The primary role of government should be protection. While most of society operates much like a flock of birds or a school of fish, moving together in a subconscious orderly fashion that serves everyone's interests, it would be absurdly optimistic to think that the constitutional rights that we enjoy in modern day agree wouldn't be violated if we all lived in a state of anarchy. I don't think that's necessarily what you mean, but I'm just saying that part of what horrificattack is saying is that society will naturally organize a set of rules to oversee that laws are put in place, enforced and that rights are upheld.

 

A problem with anarchy is it's so difficult to maintain, a certain minority will always try to exploit others and/or try to control and take power over others. You might say this is not unlike the way our modern government controls us today, I suppose the difference is democracy, where the majority decides who they believe is responsible enough to oversee the protection of their rights as opposed to civil war. the majority appointing those to decide what measures are to be taken instead of groups trying to impose their will on individuals through force because anarchy gives them that ability.

 

I also read you guys arguing about anarchy or government being good theories that fail in reality. Well we have yet to find a perfect form of governming people, that may be merely because of the corruption that often accompanies power... Anyway, that line of dialogue echoed something I've believe to be true...only, about socialism or communism. It's an attractive concept to imagine everybody being one big happy, sharing family but it turns to oppression very fast as soon as a government has to force everyone to be unselfish. For the system to work everyone has to have the same group mindset, but people are selfish and individual-oriented, therefore the system crumbles. I think this is often the same with anarchy in that I find it difficult for that type of society to maintain itself on trust alone. Most democratic capitalist societies maintain order, but also a much greater degree of personal freedom than say socialism.

Tnspieler1012, my only contention is that the vast majority of people are solely interested in their own wellbeing, and are willing to think logically to create maximum benefits for themselves.

 

Sure, there are minorities who put aside self-interest in order to hurt others. And there are people who don't always think logically.

 

But on the whole, the % of society that falls into this latter group wouldn't increase if government suddenly vanished! People would still be cooperating, signing contracts, exchanging goods/services, etc. The element of trust would be intact because the alternative - no trust - benefits no one.

 

So ask yourselves: is anarchy extremely idealistic? Or just realistic? I think it's government propaganda that society would suddenly devolve into a state of chaos if we didn't have them around.

Tnspieler1012, my only contention is that the vast majority of people are solely interested in their own wellbeing, and are willing to think logically to create maximum benefits for themselves.

 

Sure, there are minorities who put aside self-interest in order to hurt others. And there are people who don't always think logically.

 

But on the whole, the % of society that falls into this latter group wouldn't increase if government suddenly vanished! People would still be cooperating, signing contracts, exchanging goods/services, etc. The element of trust would be intact because the alternative - no trust - benefits no one.

 

 

But the problem I see is, who will prosecute those who put aside their self interests in order to hurt others within a state of anarchy?

 

So ask yourselves: is anarchy extremely idealistic? Or just realistic? I think it's government propaganda that society would suddenly devolve into a state of chaos if we didn't have them around.

 

I've always found it pretty idealistic much in the way that communism is idealistic in that, if we all were friends, we wouldn't need government. but sadly that isn't the case. I'm not saying the world would go into flames over night, but people will eventually seek a certain established degree of organization even if most of our daily events don't require it.

I understand some of the points you're making. I think there was a recent 20/20 episode that highlighted the financial crisis and how the government keeps screwing things up the more it tries to get involved like in rebuilding new orleans. Personally I would love to reduce the size of government, reduce spending, maybe give more power to the states and less to the federal body...or just do less overall, at least until that quintillion dollar debt is payed off.

Well here, let's look at the current situation and then I'll explain why I expect an anarchic society could easily overcome the problems you describe.

 

Currently we have a police force. Basically it's a bunch of guys who dress up in blue costumes, and they're given guns and clubs. They roam the streets looking for criminal behavior, and when they find it they subdue the criminals and put them in cages.

