First, XianeX was talking about Hillary. (clinton was a draft dodger) had nothing to do with this topic. Get your Clinton OCD issues in check homie… Last, none of what you just said about Dean is “Out Of The Mainstream” and I hope when he is elected president if not John Kerry that he does “Repeal Most Of President Bush's Tax Cut In Order To Fund His National Health Insurance Program” Dean is an MD and his wife is still a practicing physician, so he knows what he is talking about when it comes to healthcare...
The reason I may vote for Bush to run a second term
- Thread starter XianeX
- Start date
You weren't responding to Xianex, you were responding to my reply. Which once again, (clinton was a draft dodger) has nothing to do with anything concerning my reply. Mcleanhatch, I think deep down inside you love Bill Clinton, you think about him all the time don't you, I can tell from your freudian slips...
All libertarians would agree with the old Jeffersonian motto, "That government is best which governs least."
And many would also agree with Henry David Thoreau when he wrote that "I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'."
Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists") believe there is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily.
That doesn't mean anarcho-capitalists are necessarily pacificists. Most agree that force will always be necessary to defend people and their property, but they argue that defense and security services can be provided in a free market.
One of the most prominent anarcho-capitalist intellectuals is economist David Friedman (son of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman). He has spent years describing the institutions a society without government might use to secure peace and justice; he calls these institutions the "machinery of freedom."
It should be noted that most libertarian anarchists qualify their anarchist label with an adjective like "individualist" or a neologism like "anarcho-capitalist" to differentiate themselves from bomb-throwing radicals and left-wing, anti-property anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. For more background on the anarchist ideological differences, consult the excellent Anarchist Theory FAQ, by George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan.
For obvious reasons, libertarian anarchists don't tend to be very active in politics. They tend to see themselves in a long-term battle of ideas. The hearts and minds of people need to be won over, they reason, before society will change.
Some libertarian anarchists (and other libertarians) are interested in alternative, individualistic, even "anti-political" ways of pursuing freedom, such as micronations, offshore investments, and spirituality
www.libertarian.org
And many would also agree with Henry David Thoreau when he wrote that "I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- 'That government is best which governs not at all'."
Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists") believe there is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily.
That doesn't mean anarcho-capitalists are necessarily pacificists. Most agree that force will always be necessary to defend people and their property, but they argue that defense and security services can be provided in a free market.
One of the most prominent anarcho-capitalist intellectuals is economist David Friedman (son of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman). He has spent years describing the institutions a society without government might use to secure peace and justice; he calls these institutions the "machinery of freedom."
It should be noted that most libertarian anarchists qualify their anarchist label with an adjective like "individualist" or a neologism like "anarcho-capitalist" to differentiate themselves from bomb-throwing radicals and left-wing, anti-property anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. For more background on the anarchist ideological differences, consult the excellent Anarchist Theory FAQ, by George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan.
For obvious reasons, libertarian anarchists don't tend to be very active in politics. They tend to see themselves in a long-term battle of ideas. The hearts and minds of people need to be won over, they reason, before society will change.
Some libertarian anarchists (and other libertarians) are interested in alternative, individualistic, even "anti-political" ways of pursuing freedom, such as micronations, offshore investments, and spirituality
www.libertarian.org
^ i hope youre being saracastic!!! lol!!
although when gw says hes for smaller government, it goes in one ear and out the other
the governments job is not to provide jobs to citizens. it is also not their job OR THEIR RIGHT to close the gap between the rich and the poor. these tasks would both be a lot easier without the big government of which BOTH PARTIES just love.
although when gw says hes for smaller government, it goes in one ear and out the other
the governments job is not to provide jobs to citizens. it is also not their job OR THEIR RIGHT to close the gap between the rich and the poor. these tasks would both be a lot easier without the big government of which BOTH PARTIES just love.
and clinton wasnt worried about bridging any gaps. democrats would be out of a job if the gap was closed.
citizens dependent on government = job security and votes for democrats.
i swear to god i used to have a shred (even though it was small then) of respect for democrats until i got a call by mistake one time from the guy who did the voice for darth vader. james earl jones i think his name is. anyways, its around election time 2000 and i get this call which was aimed at an elderly woman who used to live where i do now, and in full darth vader voice this man in a recorded message is telling what is supposed to be an old woman that george bush is going to take her social security away from her. it had an ominous doomsday feel to it and it made me fucking sick. i even think they had the evil background music going on at the same time. it was presented in the form of a warning that if gwb was elected, her money would surely be cut off. has anyone else gotten these calls on accident before??? that had to be one of the most manipulative, deceitful methods of trying to get a vote ive ever seen. absolutely despicable and the worst part about it is a lot of these seniors are scared into this shit.
citizens dependent on government = job security and votes for democrats.
i swear to god i used to have a shred (even though it was small then) of respect for democrats until i got a call by mistake one time from the guy who did the voice for darth vader. james earl jones i think his name is. anyways, its around election time 2000 and i get this call which was aimed at an elderly woman who used to live where i do now, and in full darth vader voice this man in a recorded message is telling what is supposed to be an old woman that george bush is going to take her social security away from her. it had an ominous doomsday feel to it and it made me fucking sick. i even think they had the evil background music going on at the same time. it was presented in the form of a warning that if gwb was elected, her money would surely be cut off. has anyone else gotten these calls on accident before??? that had to be one of the most manipulative, deceitful methods of trying to get a vote ive ever seen. absolutely despicable and the worst part about it is a lot of these seniors are scared into this shit.
Both Democrats and Republicans are bullshit. Dems say they are concerned about the poor, progressive, and in search of real change. The sad thing is, though, the Democratic party is more a figurehead than anything. They play just as much of a party card as the Republicans, and instead of taking real looks on the issues and deciding for themselves, they vote with their party, or they vote for what would benefit their campaign contributors.
Democrats use the poor, minorities, and those with fear about their financial situation to get elected. They hoist them on their shoulders, pretending to be the champion, the advocate, the one who cares, but once they hit congress floor, it's business as usual.
The only people who really influence congressmen in the US are campaign contributors. Republicans are the same exact way. They appeal more to those who are satisfied with the status quo or take issue with radical change and play the fear card. Promising not to do much of anything, they gain the vote of people who don't want change.
These, however, are generalizations. Republicans propose radical bills, and Democrats play the conservative card from time to time, but for the most part our government leaders know how they are going to vote the second they walk in the door to "work" every day. They vote for their own survival when the next election comes around, and for the supposed 'better position' of their party.
Big Business and Government are so in bed they can't fake orgasms. That's the relationship that matters, not the supposed opinion of the voters.
Democrats use the poor, minorities, and those with fear about their financial situation to get elected. They hoist them on their shoulders, pretending to be the champion, the advocate, the one who cares, but once they hit congress floor, it's business as usual.
The only people who really influence congressmen in the US are campaign contributors. Republicans are the same exact way. They appeal more to those who are satisfied with the status quo or take issue with radical change and play the fear card. Promising not to do much of anything, they gain the vote of people who don't want change.
These, however, are generalizations. Republicans propose radical bills, and Democrats play the conservative card from time to time, but for the most part our government leaders know how they are going to vote the second they walk in the door to "work" every day. They vote for their own survival when the next election comes around, and for the supposed 'better position' of their party.
Big Business and Government are so in bed they can't fake orgasms. That's the relationship that matters, not the supposed opinion of the voters.