Under your description, it's NOT anarchy... you basically described Marx's dream.
Anarchy is elimination of State, authority, and government. Basically, any structure of laws or authority would be anti-anarchy.
This does not guarantee the elimination of Capitalism. If we talk about Laissez Faire Capitalism, all it is is unregulated business. Under Anarchy, this is most possible. This would mean that anyone can run their own business... they just have to keep safe from thieves and random jackasses with bombs who do hate business.
Anarchy works in the sense that everyone is left to themselves. You protect your own shit, there's no government to protect you. No contracts either, that's only under "Anarcho-Capitalism". Basically, nothing to enforce anything but yourself. All's fair, but all sucks. But, it's completely fair and can basically work. No one's discriminated against because there is no authority to discriminate.
Anarchy's only bad if you wish to have order...
No, not more regulation. The fact was, corporations were already regulated. In fact, the overseers to the financial businesses were ENCOURAGING bad loans, which caused the major failure in most of our economy. Bad loans are bad for business. What government needs to focus on is placing their goals more on making the business stronger, instead of trying to help people who are too poor to afford a home.
What we need is oversight with corporatist intention instead of socialist intention.
Capitalism with Corporate oversight would be better.
It's pretty close to what we have now, except what we had WAS regulated capitalism... and it caused the Recession.
What we need is government, if they're going to overseer Capitalism, is do it with Corporatist intent. That is, making sure Corporations make decisions that keep them going. Of course, this being Corporations as major as the banks. Car companies... screw them.
well, in the non-pacifist sense, is it winnable?
Like, we won WW2 even though we lost soldiers. That way. Is it winnable?
Militarily, it surely is (that's actually why I said "militarily". Because there's always something that gets fucked up).
Militarily they surely are. The problem is that our main goal (Iraqi Freedom) is very hard to accomplish, especially with the limited amount of troops that we have. Too many people in reserve, not enough on the battlefield. Also, there seems to be a lack of focus on attacking the main al-Qaeda leaders. We also need to focus on educating the Iraqi people. It's good that we give them care packages, but we also need to educate them and possibly eliminate most of their media services (since all they do is show films like Redacted and Fahrenheit 9/11 and quote people in America who say we're a torture nation as recruitment tools). We need to get the CIA more involved (if they aren't already, technically, we can't know about shit like that).
But as I said, militarily it's pretty easy. In fact, having both Iraq and Afghanistan gives us a major advantage if we ever go into Iran. And, it'll be good if we declared a World War. That way, we'll fix the economy while completely obliterating the enemy.
mainly because you act as if the amount of that we expel really are enough to automatically create warming. That somehow trees and plants stop doing their job. That, in fact, us humans are doing more than nature has EVER done in natural history.
and i forgot to say who said that:
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko who's the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
Doubt is actually very reasonable, especially when someone is willing to put more hysteria into an idea than they would into a well known fact where people are starving and dying in gutters.
Sorry if i got bigger problems.
the consensus is still valid and shouldn't just be dismissed because the independent scientists weren't part of some organization.
The points are simple. I don't care about which party believes in what. I disagree with Republicans on many things, and sometimes even think that they care more about corporations than they do about our lives. But the science behind global warming doesn't support that much that HUMANS are behind it. So why should there be so many unnecessary regulations and restrictions that only hurt us if we got bigger problems, like, failing banks and housing market.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
