Forum Post: anarchists vs liberals
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 2, 2012, 10:59 a.m. EST by assasin7
(29)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Through the best of times, Through the worst of times, Through Nixon and through Bush, Do you remember '36? We went our seperate ways. You fought for Stalin. I fought for freedom. You believe in authority. I believe in myself. I'm a molotov cocktail. You're Dom Perignon. Baby, what's that confused look in your eyes? What I'm trying to say is that I burn down buildings While you sit on a shelf inside of them. You call the cops On the looters and piethrowers. They call it class war, I call it co-conspirators.
'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist, You're a spineless liberal. We marched together for the eight-hour day And held hands in the streets of Seattle, But when it came time to throw bricks Through that Starbucks window, You left me all alone.
You watched in awe at the red, White, and blue on the fourth of july. While those fireworks were exploding, I was burning that fucker And stringing my black flag high, Eating the peanuts That the parties have tossed you In the back seat of your father's new Ford. You believe in the ballot, Believe in reform. You have faith in the elephant and jackass, And to you, solidarity's a four-letter word. We're all hypocrites, But you're a patriot. You thought I was only joking When I screamed "Kill Whitey!" At the top of my lungs At the cops in their cars And the men in their suits. No, I won't take your hand And marry the State.
'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist, You're a spineless liberal. We marched together for the eight-hour day And held hands in the streets of Seattle, But when it came time to throw bricks Through that Starbucks window, You left me all alone.
The problem is with throwing bricks ... cops have guns (so we can't win that kind of war). Put another way, brick throwers either lack impulse control or lack intelligence, in either case, stay home.
we're not interested in your macho violence! if your not happy with ows start your own movement and confront the state at what they do best.
Who's to say what OWS represents? We don't have any leaders or any stated goals. OWS is just as much a liberal movement as it is a anarchist movement or a conservative or libertarian movement.
OWS is anarchistic in form. Anti-authority, advocates revolution, leadersless, non-hierarchical structure, direct democracy - all anarchist principles. This movement was started by a well known anarchist, David Graeber, as an experiment for direct democracy.
I have a feeling that those people who wear black and brake stuff are not real anarchists. Or have they have forgotten what they were fighting for? If remember corecctely Anarchy is about not having any leaders? How does braking things show that people are going to create a society of the people not led by anybody? Anarchy like any other idea can not be implanted throuh violence! These black wearing persons play the media's game and make the people think that anarchy is about chaos! But in actuallity it is not, anarchy is about people finding stability and freedom through themselves without leaders. Because if we look at our leaders in general throughout history, where have they led us? Why have we followed? Why do we still follow? Anarchy is about following ourselves "the people". That is what I see.
i don't agree with this post i just posted it to give a not often herd view poit
That is not a problem, I am open to any point of view and you should not limit yourself to only posting what you believe. All view points are interesting.
this fake brick thrower does not represent true anarchists - here is a bit of noam on violence - NOAM CHOMSKY: My general feeling is that this kind of question can't be answered in a meaningful way when it's abstracted from the context of particular historical concrete circumstances. Any rational person would agree that violence is not legitimate unless the consequences of such action are to eliminate a still greater evil. Now there are people of course who go much further and say that one must oppose violence in general, quite apart from any possible consequences. I think that such a person is asserting one of two things. Either he's saying that the resort to violence is illegitimate even if the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil; or he's saying that under no conceivable circumstances will the consequences ever be such as to eliminate a greater evil. The second of these is a factual assumption and it's almost certainly false. One can easily imagine and find circumstances in which violence does eliminate a greater evil. As to the first, it's a kind of irreducible moral judgment that one should not resort to violence even if it would eliminate a greater evil. And these judgments are very hard to argue. I can only say that to me it seems like an immoral judgment.