 

This scenario relies heavily on trust. First, we have to trust that the people in charge of the police (the commissioner, sheriff, politicians, etc) aren't going to use them to execute their own objectives. Second, we have to trust the individual cops won't use their elevated status in society to steal (after all, they aren't paid a lot of money), or frame their enemies for committing crimes. Finally we have to trust that the police won't band together and overtake their employers, creating their own local government!

 

All these things sound silly on the surface (and indeed some of them actually occur) but this is because they occur oh-so-rarely.

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

In an anarchic society, we would still have crime. We'd have murder, rape, etc. This is not a paradise! BUT -

 

The range of methods for preventing criminal activity would be unlimited. First, there would be far better security systems. The private sector has invented all manner of defense - guns, tasers, motion-activated lights, credit cards (rather than cash), cameras, etc.

 

Prosecution of criminals wouldn't be handled by a single corrupt judicial system as it is now. Recall that our current judicial system typically punishes minorities more harshly, and women more leniently.

 

At this point I'm going to describe what Stefan Molyneux calls the "DRO".

 

When two people enter into a contract together, they will first agree upon a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) they are willing to defer to in the event they have a disagreement. The DRO would oversee the contract's signing and warn both parties in advance of the consequences of not meeting its standards.

 

Various DRO's would compete and cooperate when necessary. People would subscribe to the DRO that provides them with the best protection and the least interference in their daily lives.

 

You can hear a lot more detail about an anarcho-capitalist society at http://www.freedomainradio.com

All these things sound silly on the surface (and indeed some of them actually occur) but this is because they occur oh-so-rarely.

 

Sounds reasonably stable to me.

 

The range of methods for preventing criminal activity would be unlimited. First, there would be far better security systems. The private sector has invented all manner of defense - guns, tasers, motion-activated lights, credit cards (rather than cash), cameras, etc.

 

Are guns and home security systems not also available in today's free market?

 

At this point I'm going to describe what Stefan Molyneux calls the "DRO".

 

When two people enter into a contract together, they will first agree upon a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) they are willing to defer to in the event they have a disagreement. The DRO would oversee the contract's signing and warn both parties in advance of the consequences of not meeting its standards.

 

Various DRO's would compete and cooperate when necessary. People would subscribe to the DRO that provides them with the best protection and the least interference in their daily lives.

 

So people violating (what a government-led society would call...) laws are only held accountable if they personally signed a contract listing the conditions of violation with the person they harmed? You say prosecution would be better in an anarchic society, but at the great risk of sounding stupid, what would happen to someone accused of murder?

Are guns and home security systems not also available in today's free market?

 

Your point? Don't we also have private security forces, bodyguards, etc?

 

Today's market isn't free. The government takes half of what people earn.

 

So people violating (what a government-led society would call...) laws are only held accountable if they personally signed a contract listing the conditions of violation with the person they harmed? You say prosecution would be better in an anarchic society, but at the great risk of sounding stupid, what would happen to someone accused of murder?

 

If someone murders a person, both their DROs would have to deal with the liability and bad press. Assuming they weren't insured by the same DROs, the two organizations would have to cooperate to determine the correct course of action. Assuming they haven't discovered the person who committed the act, they'll have to investigate the crime and find enough evidence to show who did it.

 

Remember they are incentivized to prosecute the right guy. If the evidence isn't sufficient, the DRO supporting the accused will lose a lot of business - after all, why register with that DRO if they don't do their best to protect you in a dispute? But if it's clear he committed the crime, the DROs would be equally pressed to issue a fair punishment, one that doesn't scare away customers.

 

This is exactly the same reason people choose to live in America (under our relatively fair justice system) rather than in Iran. But in an anarchic society the process of selecting your DRO would probably be pretty mundane.

 

Finally, DROs would likely farm out their punishment system to a third party business that specializes in labor camps, jails, whatever.

Your point? Don't we also have private security forces, bodyguards, etc?

 

Just sounded like you were making them out to be luxuries only available under an anarchic society is all.

 

In regard to DRO's: What if a criminal isn't registered with a DRO? are they still held liable for damages and the crimes they commit? and who defines what a fair and just punishment is?

