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.”
I understand that it is a legitimate debate, and I don't claim to know everything about it.
My main problem is that other people seem to think that it is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HAPPEN TO US SINCE GLOBAL COOLING!!!
the hysteria over it has always been my problem. I just feel we should focus more on something that we DO know is a major problem right now instead of something that is still in debate.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead. In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.
According to the mass majority of figures done casualties would have been much larger on BOTH SIDES if we had invaded instead.
So... the bombings saved millions of more lives than an invasion would have.
Actually, in order to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE in our effect on the environment would mean to eliminate ALL uses of carbon emissions. Eliminate ALL uses of paper and plastic. Eliminate ALL uses of any type of oil. Eliminate ALL uses of filtered water (because really, who needs clean water?).
In order for US to make a POSSIBLE difference, it would basically mean to eliminate most of everything that we use EVERY MINUTE.
Simply making hybrid cars and recycling won't do shit.
Not to mention that humans have been through much worse shit than POSSIBLE global warming. What we need to focus on is what we DO KNOW is true. We DID KNOW that Hitler was killing innocent Jews and political prisoners. To me, that's enough. But, unfortunately, the same attitude existed then that exists now "we don't need an unnecessary war". In fact, we didn't fight Hitler until we were attacked by the Japs. Just how we didn't fight Saddam until we were attacked by al-Qaeda. We knew that Saddam was threatening us with nuclear weapons and we knew that he mentioned plenty of times before that he was restarting his nuclear program, but we didn't pay much attention because it would have been considered an unnecessary war. Plus, all the citizens he murdered for shit reasons didn't matter enough either. What it took was an attack from a random enemy who's related somehow. We would have never fought Hitler were it not for Pearl Harbor... Whoa... off topic. But anyway, we knew the bad shit he WAS doing, so it doesn't relate to Global Warming, which still has many different theories.
that's interesting and all, but your mass extinction theory hasn't been proven to the point that WE'RE responsible for it or what direction it's actually going. after all, over the past 100 years the climate has gone up and down.
what we do know for sure is that the economy is currently fucked and needs some major patching up.
the environment can wait till later. or, until some new theory comes up (first global cooling, then global warming, in 20 years we can hope for global time rifts).
When one or two corporations go out of business, i'm totally cool with that. It's social Darwinism in a Capitalist world.
But when banks and health insurance companies are failing and the housing market plummets, millions of people are screwed over by that no matter what. We need to stop that NOW, and focus on environmental issues later.
that's a toughy. I don't give a fuck about Global Warming, but I do think that if we became energy independent it would make life so much easier.
It would also probably help our economy as well.
But since the other side says environment specifically, I find fixing the economy more important. Lets face it, it could always use MORE help. What we need is a Progressive Corporate Capitalist system. I know, the name is long but that's the only hybrid system that I could produce in my head that would WORK and continue our acceleration that Capitalism has successfully done for us so far.
Actually, the incineration of the atmosphere was considered ALMOST impossible, but many scientists were still scared about it happening. Plus, they also felt it likely that the entire state of New Mexico would be destroyed.
Yeah, I forgot to say that it was the test where they thought the destruction would destroy the atmosphere. but they still weren't sure what would happen. and the effects afterward, they had no idea when they dropped it on Nagasaki. They figured there would be some fallout, but nothing like what ended up happening.
And they never even tested their initial bomb, Little Boy, which they just went with because they were pretty sure it would explode.
Nuclear weapons have never been used because all the major nations have them.
When people like Mahmoud and Saddam are threatening to make nuclear weapons, it's hard to stop them when all we have a pea-shooters. Plus, many nations try to do it secretly. Imagine how fucked we'd all be if a nation created the only nuclear weapon (especially a lunatic like Kim Jong Il).
listen, i wasn't calling it evil or stupid shit like that. The fact is, that is part of fascist philosophy whether you like it or not.
That's really what makes up Fascist economics.
and who even suggested that Fascism is evil? it's not Nazism or Communism.
Since they are the ones running the entire business, I find nothing wrong with them deciding how much money they're entitled to.
Minimum Wage to me is a necessary regulation, but lets not get ridiculous here and start controlling all wages. that's fascism.
as Lal said, the increase in minimum wage is a big contributor of inflation. When minimum wage goes up, corporations increase their prices in order to continue paying for that low-level employee. Either that, or they cut back (which ends up ruining a corporation, causing them to go bankrupt which causes thousands of people to lose their jobs...).
an increase EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE is okay, but that is certainly not what happened just before the recession. Congress had passed a bill which was going to cause the minimum wage to increase 3 times in 3 years. that's outrageous. It defeats the purpose of a stable economy.
I sort of agree with you. I think the main problem with minimum wage is that it is constantly being raised. Hell, minimum wage went up 3 times just before the Recession.
But, I still think it wouldn't be right if there was no standard at all. Odds are, some people will get paid practically nothing. Who knows, but a reasonable minimum wage doesn't hurt. The main problem, as stated, is the constant rise of it.