Now there is a tendency to assume that a stand based on an absolute moral judgment shows high principle in a way that's not shown in a stand taken on what are disparagingly referred to as "tactical grounds." I think this is a pretty dubious assumption. If tactics involves a calculation of the human cost of various actions, then tactical considerations are actually the only considerations that have a moral quality to them. So I can't accept a general and absolute opposition to violence, only that resort to violence is illegitimate unless the consequences are to eliminate a greater evil.
With this formulation, however, one moves from the abstract discussion to the context of concrete historical circumstances where there are shades of gray and obscure complex relations between means and ends and uncalculable consequences of actions, and so on and so forth. Formulated in these terms, the advocates of a qualified commitment to nonviolence have a pretty strong case. I think they can claim with very much justice that in almost all real circumstances there is a better way than resort to violence.
i already said i do not agree with the song, i was just pointing out a view point that is not always heard. i believe that a revolution is immoral for it negates the rights of those who disagree, which is one the cornerstones of my opposition to the state, i instead advocate both intellectual and physical secession from the state, followed by self defense from the state, if necessary, i never support offense unless it is necessary to prevent a statist attack, and that no innocents will be harmed.
this of course precludes self defense, if a cop attacks me i will defend myself. i would never smash starbucks because 1) it would hurt the workers and manager 2) it would not hurt the evils of state corporatism 3) it would serve as nothing but a propaganda point against voluntarism
self defense is all well and good but you do not stand much chance against the state -not this state anyway - unless you have access to anti aircraft weapons - against the cop you have a bit better chance but most likely you will just get more beat up. to me this seems like too much nonsense - this talk. we have many better ways of attacking the problems - focus on the real work - organizing and educating the working class - maybe this will point the way? i chopped it up since it was too long but you get the idea. .......Bread and Roses, 100 Years On By Andy Piascik
One hundred years ago, in the dead of a Massachusetts winter, the great Bread and Roses strike began. Accounts differ as to whether a woman striker actually held a sign that read We Want Bread and We Want Roses, Too. No matter. It’s a wonderful phrase, as appropriate for the Lawrence strikers as for any group at any time—the notion that, in addition to the necessities for survival, people should have “a sharing of life’s glories,” as James Oppenheim put it in his poem “Bread and Roses.” Though 100 years have passed, the Bread and Roses strike resonates as one of the most important in U.S. history. Like many labor conflicts of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the strike was marked by obscene disparities in wealth and power, open collusion between the state and business owners, large-scale violence against unarmed strikers, and great ingenuity and solidarity on the part of workers. In important ways, though, Lawrence was also unique. It was the first large industrial strike, the overwhelming majority of the strikers were immigrants, mostly women and children, and the strike was guided in large part by the revolutionary strategy and vision of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). It is noteworthy that the Occupy movement shares many philosophical and strategic characteristics with the Lawrence strike—direct action, the prominent role of women, the centrality of class, participatory decision-making, egalitarianism, an authentic belief in the principle that We Are All Leaders, to name just a few. During the two months of the Lawrence strike, the best parts of the revolutionary movement were expressed. And, as the attempt at a general strike in Oakland and solidarity events—such as in New York for striking Teamsters—indicate, many in Occupy understand that the working class is uniquely positioned to challenge corporate power. While we deepen our understanding of what that means and work to make it happen, there is much of value we can learn from what happened in Lawrence a century ago.Bread and Roses, 100 Years On By Andy Piascik
One hundred years ago, in the dead of a Massachusetts winter, the great Bread and Roses strike began. Accounts differ as to whether a woman striker actually held a sign that read We Want Bread and We Want Roses, Too. No matter. It’s a wonderful phrase, as appropriate for the Lawrence strikers as for any group at any time—the notion that, in addition to the necessities for survival, people should have “a sharing of life’s glories,” as James Oppenheim put it in his poem “Bread and Roses.” Though 100 years have passed, the Bread and Roses strike resonates as one of the most important in U.S. history. Like many labor conflicts of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the strike was marked by obscene disparities in wealth and power, open collusion between the state and business owners, large-scale violence against unarmed strikers, and great ingenuity and solidarity on the part of workers. In important ways, though, Lawrence was also unique. It was the first large industrial strike, the overwhelming majority of the strikers were immigrants, mostly women and children, and the strike was guided in large part by the revolutionary strategy and vision of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). It is noteworthy that the Occupy movement shares many philosophical and strategic characteristics with the Lawrence strike—direct action, the prominent role of women, the centrality of class, participatory decision-making, egalitarianism, an authentic belief in the principle that We Are All Leaders, to name just a few. During the two months of the Lawrence strike, the best parts of the revolutionary movement were expressed. And, as the attempt at a general strike in Oakland and solidarity events—such as in New York for striking Teamsters—indicate, many in Occupy understand that the working class is uniquely positioned to challenge corporate power. While we deepen our understanding of what that means and work to make it happen, there is much of value we can learn from what happened in Lawrence a century ago.