 

All in all, the american justice system sounds a lot more comforting, to me at least, than this concept of purchasing justice insurance. Maybe if you pointed out an existing anarchic society that we could all analyze...but I just don't see it as very plausible for an anarchic society of this sort to form and remain anarchic in today's world.

Anarchy doesn't currently exist in any enlightened society because we haven't yet advanced to that stage. Remember we've only recently (in the last few hundred years) gotten to the point where we can have representative government. It's just beginning to become apparent that even representative government can become oppressive by ignoring the constitution it was bound to.

 

I also believe that as technology advances, anarchy will become a more clearly sensible alternative. We may see anarcho-capitalism take hold at some point in the next century, possibly in our lifetimes. The internet is sort of planting the seeds for a widespread demand that government butt out of our lives.

 

In regard to DRO's: What if a criminal isn't registered with a DRO? are they still held liable for damages and the crimes they commit? and who defines what a fair and just punishment is?

 

Not registering with a DRO would be a terrible idea, because nobody would do business with you. That includes your credit card company, or any private business for that matter. You become a liability and you open yourself to possible vigilante activity. Because there's no public land, you wouldn't be welcome in parks or on roads. People would be alerted to the presence of a rogue in their area and DROs would take actions to keep a close eye on you.

 

Your DRO would protect you from these rogues (they'd be few and far between). They would alert all private security forces in the area. If you're attacked by a rogue (they get by the security), you have a right to self-defense because that's written in your DRO contract.

 

All in all, the american justice system sounds a lot more comforting, to me at least, than this concept of purchasing justice insurance.

 

The American justice system is extremely corrupt. The rich can afford better lawyers, minorities are prosecuted at higher rates, people bring frivolous lawsuits, etc. Private justice systems that compete and cooperate would be infinitely better.

Still waiting for a Obama supporter to prove why Barack is a good choice. No one can yet.(which is truly scary)

Still waiting for a Obama supporter to prove why Barack is a good choice. No one can yet.(which is truly scary)

 

 

Alright, ill take up the challenge, but first tell me what would satisfy your definition of proof. Since it really is impossible to prove that a candidate is a good choice until after they have finished their presidency.

*sigh*

 

you stole my idea for a thread, nick :sad: :P. i was making one in the lounge with more poll options (like "if i was an american citizen/of voting age, i would vote for ______") when i thought i should check in here to see if anyone else already had...and you beat me to it!

 

well. i think by my avi you can tell who i voted for :wink: :dance:

Obama is a Harvard Graduate, not a Yale legacy student like Bush. Obama has way more contributions under $200 than McCain. Obama isn't related to one of the old Eastern elites; And Obama cares about the people in Hawaii:P

McCain

McCain

 

A Radioheader who likes McCain?

 

I've seen everything! ;)

A Radioheader who likes McCain?

 

I've seen everything! ;)

 

lol... I think the reason why i'm voting for McCain is, well first of all I like him. I think he's a likeable and honorable person and being a moderate myself, I like the fact that he works party lines and is not confined to his party. Also I feel that with all that is going on today (economy, iraq/afganistan wars, problems in relations with russia, climate change, iran), that I would feel safer with McCain because of his experience.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Obama (if you asked me 1-1.5 months ago i would be for him), but I feel that McCain would be better suited. Either way I think it will be an improvement on what we currently have, and I feel that we should all be united as one country.

Alright, ill take up the challenge, but first tell me what would satisfy your definition of proof. Since it really is impossible to prove that a candidate is a good choice until after they have finished their presidency.

 

His record, what has he done vs what he's said? Or just plain what has he done in the past that has given him any worth? All I see are empty words and broken promises on hes behalf. Along with corruption. Give me something tangible to why anyone should support him, not just words he's spoken(or books "he's" written.)

 

Words are empty, actions should be focused on.

 

So far no one on here has given any solid reason why they support or think Obama will do a good job. I've asked a thousands of times, but all i get in reply is "hope" and "Change", but what is that coming from someone you don't even know about?

