Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess i should also answer the thread question before i get reported again.
Im a liberal. I dont believe government can do everything, but i do believe it can do good.
It is not what I said it is what he himself said
Quote:
The "bigness" or "smallness" of government is one variable of measurement. It is not the only one worth entertaining.
I can tolerate public health care, education, parks, libraries, poverty relief and even some characteristically liberal nanny-statism, more than I can tolerate a government dedicated to permanent militarism, hostility toward the world community, rejection of science in favor of religious mass psychosis, enthusiasm for torture, mass incarceration and the like. Even if the second choice has a slightly lower price tag.
Now he has every right to those views, but someone who supports 'liberal nanny-statism' can hardly in the same breath call himself an anarchist. He wouldn't even be able to honestly call himself a libertarian or conservative. Again, he's a garden variety progressive. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.
How can you vote for Democrats and call yourself an anarchist? It's contradictory.
Because the alternative to the Democrats, in the real world, is a pack of evil psychopaths.
You failed to notice the "rational" in "rational anarchist." "Anarchist" means I deny that the state has any intrinsic moral authority. "Rational", to me, means accepting that the state may be an instrumental good in some cases even without possessing intrinsic moral authority. "Rational" also requires appraising one's alternatives realistically.
The Democrats mainly want to achieve ends that, in themselves, are laudable. I may often disagree with using the government to achieve them, but not, ordinarily, with the goals themselves.
The Republicans, in contrast, have goals that nobody should be pursuing--and that's being kind. Take away war fever and religious obscurantism, and the Republican Party really has no reason to exist.
Because the alternative, in the real world, is a pack of evil psychopaths.
You failed to notice the "rational" in "rational anarchist." "Anarchist" means I deny that the state has any intrinsic moral authority. "Rational", to me, means accepting that the state may be an instrumental good in some cases even without possessing intrinsic moral authority. "Rational" also requires appraising one's alternatives realistically.
The Democrats mainly want to achieve ends that, in themselves, are laudable. I may often disagree with using the government to achieve them, but not, ordinarily, with the goals themselves.
The Republicans, in contrast, have goals that nobody should be pursuing--and that's being kind. Take away war fever and religious obscurantism, and the Republican Party really has no reason to exist.
I think the republicans exist to stop the democrats.
This is how I see traditional Washington, democrats say "oooooooo shiney, let's buy that" of course they do that with every single item they see. The republicans are always "we can't afford it, we can't afford it, we can't afford it." The problem now is republicans are starting with the "oooooooooo shiney" and when both parties don't care about the debt they rack up, well, I don't have to explain the problems that will cause.
(Individual liberty; from many, one = assimilation; and societal values from our Judea o-Christian foundation.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.