I actually make it my hobby to understand sick people like pedophiles. in a way, they are victims of their desires, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fucking up little kids.
and OJ was never convicted of murder but we can all agree that he is a murderer.
and the worst thing i've ever said? I guess you don't read all of my posts.
wow... I guess you don't know what a joke is... but okay. Jokes don't have to make complete sense, just make a point... the point being that he was a child molester.
and here's the (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/
How will students learn about Evolution and theories on the origin of life?
despite it's controversy, evolution is still the closest to accurate theory on life.
And what creates the truly smart children is the ability and passion to debate such issues. Religious fanatics shouldn't be suing teachers just because they say that Evolution is a valid theory. As long as they don't say that God doesn't exist or shit like that.
I don't think libertarianism is the best mentality. only in certain situations. economically, I'm more of a Corporate Capitalist (which is definitely not Libertarian).
and even so, presenting what a random economist had to say doesn't do much.
i actually agree that middle class deserve more tax cuts than the higher class, but this is because I want more spending for the things Reagan actually DID spend taxes on. I just want to spend even more on it. So that money has to come from the rich. but to improve the economy, the Middle Class need more tax breaks.
In order to have a good credit America has to have a certain amount of debt. I don't know enough about Reagan's spending, though, in order to know if he did it efficiently, though. But debt is good.
But, less government spending is usually good (although, I believe in big government spending for science, education and military).
O RLY? an economist said something about how tax cuts are bad?
let me mention another economist who says that not only are tax cuts good, but Laissez Faire capitalism is the best. In fact, he's one of the most prestige and well known economists of all time. Adam Smith.
Paul Krugman is openly liberal and believes that liberal mentality is the only right mentality. Think of Rush Limbaugh, but as a liberal... you'd get Paul Krugman (with a radio show).
I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh. Like I said, economists all have different views on the economy. We should look more to experience. Reagan's era was a great one for the market. It's possible that he just got lucky, and anyone can argue that forever, but to say that certain economists are against tax cuts makes Reaganomics wrong just kind of ruins the whole debate.
actually, the argument came from scientists with PhDs and Nobel Prizes. And a shit load of them as well.
I know, I don't have the list. Sparsely had it, and I guess I should have bookmarked it, but I didn't...
So i'm left at your mercy to remember Sparsely's post from a long time ago.
no, majority of people are that fuckin' stupid.
at least in politics, politicians are stupid, yes, but they also no the importance of leadership and the POSSIBLE greater good. They know how to analyze their surroundings and use it correctly.
People, in general, or ideological morons. I know, it pains me to admit that people like Obama are not ideologues. On the other hand, those who don't like to play the game (Nader) are ideologues... but luckily they don't get voted in.
Actually, those who win do it from getting the audience (voters) on their side. Plato pointed this problem out. That the people vote for the candidate who they just "like" more (Obama) and not for the more qualified person (McCain).
Hell, even Hitler (the most brilliant politician until Obama) stressed the importance of speech giving and personality. It doesn't matter if you want to extend socialism (Universal Healthcare) while still saying that you believe in private property. As long as you can Doublthink the shit out of your audience.
Also, there's the fact that everyone hated Bush and was definitely not going to vote Republican. So no matter how good McCain could possibly be, it was a given to Obama.
That is how elections work.
But, is Obama that bad? Not really. And neither are any presidents. We see that not EVERYONE can be Reagan, Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and most people would have made the same decision as the other president. In the presidency, you learn a lot of new things. This is why Obama no longer wants to pull out of Iraq just yet. He sees what Bush saw, and it's a real cluster fuck.
With a lottery, we're stuck with people who are TRUE ideologues and they'll live by their promise no matter what. Someone who actually would pull out of Iraq and fuck everything up for the military.
Yes, Obama has done some things like restrict tobacco, close Gitmo, and been apathetic to the situation in Iran, but these are little things compared to the bigger picture. In that, the bigger picture will almost be ALWAYS the same.
The Earth has gone through stages of hot and cold for billions of years now, I don't think the dawn of factories is really what's causing Global Warming. The most close to home hypothesis is that we MIGHT be speeding it up by a few years.
Now, if we are able to CUT DOWN (because we can never eliminate most carbon emissions) it still won't change the fact that most of it will be coming from other nations. So... we won't make a difference, and our lives will be much more inconvenient (refer to descriptions in article).
I do believe in alternative energy mainly because we do need to become independent. But regulating our lives for something that won't do shit is ridiculous and Authoritarian.
Paine was a deist, but he did use Christian propaganda (so did Hitler).
There's no point in having an official language in a FREE country. I think we have to start remembering that America is different from all the other countries. We shouldn't have a structure like everyone else. We're supposed to be rebellious and have limited government. It's what America was born to be. Not just another country with a "pride" in it's culture or religion. We should be proud to JUST be America. We should be proud to be free.
