IDK anything about Fiji so you'd have to help me with the comparison to their not controlling their population and We here in AmeriKa who are under authoritarian rule. As for places in Africa, who controls their commerce? IIRC, the Africans wanted the colonialists to leave, so they did, and the countries, especially South Africa, have gone to hell. But they want to control their own govt and I agree that they should.
Ok. In that case you are kind of right. Moderate governments do reality based leadership. Left or right they go against their principles to get the job done.
:thumb:
I agree with the above but, I do not like the term anarchist to be used to describe hippy communes because there are a lot of anarchists who do not participate in hippy communes. Plus, hippy communes can adopt a plethora of different ideologies. That is just a way to discredit anarchism and slur it's true meaning. :thumb: Kinda like when rioters get out of control and TPTB and the paid for media like to refer to them as anarchists which they aren't. They are in fact 'criminals' by the very fact they are destroying property and interfering with the ability of other people to go about their normal business unencumbered. Therefore imposing their will upon the rights of others. Criminals, not anarchists. There's a reason authoritarian govt. likes to pervert the term Anarchist.
But the population is free? If so, then they should be able to go about their lives merrily while their govt goes helter skelter (hippy commune).:
How do you consider an anarchist as a criminal? If they choose to follow their own rules. That makes them an anarchist.:thumb:
I agree with the above but, I do like the term anarchist to be used to describe hippy communes because there are a lot of anarchists who do not participate in hippy communes. Plus, hippy communes can adopt a plethora of different ideologies. That is just a way to discredit anarchism and slur it's true meaning. :thumb: Kinda like when rioters get out of control and TPTB and the paid for media like to refer to them as anarchists which they aren't. They are in fact 'criminals' by the very fact they are destroying property and interfering with the ability of other people to go about their normal business unencumbered. Therefore imposing their will upon the rights of others. Criminals, not anarchists. There's a reason authoritarian govt. likes to pervert the term Anarchist.
But the population is free? If so, then they should be able to go about their lives merrily while their govt goes helter skelter (hippy commune).
Hippy communes were not really free. The ones that lacked structure became an oportunity for opression. Think of it like road rules. It is opression. But in general they provide more freedom to use the road than if we remove them.
It's the state governments we need and not the bloated federal government we have.
Exactly and that was the way we were set up so if one didn't like the way their state was going, they could walk with their feet.
With the state governments in charge would you become like Europe as a best case scenario.
A 'criminal' is one who forces their will upon your person or property without your permission, usually inflicting some kind of harm. Criminals function with or without govt and mostly WITHIN govt. Since our representatives seek advantage at our expense.
I also agree 100%. The democrats have pretty much opened the door for all of it.
But not by much...
Government as a nativist employer of last resort. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. Sounds more marxist with a bit of racism salted on it.
Everybody must work for the common good is right wing? Sounds a little more Obama Progressive than right wing to me.
Well that's a weird one that's bound to **** off just about everybody. I certainly wouldn't call it right wing though.
That sounds a lot more like Bernie Sanders than Mitt Romney.
Feel the Bern.
Right wingnuts usually talk about abolishing social security not expanding it.
It's Bernie with lederhosen again.
Only by your definition of the rules. Which anarchists don't have.
Your rights stop when mine begin. It's not about rules. You violate my space or my property, you're a criminal in any book. Except an authoritarian govt. who violates everyone's rights socially and economically.
Say's who? Them? Just cause they say something doesn't make it true. They're just ignorant extremists trying to convince and initiate the unlearned and vulnerable to suit their own racist and authoritarian agenda.
Incorrect! We're already deep into Fascism, Communism and Marxism.
What if we both have equal claim to something then my rights stop past where yours begin. The fence falls down. Who fixes it?Your rights stop when mine begin. It's not about rules. You violate my space or my property, you're a criminal in any book. Except an authoritarian govt. who violates everyone's rights socially and economically.
AND, you're just being contrary for the sake of argument. Must be a boring night there. Lol