Several days after the strike began, workers in Lawrence contacted IWW’s national office for assistance and Joe Ettor and Arturo Giovannitti were dispatched from New York to help organize the strike. Though Ettor would spend most of the two-month strike—as well as the rest of 1912—in a Lawrence prison, the work he did in the strike’s early days was indispensable. Radiating confidence and optimism, “Smilin’ Joe” had the workers form nationality committees for every ethnic group in the workforce. The strike committee consisted of elected reps from each group and meetings, printed strike updates, and speeches were translated into all of the major languages.
In addition to the democratic nuts and bolts, Ettor brought an unshakable belief in the workers to the strike. The IWW had a faith in the working class that is markedly different from the often self-serving proclamations of union organizers of today who are mostly out to build their organizations. In contrast, Ettor displayed a fundamental belief in the ability of workers to do for themselves. He, Giovannitti, and, later, Bill Haywood and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, made every aspect of the strike a learning experience. As the strikers worked to achieve greater power in the short term by winning their demands, many came to see that the society could not function without workers and that there was no job or task that was beyond the collective skill of the working class. Ettor, Haywood, and Flynn also provided a vision of workers managing society, underscoring that it was an achievable goal. Without ever downplaying the particularities of the strike or of the strikers’ lives, they proclaimed their opposition to the capitalist system and encouraged the Lawrence workers to explore what that meant. In practice, the vision of a new world played out in the decision-making process, the support services the strikers established with the help of contributions from around the country (soup kitchens, food and fuel banks, medical clinics, free winter clothing and blankets) and in direct action on picket lines, in the courts, during the strike’s many rallies and parades, and in the IWW’s insistence that all negotiating be done directly by rank and filers.
Perhaps the most important of the IWW’s contributions was its emphasis on solidarity. The only way to victory, they emphasized, was unity and the only way to unity was to respect the language and culture of each nationality. Ettor, Haywood, and the other Wobblies understood that solidarity did not mean dissolving differences, it meant enriching the experience of all by creating space for each to participate in their own way. They encouraged the workers to view each other that way and emphasized again and again that the only people in Lawrence who were foreigners were the mill owners (none of whom lived in town). With each passing day, the strikers’ solidarity increased. They came to understand that solidarity was not just the only way they could win the strike, it was also the only way to build a better world.
now would be a good time to say i'm a voluntary socialist, as in i would set up a commune but also die for the rights of ancaps. i believe in the non aggression principle, and the voluntary association principle. I would never force socialism on people, like they did in spain, i believe in secession of the individual and the community, creating counter state networks of mutual aid, counter economics, and resistance. These communities would become fully autonomous via less and less state intervention.
have you read orwell's "homage to catalonia"
reading it right now for the second time, its what caused me to be an anarchist at first. thought it does undercut the violence used by the C.N.T who were most likely the most atrocious faction in the war.
Violence begets violence. Nothing good comes from violence.
Agree
DIdn't we use violence to take down Hitler and the concentration camps?
Clever. Yes and the response to his violence brought down how many people? I think something like 60 million people died in total in WWII.