 

Change from a corrupt man is meaningless unless he's proven his worth with actions. This is a chance for a Obama supporter to back up what they say with some evidence, yet no one has been able to yet, and that says a lot about Obama and his supporters.

His record, what has he done vs what he's said? Or just plain what has he done in the past that has given him any worth? All I see are empty words and broken promises on hes behalf. Along with corruption. Give me something tangible to why anyone should support him, not just words he's spoken(or books "he's" written.)

 

Words are empty, actions should be focused on.

 

So far no one on here has given any solid reason why they support or think Obama will do a good job. I've asked a thousands of times, but all i get in reply is "hope" and "Change", but what is that coming from someone you don't even know about?

 

Change from a corrupt man is meaningless unless he's proven his worth with actions. This is a chance for a Obama supporter to back up what they say with some evidence, yet no one has been able to yet, and that says a lot about Obama and his supporters.

 

i agree and i must admit that i am guilty to falling for it as well. That's what i loved about hearing him speak was that he spoke so hopefully. for me it was until i realized his lack of experience, and i read up on his policies that i changed my mind.

I'm happy to see you were intelligent, and used wisdom^

 

I admit I started a long time ago on that path, but then I decided to let reason and evidence make the decision for me, not smooth talking. Then I noticed how ignorant his supporters were, unable to even tell me what he's done or what he plans on doing.

 

So much support for someone who hasn't done anything to warrant it.

I'm happy to see you were intelligent, and used wisdom^

 

I admit I started a long time ago on that path, but then I decided to let reason and evidence make the decision for me, not smooth talking. Then I noticed how ignorant his supporters were, unable to even tell me what he's done or what he plans on doing.

 

So much support for someone who hasn't done anything to warrant it.

 

exactly. all the people i talk to keep explaining why he's so good and how he's going to do this and that, but really he has no record to support that. It's really just words. I mean i personally feel that being president does not have to do with being able to make a speech but getting things done and that's why I feel mccain is best because he has a record to support why he is best fit.

His record, what has he done vs what he's said? Or just plain what has he done in the past that has given him any worth? All I see are empty words and broken promises on hes behalf. Along with corruption. Give me something tangible to why anyone should support him, not just words he's spoken(or books "he's" written.)

 

Words are empty, actions should be focused on.

 

So far no one on here has given any solid reason why they support or think Obama will do a good job. I've asked a thousands of times, but all i get in reply is "hope" and "Change", but what is that coming from someone you don't even know about?

 

Change from a corrupt man is meaningless unless he's proven his worth with actions. This is a chance for a Obama supporter to back up what they say with some evidence, yet no one has been able to yet, and that says a lot about Obama and his supporters.

 

well, first of all, back up your claims of corruption. Until you do so, I will assume he is innocent of such allegations.

here are my personal reasons why I support Barack Obama

 

1. Supreme court judges. Experts estimate that at least 2 seats will open up during the next presidency. I believe that the supreme court, after the nomination and confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, there is a definite conservative lean in the Supreme Court. I believe that the ideas that Obama has written spoken and voted for, will lead him to nominate the type of Justice that I believe is needed at the moment.

 

2. He is honest, and is not owned by big oil. Now, some say that there is no guarantee of knowing who are the candidate's true allegiances are. But take this story that hasn't been covered much at all, and really, it is not an important issue but more of a small display of Obama's character. Currently, there is a law-suit from a group of indigenous people in Ecuador against Chevron. During the 1970s when oil was discovered in Ecuador, Texaco (later bought up by Chevron) received government contracts to extract oil from the jungle where these people lived. Texaco knowingly used standards of safety in their waste disposal well below what is safe for humans living there. Cancer and death rates rose significantly among the indigenous people living there. Recently, they filed the said lawsuit against Chevron. Now, this case has received very little coverage, and there was of no political advantage in any way for Obama to 'the then U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman urging the administration to permit the Ecuadoran peasants to have "their day in court."' That to me shows the type of man that Obama is. He is a person of character, integrity and honesty. Qualities much needed in a president to lead right now.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/149090

