So true. That goes for you Ron Paul.
- YouTube – Shut up Woman Get on my horse! tiki god
- Say What Again tiki god
- Beatles’ Hey Jude with FLOW CHART! nyokki
- Glenn Beck is PWND! nyokki
- rogerebert.com give The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day a single star tiki god
- Deer loses head-butt with Wisconsin lawn ornament tiki god
- Dita Von Teese and the Striptease nyokki
- Must See: Clash Of The Titans Trailer Puulaahi
- Michael Jackson: The Live Seance nyokki
- Beer truck dumps load « Bits & Pieces tiki god
Libertarian Versus Anarchist - October 21, 2007 added by iddqd | Images
|
|
Disclaimer: Unless specifically mentioned in the post, we have no clue where this picture came from. Know where it came from? Post the link in the comments, and reap the glory that is knowledge. All comments are the sole possesion of the commenters and do not reflect the opinions or values of MCS. Related Posts |
12 Comments - “Libertarian Versus Anarchist”
Latest Posts
So untrue. I bet Andy Singer is a Republican…
Very untrue. There is a broad line between wanting no government and wanting a small, limited government.
Phuc that! So what it’s saying then is that the founding fathers were anarchists? We just want the government to stay out of personal matters!
When it all comes down to it, it essentially is the same. Anarchists want no government interference in their lives. Libertarians want government to realize that each person is the ruler of their own lives and should have no one control them
AAK15: Sounds wonderful how you worded it, but the 2 parties are very different. Most Libertarians wish the Government not to but the hell out of our lives, but to follow the Constitution as it is written without changing it to fit whims and fads.
For an example, Unless we are invading another Country, the Constitution states we should not Occupy any part of said Country. So when you look at Japan, Germany, France and any other Country where we have established an American Military Base, a Libertarian would view that as unconstitutional.
Now, an Anarchist would not want a Government, Nor Laws, Nor a constitution, Nothing at all. They would prefer everything breakdown and let the people take care of things on their own (which if you look at California alone, shit would go to hell quick, oh wait, we’re already going to hell. =/)
Anyways, they are hardly the same. At least read a wiki on both before you smear one or the other.
knOxy, you should read more than a wiki.
I just read “Patterns of Anarchy” edited by Krimerman and Perry that is a collection of essays by proponents of anarchy. Anarchy is much more than just letting things “breakdown”. I don’t have the time to even begin to summarize a 600 page book with essays by over fifty contributors, but trust me, there is a lot more intellectual effort in anarchism than just letting things breakdown.
As for the cartoon, massive logic failure. On every level.
reboot, sorry, I guess my failure was trying to summarize for people who don’t read 600 pages worth of essays on a particular subject.
Besides, when you summarize things, there are always things left out. =)
I basically agreed with your post, knOxy. I was just being lazy: it’s easier to discuss a minor difference with someone who obviously knows the subject than it is to discuss major issues with people who are full of sh*t.
Anarchy is a good thing… IN THEORY. With too many extreme left and right winged people, as well as the religious zealots, hate criminals (actually HURTING someone, not just making racist statements), psychopaths, ect, we wouldn’t have a chance of governing ourselves past day one. Anarchy would work, however, if the people it affected were intelligent, open-minded private individuals with little to gain.
Ron Paul FTW. I think that it’s AWESOME that as a OB, he is extremely pro-life (I am pro-choice), yet he wants to make abortion a state-wide legislative issue instead of an entire federal ban.
Ron Paul will destroy our country if he is elected. The point of government is to govern. Granted the government that governs least governs best, but they still must do basic tasks. Pirvatising everything may be a good idea at first, but in practice everything will become way more expensive, with no guidelines or regulations for basic services for things we need most. His renowned “strict constructionist” view of the constitution is very outdated and pointless. Without loose construction, we wouldn’t have highways, the federal reserve, education regulations, and other important agencies. Most strict constructionists are strict constructionists only when that approach leads to a result they like. It is a temporary justification for deciding certain cases a certain way.
Also, getting he supports getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Thats beyond retarded
kn0xy: it sounds wonderful the way you worded it, but thats a very gross summary of the views. If you read beyond a simply wiki article, you’ll find that they are similar in the core beliefs of limited to no government interference in our lives, which is what the cartoon says
So….why for rich people?