No you're clever. I'm glad you didn't bring up the fact that it was started by aggressions from Germany.Yup but it brought about the end of a very intelligent man who was seeking the end of western society as it was known at the time.
I take it back. You're not clever.
Because I said he was intelligent? He was a very intelligent man just not all there.
Okay. You're still clever.
Thank you I think.
[Removed]
everything government does is based on violence, i have reason to be afraid of the police, they have proven that they will kill or assault there enemies whenever they have a reason. attacking a cop is like attacking a gang member or invader
So, even if that is all true, it doesn't make violence a good thing, does it? You wouldn't want to stoop to their level, would you?
yes, but i have the right to defend myself, don't i. and seeing a cop in my neighborhood is like seeing a gangbanger, house thief, or invading army in my neighborhood. because of this i believe that it is okay to attack a cop, but only if the attack would 1. have a large chance of success, and would do damage to the larger system and 2. have little or no chance of harming innocents
No no no. Cops are not all bad (some are stupid and bad, yes, but not the majority). They are human too. Please try to walk in their shoes for a minute. Never attack a cop. Even if you are attacked. Do not attack back. Don't get yourself in that position in the first place.
If the cops try to take me down for smoking pot, or drinking at 14 i'll defend myself, the police are the fist of the state. my security comes from 4 things
If you are only 14 you shouldn't be smoking pot or drinking and you sure as hell shouldn't have a gun. Find peace. Drugs and alcohol just make your life hell. Violence is never the answer. Ever. Love yourself. Take care of yourself.
I own myself, I Ian Hartman have the sole right to decide who Ian Hartman should live Ian Hartman's life. I think it is good for my property (myself) to drink alcohol for strength and to party. I think smoking weed will help with my righting and theorizing, and i think i will be safer if i get a gun off silk road. No one else has the right to tell me what to do, except if i hurt them, or by extension there property.
Okay, well good luck then. I wish you well. I really do.
[Removed]
Anarchists oppose the state because it is violent. We do not engage in violence except in self defense. Stop pretending to be an anarchist already.
i don't agree with this post i just posted it to give a not often herd view poit
[Removed]
Hey A-7 this is about the people (99%) of the U.S. taking back their (the public) owns wealth and resources from a few (1%) in a controlled fashion................ and putting enforceable controls in place for a mainstream financial system, national healthcare system , healthier environment and food supply system. We are smart enough to achieve these goals in a non-violent way.
i thought it was the 99% if that's true than all views held by at least one member of the 99% should be heard. i am of the 99% and i don't believe in enforceable controls for the mainstream financial system or a national health care act, so your not the 99%, don't speak for us
Anarchy was never a good name for concepts like democratic capitalism (that seeks minimal hierarchical structure, worker owned companies, and the like). Using proper grammar really would compliment these ideas much better.
You have a nice website Zendog "...and it's clickable ...". I cannot add further to your comments above, except to wonder if the darker side of human nature, reflected in Assasin7's post, is not the one reason for the failure of anarchist principles. And if that is the case, then it is also the one reason for failures in liberal policies? Are we doomed by denial of our own natures? I see many appropriate criticisms in this FORUM of the "other guy" and great offense expressed when any criticism is returned.
Don't be shy man. What are you trying to say? Spit it out. Go ahead.
By your many posts and comments, Zendog, I'm certain that you have studied and practiced the Socratic method. People generally accept better their own answers. I try to ask relevant questions, and while do have candidate answers of my own, prefer to be either surprised by the thoughtful answers that come back, or to be encouraged by answers similar to my own. The only real discouragement is to earn indifference.
Um - just for clarity -
I did take a single class in the art of Persuasion, which used the textbook
I didn't like that text, there is advocacy of deceit - so long as you provide cues of your deceit to your audience. Some of the justification stems from the legal system and the principle that every defendant is entitled to defense.
