Growing the Federal government does this. Being able to pick the pockets of ALL Americans can only be done by centralizing power structures. Placing central control into the DC power structure does that. Do you honestly think that if we had 300 million people running around during total anarchy, the socialists could control all the pockets of resistance that would enevitably spring up?
I think some get confused on how the media portrays True Anarchists as left wing. The ones you see at these Seattle conventions throwing glass and rocks are simply socialist thugs. From my experience, most Anarchists live by 3 principles. Voluntary relationships, Free markets, Non Aggression principle.
Socialists don't believe in any of that.
When I hear dipshit Noam Chomsky talk about being a Democratic Anarchist, I laugh because he talks in circles. He wants more freedom and power for himself....but he has no problems with some central body being able to confiscate property. The two are mutually exclusive.
Chomsky is, in his own mind, an anarchist, in the same way that a teenager considers himself an anarchist when his parents tell him to clean his room. However, when that teenager wants the car, or his allowance, he's a socialist. The two ideas go hand in hand, in that they want someone to provide a room and board, but with no obligations in response. These are the anarchists that you see at Occupy events. They believe that the absence of authority will free people to be the best that they can be, just as the anarcho-capitalist does, but they believe that people will suddenly stop wanting to keep stuff and share what they have, while the anarcho-capitalist believes that people will suddenly stop coveting each others' stuff and seeking ways to manipulate rather than build. Both end up creating a lawless place where the demand for centralized authority to stop the ensuing chaos leads to dictatorship, but the difference is that the socialist wants the dictatorship, while the capitalist doesn't.
I believe Ben Franklin understood it to be a natural consequence of moving farthest to the right when he said:Quote:
Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us.
I am no anarchist, but I'll call myself a Classical market liberal. ( A VERRY Limited government pro market stance)
In my beliefs, there is onlyorQuote:
pure Individualism on the right
What people voluntarily do in those spectrums is of no consequence.Quote:
pure Collectivism on the left.
I prefer these charts to explain right vs left.
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
The whole idea of a center is ridiculous, all it consists of are people who are too stoned, ignorant, or uneducated to form an opinion of where they stand, it isn't a center, it is more of an intellectual coma.