 

3. His intelligence and organizational skills. Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent man. He attended columbia for his undergraduate studies. And proceeded (after doing a couple of years of community organizing), to study at Harvard Law, one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation, where he graduated Magna cum Laude. He also became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, one of the most respected Law journals in the world. By accounts of his colleagues at the time, he did not alienate the federalists or the liberal members of the review, but he picked the best of both sides, to accomplish his goal of publishing a quality journal. His goals were not to advance an ideology, but to get the optimal result, with optimal efficiency, and surrounding himself with the best people to do so. I am a firm believer that the organizational skills required to run a successful campaign, are of the same kind that are required to be in charge of the presidency. Not many people will argue that his campaign has been one of the best run campaigns in recent memory. And the ground game, which we'll have to see tomorrow how well it works, by all accounts is magnitudes stronger than any seen before.

 

4. His judgment and leadership. When the war against Iraq was being built up, it was not a popular time for a politician to argue against the wishes of the presidency. Senators like Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and countless others, supported the war. None of them, had the vision or the judgment that Obama displayed when he predicted how this war would be an expensive war. How there was no clear goal to be achieved. And most importantly, how it was diverting from the real priorities in the war against al-qaeda. It is only 5 years later that the country has come to realize how right he was. In the recent economic crisis, Obama has displayed the right type of leadership. Ask yourself who the nation looked to for leadership more, Bush, Obama or McCain during the crisis. Bush did nothing, and let Paulson and Bernake do what they deemed appropriate. McCain executed a stunt by suspending his campaign. Obama however, when it came to the meeting of the democratic, and republican leaders of congress (among which were both presidential candidates) and the administration, Obama was the one to take the role of the leader among the democrats and push Secretary Paulson and Bernanke, about what was the best approach and what the consequences and ramifications would be. McCain did nothing but sit silent for 40 minutes until Obama asked him what his views were. Bush did nothing. Now, in the financial crisis, tell me who it was that lead. it was Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

 

5. his work in the Illinois state senate, and his work as a US senator. here I will just provide a list of the legislation that he has authored or co-authored, during his 8yrs in the state senate, and 4 years in the US senate. this was the quickest link i could find, if Dkos is not good enough for you, i'll look for another one. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

 

US senate:

"Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills).

 

Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:

 

Two addressed foreign policy:

Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)

Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).

 

Three addressed public health:

Improve mine safety (2803)

Increased breast cancer funding (597)

Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).

 

Two addressed openness and accountability in government:

Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)

Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)

 

Two addressed national security

Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)

Amend the Patriot Act (2167)

 

One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces

Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).

 

Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:

 

25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change

Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)

Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)

Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)

Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)

Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)

Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)

Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)

Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)

Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)

Alternative diesel standards (3554)

Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)

Renewable diesel standards (1920)

Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)

Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)

Alternative energy refueling system (2614)

Climate change education (1389)

Low income energy assistance (2405)

Oil savings targets (339)

Fuel economy reform (3694)

Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)

Nuclear release notice (2348)

Passenger rail investment (294)

Energy relief for low income families (2405)

 

21 addressed Health Care

Drug re-importation (334)

Health information technology (1262, 1418)

Discount drug prices (2347)

Health care associated infections (2278)

Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)

Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)

Emergency medical care and response (1873)

Stem cell research (5)

Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)

Health centers renewal (901, 3771)

Children’s health insurance (401)

Home health care (2061)

Medicare independent living (2103)

Microbicides for HIV/AIDS (823)

Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)

Gynological cancers (1172)

Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)

Paralysis research and care (1183)

 

20 addressed Public Health:

Violence against women (1197)

Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)

Viral influenza control (969)

End homelessness (1518)

Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)

Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)

Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)

Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)

Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)

Healthy communities (1068)

Combat methamphetamines (2071)

Paid sick leave (910)

Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)

Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)

Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)

 

14 address Consumer Protection/Labor

Stop unfair labor practices (842)

Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)

Internet freedom (2917)

Credit card safety (2411)

Media ownership (2332)

Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)

Working family child assistance (218)

Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)

Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)

FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)

Working families flexibility (2419).