I have studied a bit of Greek history, just because I have found it fascinating - but it wasn't a subject of formal study.
I think a sizable measure of the failure of liberal policy is the ability of the opposition to capitalize on traits like kindness and compassion that are endemic to the Liberal camp.
There are too few Machiavellis among us - which may be a good thing - but if you can't think that way it makes it difficult to identify the moves of your opponent.
Thank you Zendog, no one can honestly accuse you of indifference.
Liberals do seem to have in common the greater readiness to express and to exercise kindness and compassion. Yet you say that the [liberal] opposition fails to capitalize on these traits? Do you mean that liberals, or liberal progressives, cannot create the processes and policies that further the welfare of others?
A potential dark side of a liberal attitude could also be self-righteousness. Particularly if we get reinforcement from similar personalities. Self-righteousness can lead to all kinds of drastic mistakes.
By the way, the best known proponent of the Socratic Method was probably Plato, but he gave us rather contrived examples of its practice, that rarely turn out so well in reality!
no noo - what I said was:
What I mean is that liberals - generally - can be led astray by the likes of carl with a K rove.
yeah-ya.
guilty
There is so much bullshit in the air it's impossible to keep up. Thanks to the various campaigns of disinformation you have to fact check every single little thing, and the wingnuts on both sides pander to hysteria.
It's absolutely crazy, we need practical solutions, and none of the solutions are coming from repelicans. They want more deregulation and no government.
I've seen pictures of the Nigerian Delta - no thanks.
Thanks for the clarification. "by the likes of a Karl Rove" and a George Bush.
"[The republicans] want more deregulation ..." Yes, but I was not so fond of regulation either when I was 14. Now regulation is obviated by advancing age. Perhaps one solution to regulation is diminishing opportunity. Is this implementable?
. . . . repelicans . . . . repelicans . . . .
Not sure what you mean by diminished opportunity - we definitely need to diminish the opportunities to either
sabotage the functioning of government
sabotage the functioning of the economy
deliberate or otherwise.
Yes, that is the basic idea. I only have a few themes. One of them is to make it difficult in our social system for people (good or bad) to do bad things to other people (intentionally or inadvertently). The theme, diminishing opportunities for rapscallion behavior, I believe is fundamental to our Constitution. An example of diminishing an opportunity as a solution to a regulation requirement is the cookie jar. In our house, we have several cookie monsters, myself among them. Rather than attempting to regulate the consumption of cookies, we simply keep only enough cookies in the jar for one desert.
How could this approach be applied to Congress or to the economy? Well, if Congressional representatives could only serve one term they could not be corrupted by campaign contributions (it would not pay to pay them in advance). At the present, voters must exercise some discipline in maintaining this one-term policy regardless of the mount of money invested in advertising. With regard to the economy, consumers could avoid bank servitude by cutting up all of their credit cards, and paying with cash only for what they absolutely need. Our economy, our culture would be transformed by this change in consumer habits - the elimination of consumer debt.
In both of the cases I have suggested for the diminishing of opportunity for rascally behavior, the self-discipline of our citizenry is required. I’m not sure how to accomplish this self-discipline transformation, and would love to hear suggestions.
That is a very nice and simplistic solution leading one to the conclusion that a reduction in taxes raised will somehow reduce corruption
It won't do a damn thing about the hard rock mining that takes place, the preferential pay scale offered to hard rock miners for rights to mine public land - or about any of the other natural resources the corporate world seeks to exploit - and will exploit to our own general harm in the lack of regulatory oversight.
Serving a single term in Congress requires that a highly complex system be simplified rather drastically before such a measure can be implemented with any reasonable chance of producing a government that actually functions for the benefit of the people -
The cookie-jar exemplifies the theme of diminishing opportunities, but now that you mentioned it, a reduction in government spending opportunities - say by requiring a super majority for appropriations, might help to reduce corruption, or to at least make it more expensive. It is of course a deception to claim that reducing taxes will reduce spending - the government borrows intentionally, not reluctantly in my opinion.
