As many of you know, these forums are swarming with Liberals. Tat is why I am calling all Conservatives out of hiding to unite against these Leftists. I have been asked why I just don't concede and let them have their party, and I said this:
It may be a hard fight, but this "Alamo" is still defendable. Just because we are greatly outnumbered doesn't mean we should just give up.
"The easiest way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Winston Churchill
All Conservatives!!! We must come together and stand up for what is still good in the world and fight the Leftist bias!!!
The last time I checked, that wasn't the meaning of anarchy...
Anarchy is having no governing body, A.K.A., no one to tell you what to do, correct?
As long as there is government, even a conservative one, they'll have control over you. I don't mean to sound offensive, but the more you post, the more extremist you sound. If you honestly think that getting a bunch of people together on a gaming site will somehow help the conservative ideology win the "good war", then go for it. I just don't see a point.
And to be entirely fair, the 'natural end result' or a free market approach (as is often advocated by conservatives such as yourself) is ultimately anarchism just as the 'natural end result' of and socialist policies is communism (both being from an idealistic stand point).
And to be entirely fair, the 'natural end result' or a free market approach (as is often advocated by conservatives such as yourself) is ultimately anarchism just as the 'natural end result' of and socialist policies is communism (both being from an idealistic stand point).
A conservative economic stance calls for a competetive market. While we believe that the best way to accomplish this is through a 'free market approach,' there need to be limited regulations to prevent the emergiance of monopolies which would destroy the concept of competitive markets.
And to be entirely fair, the 'natural end result' or a free market approach (as is often advocated by conservatives such as yourself) is ultimately anarchism just as the 'natural end result' of and socialist policies is communism (both being from an idealistic stand point).
Wrong. Free market economies are not anarchies. They could be consedered "economic anarchies" in the fact that the Government does not impose excessive restrictions on the private sector, but the Government still plays a vital role in keeping law and order if things get out of control and/or people get stupid with their money. By your loose definition of Anarchy, the 13 colonies at the beginning of the 18th century were all anarchies. The British rule was laxed, and less economic restrictions allowed trade to mushroom. All of the colonies prospered as a result. Would you call this anarchy?
You just contradicted yourself. This is a battle of ideologies, not just "olitics". I don't want anyone running my life and telling me what to do. That's what this is about. And to get to the top, you have to start at the bottom. This is where it all starts. At the bottom.
Yeah, but there is no need to insult people, people are completely human enough to comprehend sensible conversation and not shove peoples Ideology down each others throats! Thats why we made this friggin' democracy!
Your Words isn't worth others fights. Honestly your statements are stupid and if you want to speak about non-American that is non-American, fighting what our fathers fought before us.
Anarchy is no government, by pure definition. And saying you don't want some1 ruling you is no government. So technically you have to have some limits if you plan to have that "No ruler" tell me that there shouldn't be abortion.
Wrong. Free market economies are not anarchies. They could be consedered "economic anarchies" in the fact that the Government does not impose excessive restrictions on the private sector, but the Government still plays a vital role in keeping law and order if things get out of control and/or people get stupid with their money. By your loose definition of Anarchy, the 13 colonies at the beginning of the 18th century were all anarchies. The British rule was laxed, and less economic restrictions allowed trade to mushroom. All of the colonies prospered as a result. Would you call this anarchy?
Yeah, then we took over and made a completely unregulated government on the Articles of Confederation (pre-constitution) which included absolutely no regulation of trade, no taxes, no executive or judicial branch. We had total anarchy. And that ended with the Shay's rebellion of farmers and producing factors which corrupted our government. Then we decided to create the constitution for the federalist, then the anti-federalist writ the Bill of Rights and the nation prospered until we became greedy and here we are with a "every body get rich" republican canidate.
Guess what, After 17 trillion in dept where every1 has 44K dept to the government, I think government regulations and taxes are probably better than monetary downfall.
Sure, politicians may be greedy, but the ideology itself has nothing to do with it.
Also,
Anarchy (from Greek: αναÏÏία anarchÃa, "without ruler" may refer to any of the following:
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1] * "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2] * "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3] * Without government or law
By your loose definition of Anarchy, the 13 colonies at the beginning of the 18th century were all anarchies...Would you call this anarchy?
If there was no authority over the people by any form of government, then, by definition, yes. But since there was control of the colonies by the British, a little twist is required to consider it anarchy.
A conservative economic stance calls for a competetive market. While we believe that the best way to accomplish this is through a 'free market approach,' there need to be limited regulations to prevent the emergiance of monopolies which would destroy the concept of competitive markets.
This is true, which I stated that both perspectives come from an ideological, rather then realistic standpoint. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work at all, though it is in essence the purest form of free market economics.
Wrong. Free market economies are not anarchies. They could be consedered "economic anarchies" in the fact that the Government does not impose excessive restrictions on the private sector, but the Government still plays a vital role in keeping law and order if things get out of control and/or people get stupid with their money. By your loose definition of Anarchy, the 13 colonies at the beginning of the 18th century were all anarchies. The British rule was laxed, and less economic restrictions allowed trade to mushroom. All of the colonies prospered as a result. Would you call this anarchy?
No, it wasn't anarchy, and it wasn't a complete free market economy either because such a free market economy would have no government whatsoever.
I agree, all of the fights in politics lead back to greed.
This is unfortunately true. Which begs the question how do we conquer human greed? Is the only solution to improve humanity to make our selves inhuman?
