Skip to main content

View Diary: James Dobson goes crazy. Is this all the movement can offer? (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes Dobson is unhinged (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, qofdisks

    but teapublicans are not anarchists. Anarchists are left libertarians, similar to many people on this site. You'd see a very different budget discussion if they were actually influencing it.

    -7.75, -6.05 And these wars; they can't be won Does anyone know or care how they begun?-Matt Bellamy

    by nicolemm on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:08:48 PM PST

      •  The anti-government facade of conservatism (21+ / 0-)

        hides a desire to dominate and control. They don't distrust government at all. They just want to use it for different things.

        "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here: http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/single.php?ISBN=1-55404-900-8

        by Kimball Cross on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:57:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Anarchists fight corporate power. (8+ / 0-)

        Libertarians and the tea party do not.

        •  actually, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          qofdisks

          not that I have anything good to say about Ron Paul, but as a self-described libertarian he actually does oppose the increasing influence of corporations over our government, especially those of the defense persuasion.

          We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term. --Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

          by uffdalib on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:18:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But, what would he do about it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Citizen

            He talks about corporate influence on government as a way to attack government power. For him, t's still about being anti-government, not anti-corporate.
            Once government has its power taken away, he has no solution for the abuse of corporate power. He would simply let the free-market turn society into a corporate oligarchy with a government too weak to do anything.

            If he were an anarchist he would support non-governmental ways of limiting corporate power, such as unions and employee ownership/management of businesses. He doesn't.

          •  Except when it comes to women's liberty and (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PSzymeczek, qofdisks

            their right to not bring a child into the world.

            Let's put Paul on the spectrum where he belongs.

            Ron Paul is a partial libertarian/fundamentalist christian who doesn't believe in evolution and equal protection under the law.

          •  Ron Paul hates control of the market (0+ / 0-)

            Anarchists would abolish the market, since they are anti-capitalist. Capitalism is not freedom, since workers are anything but free, having no voice in the workplace, with the fruits of their labor stolen from them by the owner class.

            Thus American libertarianism is a misnomer. It is NOT truly libertarian.

            Anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 01:02:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Anarchists fight GOVERNMENT power (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          basket

          and their zeal to eliminate government and create an every-man-for-himself society includes deregulation of the Corporations.
          And that IS wRongPaul's and the TeaBaggers' position.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:53:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't believe you understand anarchism. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Citizen, Pluto

            You're confusing it with conservative libertarianism, and there are important differences. Most anarchists would say they're looking for just the opposite of an every-man-for-himself society. There's a big difference between them and the Paul/Tea Party crowd.

            •  "The first rule of the Anarchist (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zinger99, DSPS owl, qofdisks

              is that there be no laws
              Including this one".
              I believe it is you and "most anarchists" who need to brush up on the meaning of Anarchist: An--against, Arch--ruling structure.
              Nothing in there about every-man-his-brother's-keeper. That would be a Socialist or Communist (depending).
              The romantic image of the heroic anarchist is a fairy tail that far too many people pull on as a pose, "Rebels without a clue".
              The reality of anarchy is chaos.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:39:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Without ruling structure. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Citizen, Pluto

                Government or corporate. That's the difference between anarchists and tea party/libertarian crowd.

                The Tea Party/conservative libertarian crowd are very happy with centralized, hierarchical power structures, as long as they exist in the private sector as corporations or churches. Anarchists are not. See the difference? One movement turns a blind eye to corporate power structures while anarchists don't. That's why you see anarchists at anti-corporate protests but not tea partyers. It's a meaningful distinction.

                Here's an example of a prominent strain of anarchist thought that's very much the opposite of "every man for himself." This reflects the viewpoint of most actual anarchists I've spoken with. It's very much about people helping each other, but without the means of hierarchical control.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                •  Corporations are not (0+ / 0-)

                  the ruling structure. They are the beneficiaries of it, and influence it, but they are not the actual rulers. They bought the rulers, which is a different thing. I don't know enough about it, but is Kropotkin really the central source for most anarchists' beliefs? I would be surprised to learn that . . .

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:44:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Anarchists don't have one central source (0+ / 0-)

                    because... we tend to think freely, and rely on no one person as an authority. Kropotkin was an important writer on anarchist topics, as were/are several others.

                    Corporations are certainly ruling structures, some of which have larger economies than entire nations. And often they have more power than the rulers under which they operate, being multinational.

                    Aside from this, most of what I see here in this discussion is inaccurate.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:43:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  No... wrongly stated. (0+ / 0-)

                Anarchists are against the central state, but substitute it with federations of smaller cooperatives, worker syndicates, unions, and participatory communities, which each make their own decisions using a horizontal, non-hierarchical form of community self management. It is highly organized and efficient.

                Anarchists are generally socialist/communist, and do not support private ownership of the means of production. They are opposed to wage slavery and other forms of inequality which are integral to capitalistic society.

                Anarchists do not support hierarchical relationships, but rather give each person a voice in deciding community management. It is a form of direct democracy.

                Rules exist, but are communally decided, and rules from outside, from a central state, which are authoritatively enforced without consent of the people, are rejected. But there are forms of authority respected, but in each case must be agreed upon by the community affected.

                As to chaos, that is simply a false construct. But if you want an example of chaos, just read the newspaper to see the chaos of capitalism in the world today, where rules apply to the poor, but not the rich. Your notion of chaos is all around us, with wars, poverty, pollution, global warming, torture, state sanctioned exploitation, all thanks to American capitalism.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 12:57:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you assume anarchists are far left? (0+ / 0-)

      With GOP policies to lower taxes and shrink government, they are already at the local level inducing banckruptcy, and then local government can change policy to put public assets in private lands.

      That's the rule of law going out the window as much as any OTHER anarchist strategy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site