Anarchistbear said:

---

The literal definition is "without rulers." But there are many branches of anarchy ranging from libertarian to communitarian. Most support resisting the hierarchy and authority of the state; others focus on the destruction of the corporate state and capitalism; others to forming local socialist collectives or worker movements ; yet others worship the individualist, Thoreau/Nietzsche.

---

Sounds like a Thomas Hobbes world to me

wifeisafurd said:

---

... I vote for Trump holding my nose.

---

wifeisafurd, as you probably know, I have a lot of respect for you, so I pose the following question with all due respect: In casting that theoretical future vote for tRump, do you do so discounting the information on the Bill Moyer website as hogwash, or accepting it as true, or primarily true?

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Putting aside his beliefs on immigration, what are the specific qualities of Trump (other than that he represents the GOP) that you admire? This is a safe space so you will not be attacked.

---

i have all sorts of problems with Trump, more with his divisive (if not offensive) style, than his policies (though I'm not crazy about some of them either). But that misses the points of elections. In particular, the propensity of both parties to nominate flawed candidates. So my question is who is Trump running against? If its Clinton again, yes, I vote for Trump holding my nose.

---

Russia has obviously interfered with our election and continues to do so. Removing the question of Trump's complicity in that, when will Republicans demand that we step up and defend ourselves from further attacks on our electoral integrity? That we at least acknowledge it happened at the highest levels?

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

dajo9 said:

---

...This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

I believe the bumper sticker for that reads: "Party over Country".

Quote:

---

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

Well, of course. It's politics. Parties protect themselves, individuals protect themselves. This isn't unique to Republicans or invented in the last 15 months. It's like you're pointing things out like it's a "ahah!" moment, like you discovered plutonium or something. Parties and politicians are non-principled in their outrage (like their partisan constituents)

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

Well, of course. It's politics. Parties protect themselves, individuals protect themselves. This isn't unique to Republicans or invented in the last 15 months. It's like you're pointing things out like it's a "ahah!" moment, like you discovered plutonium or something. Parties and politicians are non-principled in their outrage (like their partisan constituents)

---

I agree with your statement, except as it relates to discounting the actions of a hostile foreign power. Some do not consider Putin/Russia a hostile foreign power. That is another discussion.

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

Well, of course. It's politics. Parties protect themselves, individuals protect themselves. This isn't unique to Republicans or invented in the last 15 months. It's like you're pointing things out like it's a "ahah!" moment, like you discovered plutonium or something. Parties and politicians are non-principled in their outrage (like their partisan constituents)

---

There's just so much wrong with the thinking you've displayed here. Our country is under attack. You are under attack.

Do you remember how Democrats rallied behind GWB after 9/11? In 2001 I was writing a bi-weekly column in a local rag. I was all set to pound GWB on a regular basis. Then, after 9/11 I didn't. Unity in the face of our country being attacked was too important.

The opposite of Hobbes who argued that humans needed an authoritarian sovereign rather than rule themselves. The irony is what people regard as the dog eat dog nature of a world without authority is our current democracy.

Anarchistbear said:

---

The opposite of Hobbes who argued that humans needed an authoritarian sovereign rather than rule themselves. The irony is what people regard as the dog eat dog nature of a world without authority is our current democracy.

---

Democracy is self-rule. Hobbes authoritarian sovereign is a step up from everybody-for-themselves anarchy, where strongest dude takes what he wants.

Lol, strongest dudes are currently taking what they want

Anarchistbear said:

---

Lol, strongest dudes are currently taking what they want

---

Yes, but there is a remedy for that at the ballot box. In anarchy, there is no remedy.

"Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor"
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"

bearister said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

Well, of course. It's politics. Parties protect themselves, individuals protect themselves. This isn't unique to Republicans or invented in the last 15 months. It's like you're pointing things out like it's a "ahah!" moment, like you discovered plutonium or something. Parties and politicians are non-principled in their outrage (like their partisan constituents)

---

I agree with your statement, except as it relates to discounting the actions of a hostile foreign power. Some do not consider Putin/Russia a hostile foreign power. That is another discussion.

---

I think that was Obama who said that, wasn't it? The 1980's called...

You continue to mischaracterize the absence of central authority as mob or no rule. In fact it is self- rule by purer democracy. As we move further away from local and self rule we find that greed and power rules not the people. This is our current state of affairs

Anarchistbear said:

---

You continue to mischaracterize the absence of central authority as mob or no rule. In fact it is self- rule by purer democracy. As we move further away from local and self rule we find that greed and power rules not the people. This is our current state of affairs

---

Can you tell me more about this self rule?

A town meeting, a non profit, a collective, a club, a union, an affinity group. Anywhere where direct democracy is practiced.

When my sky is gray because of car pollution, who do I contact?

