No. I asked you a very simple question and you dodged, again.I'm in favor of words having meaning....You're the one here running the ball for bastardizing of the language...Are you with the rioters and those that enable them, or not?Dude, I'm cross between an anarcho-capitalist and agorist...There's not a proactively aggressive bone in my body, nor in those of the others of my persuasion.Yup. Anarchists allied with Socialists are either liars or useful idiots.Socialist/communists want an all-controlling state in the ehd...Anarcho-communism is a contradiction in terms....The notion that there can be central control with no political controllers at the head of it (i.e. The State) has been disproven with the very existence of Soviet Russia and Maoist China.Speaking of embarrassing yourself. Barr didn't declare these cities to be anarcho-capitalist, they were declared anarchist.Violent leftist goon squads and crackpot politicians aren't anarchists.Sure. A mostly peaceful anarchist murdered President McKinley, the 3rd President assassinated. His assassin started with socialism,, moved on to anarchy, and then to murder. 45 days after the president died, he was sentenced and electrocuted.Real "anarchist jurisdictions" would be a peaceful as could be....Just sayin'.
We're losing the language, folks.
The civil unrest that we’ve been dealing with since May got out of hand because it was being aided and abetted by elected Democratic officials in each of the riot cities. Democrats were perfectly OK with looking the other way and pretending that the riots weren’t happening. It wasn’t until last week that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi got around to condemning the violence, and that was only after new polling revealed that voter sentiment in the riot zones was shifting to Trump.
They'll do it either way.Furious Democrats are considering total war — profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag — if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate.
Fine, then we'll pack the Court next time we are in control, and at some point there will be so many justices that it will no longer be an existential crisis when an octogenarian justice struggling against advanced cancer, dies.
Of course, this has always been part of the Democrats’ plans to give the United States more one-party Soviet Union flair: Democrats were going to do all these things anyway, and the media were just helping them keep it secret. Whether GOP fills the seat or not, if given the power, they will add at least two to Senate and SCOTUS.
Ginsburg’s death is merely another “don’t let a crisis go to waste” moment for the ever-ghoulish Democrats.
These hypocrites are fond of blaming conservative “rhetoric” for a host of problems but they’re out there throwing around the word “war” a lot since Ginsburg’s passing. They don’t really mean war, of course. Most of them would soil themselves if ever confronted by any real opposition. What they want is the permanent marginalization of the Republican Party and any conservative wrongthink. The entire American Left has become totalitarian fascist scum.
One of Trump’s greatest accomplishments is getting Democrats to be so irrationally angry that they can no longer hide their thoroughly un-American intentions.
The new hybrid Democratic-Progressive party is made up of people who are truly unwell.
Imagine a world where the insane ramblings of Granny Boxwine and Chuckie Schumer have more legislative bite. These people shouldn’t be in charge of a goldfish, let alone multiple branches of the United States Government.
They are going to use the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to justify myriad manifestations of leftist insanity in the coming weeks. That Trump and McConnell are both “Game on!” regarding replacing Ginsburg is comforting. Republicans of yore would have folded before the clock struck midnight in the East last Friday.
Bone up on your etymology before you further embarrass yourself.
Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that calls for the abolition of the state. It is usually described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing (libertarian socialism) of the socialist movement and as having a historical association with anti-capitalism and socialism.
That's the violent leftist goon squads and crackpot politicians being taken to task by Trump. Are you for Trump or the violent leftist goon squads and crackpot politicians?
We are under no obligation to fund cities that will not secure the rights of their people. You are aware that the reason we formed the United State was in order to secure the rights of our people?
Now, when you can come up with examples of a completely voluntary stateless society degenerating into such centralized authoritarian despotism, you come give me a jingle.
Anarchy: a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
So the Anarchists would help destroy the State that secures our rights, then the Marxists would take away all of our rights.
All Law Abiding stand against the lawless thugs that are burning our cities and the equally lawless elected Democrats that are enabling them.
You wouldn't know a real anarchist if he/she was sitting next to you.
Do yourself a favor and read some Murray Rothbard.
Are you with the rioters and those that enable them, or not?
Rather than answer, you dodge and play word games, which answers the question. Barr is right about these folks.
Fake News.Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard; all self-proclaimed anarchists...
Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.
If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door—or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages.
The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice—the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
“The Nature of Government,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 108
Take your smug self-righteous condescension and stuff it up your nose. You are wrong, and I gave you Ayn's Book, page number and pull quote. She makes nearly exactly the same point I did.Like I said, pick up a book and learn something.
This isn't rocket science. Pull your head out and THINK!