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'm confused. The media isn't talking about anarchists, but anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
If anarchy meant “no rules”, then yes, that would lead to disorder. The strict Greek definition of anarchy is no rulers - An = no, Arch/Archon = ruler. Anarchy = no ruler(s).
Everyone has the equal right to defend themselves, others, and their property from aggressors. Since you have that right, you can also hire/delegate that right to someone else to do that for you. There aren’t any rulers in that scenario, so it’s technically anarchy. The “ruler” comes into existence when they’re granted special rights that no one else has - they’re given permission to be aggressors against people and their property in the name of the common good, so called.
The frustrating part is when Marxists-in-disguise go around destroying property and think that has anything to do with self-ownership, property rights, or using force strictly defensively.
Defunding police departments? Allowing looting and rioting to go unchecked? Encouraging assaults on police officers?
The democrat party has morphed into an insane collection of idiots who want to institute mob rule and tribalism in America.
If the dems had their way, every US city would look like Mogadishu, in which war lords preside over the population with violence and feudal order.
They didn't morph. They let the Progressives/Socialists take over.
Those groups aren't stupid. They know they will never get a foot into the door of politics so they had to take over the Dem Party so they can rise to power.
I honestly don't understand how they think this platform can appeal to anyone! When one's safety is threatened, that becomes the ONLY issue they vote for---all ideology, party loyalty, and platitudes go out the window. I will vote for the person who doesn't green light riots, get rid of bail (like Cuomo has done) or dismantle law enforcement.
Because without law and order, how do you go about life? Hire private security to go to the grocery store???
De-legitimizing law enforcement is massively insane and will hand the election to Trump--when all they had to do was come up with a common sense platform and a functioning candidate. They will continue to churn out fake poll after fake poll saying that people are okay with this, but NO ONE I know is. Not one person.
I used to be a Democrat. I am now a registered independent. I voted for Trump in 2016. Although I like a lot of his policies, I dislike his personality intensely. His communication style is generally terrible, he does a poor job of getting his message across with out getting side tracked, petty, and vindictive, he doesn't know when he goes too far, and although there are times he should be a fighter and disruptor, he tends to fail during the times he needs to be a uniter. If the Democrats had nominated a centrist like Jim Webb, and if they advocated for even half the policy issues I consider important, I would almost certainly vote for the Democrat. But seeing what they have turned into, I really can't see myself voting for any Democrat for any political office for the forseeable future. A vote for Biden will give carte blanche to the craziest, most hateful, vindictive, leftist, fascist interest groups out there. I just can't. I don't like the Republicans either, but I have no choice. The Democrats are far, far worse.
If anarchy meant “no rules”, then yes, that would lead to disorder. The strict Greek definition of anarchy is no rulers - An = no, Arch/Archon = ruler. Anarchy = no ruler(s).
Everyone has the equal right to defend themselves, others, and their property from aggressors. Since you have that right, you can also hire/delegate that right to someone else to do that for you. There aren’t any rulers in that scenario, so it’s technically anarchy. The “ruler” comes into existence when they’re granted special rights that no one else has - they’re given permission to be aggressors against people and their property in the name of the common good, so called.
The frustrating part is when Marxists-in-disguise go around destroying property and think that has anything to do with self-ownership, property rights, or using force strictly defensively.
In this case, when the media is discussing anarchy, they're not talking about no rules or nor rulers. They're talking about a state of disorder due to a nonrecognition of authority.
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.
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.
