El 22/03/11 09:51, lelandj escribió: > On 03/21/2011 11:53 PM, Pete Theisen wrote: >> Hi Leland, >> >> Yer old favorite n-word comes back! >> >> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262666/sticks-and-stones-libya-daniel-foster > Anarchy is an absence of government; the state of society where there is > no law, constitution, or supreme power; a state of lawlessness; > political confusion; etc. In this environment, It's ever man for > heself LOL ; although, people will band together for protection in > numbers.
Just to start you on the road of political education. That is not so. Very simplistic. Just an excerpt from wikipedia "*Anarchism* is a political philosophy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy> which considers the state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29> undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society>, oranarchy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy>.^[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-definition-0> ^[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#cite_note-slevin-1> Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority> in the conduct of human relation" There is Anarco Sindicalism, Anarco Socialism, anarco individualism, anarco mutualism, etc.etc. I'd say that anarchism has many contact points with your Republican ideas about extremely limiting or abolishing the interference of the state in people's affairs. Though from a very different perspective. You might read Proudhon, Bakunin (you won't like his ideas), or Stirner among others. But please! Try not to have such a simplistic view of politics, it's not a one dimensional space as they would have you believe, going from right to left. It is a much more interesting world that of political ideas. > I guess the vacuum created by the recent uprising will eventually be > filled, but by who; what? President Obama, and his Administration, > seem to be more about getting rid of Moammar Qaddafi, than about > supporting a particular rebel. Often what emerges form this kind of > chaos is the strongest, most ruthless group will take over the country, > which might be Oaddafi, after all is said and done. > > BTW, President Obama is not a neocon, but he does seems to want Qaddafi > out and to show support for a democratic Libya. He also want to avoid > the atrocities. I think even a hard line, card carrying neocon would > take pause before diving into this Libyan mess. > > There is no standardized definition of Neoconservatism, but President > Obama is diametrically opposite to the general meaning of the term. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