Now, what to do about environmental exploitation? Lands and other resources, public in particular, will be exploited to meet demand. This, in part, is a scenario of the "tragedy of the commons", which does not require rich greedy corporations, only lots of selfish greedy individuals. However, selfish greedy individuals have had a way of incorporating regardless of the era. Government could properly manage public resources and protect and preserve them from the ravages of individuals and corporations through laws and regulations, but we still should look at the possibility of reducing demand. We see all too often how laws and regulations are shredded with exceptions or set aside completely if resource demand is great enough.
Would like to hear more about the simplifications that we should initiate before we will be successful at voting single terms for our representatives.
And to the last line of your comment, we would have to watch the revolving door of representatives and business professionals that might become more common with single terms, though right now it seems very common at least between representatives and lobbyists. Single terms might encourage lobbyists to learn a different profession.
I dunno - but I think the President would need a line item veto if we have single term representation.
for some reason, this FORUM software does not permit me to reply to your last comment below, so I'll have to do it here.
I'm completely consonant with your expressed dissatisfactions with the personalities we have elected to the office of the President over the past - well, since Truman and Eisenhower, though I did not track the day to day activities of either of these two presidents very well (being quite young at the time - now you know how old I am if you cared to know so).
Perhaps the difficulties we now face filling this rather important office have always been the case, and perhaps that is why our Founding Fathers (with their wives' and mothers' consent) decided to directly employ an electoral college (according to dictates of the State Legislatures) for the purpose [Article II, Section 1]. In this way cowboy costumes might generate votes, while in other states, coveralls might generate votes. It will be interesting to see what costumes they like in Iowa.
LoL!
apparently they seem to like a winning smile and no bank account.
I take that as a harbinger of surprises in store for Congressional personages of the do nothing persuasion . . .
I like the line item veto idea only when I like the President.
But the thing about a line item veto ( whoever is in office ) is that it can remove complete crap from legislation. Things that can not ( should not ) stand on their own. If their is crap that is not line item vetoed, it is also an indicator of what/who the President supports or works for. By doing a line item veto and by not doing a line item veto, both will speak to intentions.
yeah - of course, there is always that.
Isn't there a way to ensure we don't elect the incompetent, the ignorant, or the inbred?
Can't we just say no one with cowboy boots can run for high office?
I mean, it should be obvious - anyone wearing cowboy boots who runs has simply donned a costume, one with which they want to identify regardless of how accurately the costume reflects their true attitudes, values, or beliefs . . .
i did not right this neither do i agree with its premise as it advocates actions which when the state performs them are inherent to my critique of the state. i posted this song because i wanted to get people thinking, as the state is based on holding a monopoly on violence, when is it ok to defend yourself from it, and is it morally justifiable to be aggressive to an institution which has killed millions of those it should claims to serve and threatens us everyday using magic spells that work only because they have gang-bangers in blue and camo to enforce there will.
also will there be any occupy wall street events on january 17?
usually that is what courts of law are designed for - and for anything beyond that I recommend reading the Declaration of Independence.
You could join a GA and find out . . . or maybe you should simply start your own organization.
i meant with violence, when the extort money from me, when they take me and throw me in a cage for drinking to young? the courts would laugh at me, but i know that every law is a gun aimed right at me, every cop is a walking threat, it would be wrong to shoot a cop, but when does it cross the line into self defense, i would say when they threaten me, they have shown over millennia that there threats mean business, at this point i would pull out the great equalizer (gun). the principle of statism is that "we can't do it with peace". violence is my last result its there first
The State has a monopoly on violence? Possibly, but aren't you aware that every right you enjoy is made secure by that monopoly on violence? Your right to walk down the street in any neighborhood you want, your right to own property, your right to live free of violence is secured by the government and its enforcement agencies. I would not argue that those agencies often abuse their mandate, and that should be dealt with, but the government "monopoly" on violence is the very thing that keeps you secure from burglary, muggings, illegal seizure of your property, and danger in general. Your civil libertarianism seems based more on not getting to do everything you want rather than any principled stance. You sound like a dangerous spoiled brat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX2TqXT8GcY
what keeps me safe from violence? 4 things
You gun and your dog?
