and in that way Democrats have remained consistent. Hope you like paving your own roads, treating your own diseases, gathering your own food, making your own clothes, and having to constantly fend off any human being you don't recognize.
^agreed. and i dont think people in general are evil. I think when you live your whole career in a game about power, reputation, and greed, it turns you.
No, people are generally selfish and are taught piss-poor logic. Government would be great if it were filled with people who give a shit about people and not about money Not having a centralized government has nothing to do with businesses, money, food or human relations if your centralized government was never in charge of those things in the first place.
Right^ SuperDude is using the incorrect definition of 'Anarchy'. It simply means 'no rulers'. The term has been distorted into scaring people away from the idea. Now most people associate it with 'no rules' or 'chaos', which are both wrong. I honestly don't even know how you can believe government provides all of those things and nobody else is capable of doing them. Do you think the government is comprised of construction workers, doctors, farmers, production workers, and security workers? They aren't. They are comprised of unskilled politicians who don't provide any service for the consumer. Every service that is provided to us is either through private companies or could be through private companies. So no, if anarchy is the next step, we wouldn't be doing things on our own. We would make voluntary exchanges with one another and with our society and do things exactly like we do now, but with more economic growth and a higher standard of living. There wouldn't be coercion because there would be no rulers that are capable of coercion. Read a little about the Non-Aggression Principle, Voluntaryism, and Anarcho-capitalism and it will be abundantly clear that first world countries are very capable of thriving without government.
Volunteerism** (I don't believe voluntaryism is a real word or proper grammar) is one of the central problems with this warm, fuzzy ideal of anarchy. If given a choice, a self-interested (read: selfish) individual will be more likely to help oneself rather than help others. And in the end, that helps no one. And by the way, how does a private company propose to help another country that is suffering from genocide? Through voluntary exchange? For that matter, will police voluntarily fight crime, or firefighters voluntarily extinguishing fires? Libertarians forget that the flaws attendant to government exist because these are flaws that exist within people, and no doing away with the institution of government will do away with the evils of human nature. It'll just make it easier to get away with it, unless you arm everyone to the teeth and give them free rein to mutilate anyone who "imposes themselves" on their private property.
Voluntaryism, or Voluntarism, is a society in which all forms of human association are voluntary and of their own free will. It doesn't mean people are volunteering for things. This society strictly adheres to the Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP. Here's a wiki link if you're bored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle In a society where only voluntary exchanges (trades) take place, the greediest people are rewarded more than less ambitious people. This doesn't mean greed is bad or harmful to others. It's actually the opposite. In order for you to accumulate wealth, you need to do so through voluntary means. So the only way for you to be greedy and accumulate the amount of wealth you want is to provide a service or goods to the person/people you are trading with. The greedier you are, the more services or goods you provide for society. It's not every man for himself. In order to accomplish your greedy goals, you must work with other people. It's actually almost identical to what we have today, except there would be no coercion. Big companies couldn't buy legislation and impose their power on smaller companies, and they couldn't create monopolies and impose their power on their workers or the consumer. In a voluntary exchange, nobody is taken advantage of. Every trade/deal/contract/exchange that takes place is consensual. Why do we need, as an entire nation, need to help another country in anything? We do this through taxes now, which forces everybody to pay for something that they may or may not believe in. In a voluntary society, you would donate to such a cause if you felt like helping out. Helping through coercion is still immoral, no matter how you view it. Forcing people to do anything they don't want to do is immoral. And yes, policeman and firefighters will fight crime and fires. They will be a private service where people pay them money to meet their demands. If the companies don't meet their demands are don't fare well compared to other better companies, they lose business and money. This creates incentive to hire highly trained workers and to keep innovating to stay ahead of the competition. This incentive doesn't exist in any governmental program. Policeman, firefighters, and literally every government program gets paid regardless of how well they do their job. We are forced to pay them regardless if they are meeting our demands. This is why government programs will always be of worse quality and efficiency than a private company that only gets paid through voluntary exchange. Any demand that an anarchist society has will be met by a private company, because these companies are driven by greed. This greed leads to any service you can imagine being provided for the consumer. Both parties benefit by working together. Like I said, it's almost identical to what already happens today. If these people want roads built, private companies will build them. If these people want a hospital built, private companies will build it. If people want to send mercenaries overseas to stop genocide, private companies will do so.
And they call us liberals idealistic and naive. Can't wait to see how companies cut corners and scam us without accountability in the American anarchy!
Because people will willingly do business with shady businesses. Right. Businesses are more accountable when they are subjected to true competition.
They don't have to let anyone know. Businesses are plenty good at covering it up now independent of government involvement, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to cover up shadiness under anarchy. And y'know what? Maybe then all businesses will be able to get away with shady practices because people will have no other options available to them, because everyone will be doing it because everyone can get away with it. You know, there's a reason the word anarchy is associated with chaos and barbarism.