When the next town over puts up a dam and takes all my water, who do I contact?

What do you do in your examples: If a neighboring state has different laws for pollution or gun control, which they do? Or if the Colorado is sucked dry which it is? Our current system of states actually rests on principles of anarchy and mistrust of centralized authority.

You deal locally with what you control and attempt to mediate what you can't. You try and be self sufficient.

Anarchistbear said:

---

What do you do in your examples: If a neighboring state has different laws for pollution or gun control, which they do? Or if the Colorado is sucked dry which it is? Our current system of states actually rests on principles of anarchy and mistrust of centralized authority.

You deal locally with what you control and attempt to mediate what you can't. You try and be self sufficient.

---

Thanks for your insights.

I would rather have a state government to help clean the air, as was done for the San Bernardino Valley where I grew up.

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

bearister said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

...This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

I believe the bumper sticker for that reads: "Party over Country".

---

Is it not the case that Republicans have always been $ over country (or, at least, equal to it)?

dajo9 said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Quote:

---

This is the kind of thing that in years past would have sent Republicans into a full rage-spiral, but now they are silent.

---

Well, of course. It's politics. Parties protect themselves, individuals protect themselves. This isn't unique to Republicans or invented in the last 15 months. It's like you're pointing things out like it's a "ahah!" moment, like you discovered plutonium or something. Parties and politicians are non-principled in their outrage (like their partisan constituents)

---

There's just so much wrong with the thinking you've displayed here. Our country is under attack. You are under attack.

Do you remember how Democrats rallied behind GWB after 9/11? In 2001 I was writing a bi-weekly column in a local rag. I was all set to pound GWB on a regular basis. Then, after 9/11 I didn't. Unity in the face of our country being attacked was too important.

Maybe a little more pounding, instead of holding back, might have prevented the invasion of Iraq, with its terrible consequences for millions of innocent people, and the absolute debacle it was for the United States.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

A town meeting, a non profit, a collective, a club, a union, an affinity group. Anywhere where direct democracy is practiced.

---

I think it was one of the founders who said that representative government was necessary if only because we can't all fit into one room

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

Next step will to extend it to foreign nationals so that foreign assassins could legally carry their weapons to carry out their jobs and not hire contractors like Flynn.

Anarchistbear said:

---

What do you do in your examples: If a neighboring state has different laws for pollution or gun control, which they do? Or if the Colorado is sucked dry which it is? Our current system of states actually rests on principles of anarchy and mistrust of centralized authority.

You deal locally with what you control and attempt to mediate what you can't. You try and be self sufficient.

---

That's what led to the Constitution. You're basically describing the Articles of Confederation, which resulted in major economic gridlock because of tariffs imposed by each state. Recognizing that more universal agreement is a necessity in human affairs, the next step, which (amazingly) the Founders actually foresaw, was protection of the minorities in the Bill of Rights (which minorities get easily trampled by mob rule)

The Articles demise was inevitable in the disaster of a post war economy, the ensuing debt, the lack of trade, the lack of a common currency followed by unrest (Shay's Rebellion). It's true at Hamilton's behest more power was given to federalism. But even though the founders were products of the enlightenment they were not great fans of direct democracy, hence the creation of a republic, the electoral college, creation of a"people's chamber" ( The House) and a Leader's chamber, The Senate. Still, pretty brilliant for any time.

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

I think this is unconstitutional. If the court determines it is constitutional, then I believe federalism is effectively dead. The fact that it will pass congress with 100% republican votes in favor of it will be all the evidence anyone ever needed to know that republicans don't truly believe in limits on the federal government or states' rights. Well, to be clear they will still profess to believe in those things in response to democrat policies but it will be harder for them to do so with a straight face. Fortunately for republicans, their constituency doesn't require their justifications to pass the laugh test.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

bearister said:

---

How do you lads like this sticky wicket?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-showdown/

---

I think this is unconstitutional. If the court determines it is constitutional, then I believe federalism is effectively dead. The fact that it will pass congress with 100% republican votes in favor of it will be all the evidence anyone ever needed to know that republicans don't truly believe in limits on the federal government or states' rights. Well, to be clear they will still profess to believe in those things in response to democrat policies but it will be harder for them to do so with a straight face. Fortunately for republicans, their constituency doesn't require their justifications to pass the laugh test.

---

THIS is what finally signals to you that federalism is dead???? Again, selective (and unprincipled) outrage indeed.

Not requiring justification to pass a laugh test is only unique to one ideological segment of the country???? K.

AunBear89 said:

---

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and implements/supports racist and misogynistic policies like a duck...

---

Like?

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n20/deborah-friedell/tycooniest

If you don't know by now, then you are either willfully ignorant or just not very bright.

I'll let you decide which you are. Either way, you are Cheeto Benito's dream voter.