 

13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:

Improve Benefits (117)

Suicide prevention (479)

Needs of homeless veterans (1180)

Homes for veterans (1084)

GI Bill enhancement (43)

Military job protection

Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)

Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)

Military children in public schools (2151)

Military eye injury research and care (1999)

Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)

Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)

Security of personal data of veterans (3592)

 

12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability

Lobbying and ethics reform (230)

Stop fraud (2280)

Legislative transparency and accountability (525)

Open government (2180, 2488)

Restoring fiscal discipline (10)

Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)

Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)

Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)

Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal

contract (674)

Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts

(2147) Resctrictions awarding government contracts (2519)

 

10 addressed Foreign Policy:

Iraq war de-escalation (313)

US policy for Iraq (433),

Divestiture from Iran (1430)

Sudan divestment authorization (831)

Millennium Development Goals (2433)

Multilateral debt relief (1320)

Development bank reform (1129)

Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224).

 

9 address Voting/Elections

Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)

Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)

Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)

Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)

Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)

Election jamming prevention (4102)

Campaign disclosure parity (223)

Presidential funding (2412)

Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)

 

11 addressed Education

Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)

Establish teaching residency programs (1574)

Increase early intervention services (2111)

Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)

Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)

Summer learning programs (116)

TANF financial education promotion (924)

Higher education (1642)

Build capacity at community colleges (379)

Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)

Support for teachers (2060).

 

6 addressed Hurrican Katrina

Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)

Emergency relief (1637)

Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)

Working family tax relief (2257)

Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)

Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)

 

5 addressed the Environment

Drinking water security (218, 1426)

Water resources development (728)

Waste water treatment (1995)

Combat illegal logging (1930)

Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Acountability (1194)

Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Introduced in Senate)[s.726.IS ]

 

4 addressed Discrimination

Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)

Domestic partnership benefits (2521)

Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)

Equality or two parent families (2286)

 

4 addressed Homeland Security

Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)

National emergency family locator (1630)

Amend US Patriot Act (2167)

Chemical security and safety (2486)"

 

Illinois state senate:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Obama is a Harvard Graduate, not a Yale legacy student like Bush. Obama has way more contributions under $200 than McCain. Obama isn't related to one of the old Eastern elites; And Obama cares about the people in Hawaii:P

 

technically Obama is a harvard legacy. His father received his PhD from Harvard

3. His intelligence and organizational skills. Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent man.

 

This is the same argument my uncle uses to explain his support for Obama. It's sort of similar to Plato's contention that the republic must be managed by "philosopher-kings" who are the wisest among us.

Anarchy isn't a "system" in the way government is. This is precisely the reason it is more stable than government ever could be - nobody has a monopoly on violence.

 

Trust is what makes society tick. The vast majority of human interaction is based on voluntary contracts and trust. Government has nothing to do with it. If you choose to not pay your bills, your credit score will take a hit - you pay your bills on time because you want to avoid the inconvenience that comes from a lower credit score, not because someone has a gun to your head.

 

And yes, I feel it necessary to patronize anyone who advocates such a terrible system as centralized government, which has its root in violence.

 

Sorry for the late reply, I went to a strange place called "outside" for a short period

 

Yes I understand the system, I can't re-iterate enough that I know what you are talking about and how I would love to see it put into practice, I can't really put into words what I mean exactly, but forgive me because it is late here.

 

How do you think you could start off an anarchist state now? It would take a lot of work to get people to part with the idea of a government without getting people who would abuse the system.

 

People would probably listen to what you were saying more attentively if you didn't patronise them. Some branches of Anarchism advocate violent revolutions, I assume you aren't one of those types and I agree that's the wrong way to go about things.

RON PAUL 2008

 

 

REAL CHANGE REAL HOPE PROTECTING THE CONSTTUTION AND OUR RIGHTS!

 

 

oBAMA = mc CAIN

 

both C.F.R members both cousins and both related to gw bush both funded by the rothchilds both have the same foriegn and monetary policies both new world order puppets

 

PEACE!