Hahahahaha.
Every single one of your rights exists due to a law having been passed to give you those rights. Every single enforcement of those rights is extended to you by the state. The very word "enforce" contains the word "force". THere is no enforcement of any law or any right without the "monopoly on violence" you abhor. The alternative is vigilante justice and anarchism, every man for himself. The State was granted that monopoly by the people through their representatives. You understanding nothing of the law. You area spoiled brat. Do some more underage drinking, troll.
your argument fails because i exist, the state does not represent me, therefore it lacks morality. I believe that the only person who has the power to represent me is ME. the only person who represents you is YOU.
anarchism is the belief that you own yourself, and have the right to do what you want as long as you don't hurt me.
statism is the belief that the state owns you and has the right to tell you what to do.
at best anarchism is the moral but impossible belief and statism is the immoral but necessary belief
you do realise that south somalia worked very well without a government and know rights come from the fact that the individual ones him self, that know one else ones him. not from society but from YOU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46OUYSw1xg http://dailyanarchist.com/2011/12/02/what-the-occupy-movement-could-learn-from-somalia/
The state does not represent you? Then move somewhere else, maybe somewhere like Somalia. Perfect Libertopia, that.
You are given the right to participate in representative government. If you choose not to take advantage of that, it is your choice, but then you have abdicated to the majority, and your consent to be governed by their will applies.
As to state morality, you may or may not agree with it. In that case, since the state granted you your right to own anything at all, why don't you relinquish all your property now so as to be moral? Your rights are not determined by you, by your existence, but by the consent of the society in which you live via the laws it passes to grant you those rights. So give them all up, if you don't believe they are moral.
I am not an anarchist. I believe in representative democracy as laid out in the constitution. You, apparently, don't. You believe in a system based upon yourself alone, without obligations to the society of which you are a part, and which consents to granting you your rights. That makes YOU, by definition, an anarchist.
I have never said the state owns you. It is a typical Libertard tactic to distort what others say to try to redefine the terms to suit their narrow ideology. I said the state, which in a democracy simply means the people, grants you your rights. You have none otherwise. Furthermore, those rights you enjoy are guaranteed by the very "monopoly on violence" the people (state) have. The ability to enforce (aka apply by force) your rights rests on this very monopoly. In its absence, the law would be, at best, applied unequally, without principle.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
also whats a GA
so apparently the law has no value for you?
ah, I see -
you are a criminal . . . .
well, that does explain a lot.
Obama is the only way. YOU MUST RE-ELECT him or I hope you do well in FEMA camps eating whatever rodents you can scrounge. Or in that vein, turn cannibal you America hating rats!
Bloody Barack Obama does not deserve the respect, support or votes of social justice loving Americans.
Now pay attention, ZenDog says Obama had to do it and even that he did the right thing. GO FEMA relocation camps and go WELFARE for dogtards! GO detainees without a trial!
Now pay attention, because this is how it works:
Obama blasts Congress's limits on Guantánamo transfers
.
and the date again: January 7, 2011*
and you can read the rest of the CSM article here
Obama announces changes to Guantanamo detention policy
the rest of this politifact.com article here
Point Being
this is how they do - attach bullshit to the spending bill. The Congress tied the President's hands early in 2011 with defense authorization that included
Now we have a new defense authorization spending bill - NDAA - that includes further revision to the policy of indefinite detention.
Again, his hands have been tied by using the vehicle of defense spending bills to push bad policy on the public
No voting is immoral, the only one who can represent your views is you. voting is just a way to ignore your moral duty to represent yourself, it is your job to make a homeless shelter, not to vote for a candidate who will open one. Direct Action is moral and our duty.