This stuff started before Obama took office. Obama has only hastened what was already happening. I'm sure that little detail won't register though. I was alarmed by some of the things Bush did. Patriot Act? Department of Homeland Security? All garbage and should be done away with.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

We spend so much time quibbling about definitions. You're defining socialism one way, they're defining it another. Can't we just specify what we mean and move on?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be using "socialism" to refer to the libertarian socialism movement (which is, btw, very much a European concept and not something most Americans are familiar with). Americans using the term "socialism" are usually referring to state socialism and associate it with a centrally planned economy, state ownership and management of business, and an emphasis on eliminating personal wealth in favor of mandated equality.

My understanding of libertarian socialism is superficial at best, but it seems to propose a system of localized communities where private ownership of property isn't recognized and large projects are conducted through consensus and democratic decision making rather than privately controlled and financed. Perhaps you could spell out more of the details on how this would work (or how my description is inaccurate).

Can't speak for Lettuce Head, but I was. I even supported Obama over McCain (though I didn't vote) because the possibility that McCain would continue the neo-con agenda was unacceptable. I even had some hope that Obama would implement some of the change he promised. So far, it's been one disappointment after another.

In fact, Obama's failure to reverse the most egregious of Bush's policies are my main complaint.

How is it too powerful? WHat is the fed going to do if TExas says we arent paying income taxes anymore, or enforcing your bloated rules? THey going to send the military in to lock the entire state up? DO you think the military would shoot Texans over this?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

This is really interesting. Can you tell us which states "refused to sign on to any constitution prohibiting secession" and when they did this?

Yes, I'm alarmed that Obama is continuing Bush's policies. Most definitely.

So, it has "register[ed]."

__________________

You are very much correct. I refer to my self as an anarchist, but depending on whom you ask, they may refer to themselves as Libertarian Socialists. We reject State Socialism (or some would call it State Capitalism). We prefer locally federalized communes based on non-hierarchical economic and political institutions (No Gods, No Masters).

Now, depending on the tendency, we don't reject private property per se. What I mean by private property is industry. Everyone is free to own private property but the means of production are collective, meaning that the laborers "own" the means of production and have equal say in decision making via democratic methods.

However, depending on the tendency, some would advocate instantly recallable representatives that would "manage" the economy (what would be anarchist-communism advocated by Peter Kropotkin), or the direct democratic decision making by laborers themselves (what would be anarcho-collectivists advocated by Mikail Bakunin), or sort of a mix, if you will, what is termed "Mutualism" as proposed by Pierre-Joseph Prodhoun which tenets form the basis for free-market socialism (Pierre-Joseph Proudhoun, himself, was ambivalent about private property, at one time declaring "Property is theft!", while at another time declaring "Property is Liberty!")

I'm pressed for time, but I can direct you to another post I made on forum for further information as well as clicking on my link "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin

__________________

I agree. I came out of my hiatus to vote because I felt it too important to let McCain and that disaster known as Sarah Palin win.

I, too, have been disappointed with Obama. That's why I felt the need to scream when Bush was doing the things he was doing because he set a precedent, a dangerous one at that.

We'll see if Obama will change course and actually start making some "changes."

__________________

Oh...Obama is making changes alright. He is making the power consolidation that Bush did seem like marble collecting. The fact that the government is now dictating policy on private businesses should scare many people. And that isn't the half of it.

FYI...the whole Anarchy thing, as you described it, will never work. I highly doubt it would ever get going, but even if it did, the first tyrant that came along would see a juicy weak community and scoop them up.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

We might want to start another thread on this, but...

I think anarchy is every bit as workable as democracy or any other system of governance. It's fair to say it wouldn't work in most settings today because it requires some solid consensus on few important values, but with those in place, it's more viable than you might think.

The most important foundation required for anarchy to work is a consensus that the use of aggressive violence to settle disputes is inhumane. With a few other key convictions elevated to the level of near-universal taboo, it's possible to imagine how people could get along without state government.

For the sake of clarity, I should probably point out that anarchy (as a political system) doesn't mean no government. Mostly it just means no state government, no coercive authority, usually in favor of self-government. Some versions even accept localized communal governments of a sort, but always as a voluntary association through direct and revocable consent of the governed.

Getting a critical mass of people to accept the non-aggression principle won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight. But it doesn't need to be universal. There are currently a long list of taboos that our society follows voluntarily. Take cannibalism for example. Laws against it, if they exist at all, are perfunctory. There's no need to make a law against it because the vast majority of people see it as beneath human dignity. Even if it was legal, anyone who practiced it would be shunned, completely rejected by mainstream society.

Likewise, once the non-aggression principle is accepted by a large majority, anyone who decides they want to be a tyrant will find little traction for their campaign. Anarchy isn't the same as pacifism, and reacting in kind to aggressive violence doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. People wouldn't tolerate such a person in their midst and he'd find precious few people to support his efforts. A tyranny of one isn't terribly threatening.

To look at it another way, think of terrorism. Despite the trumpeting of government gas-bags, terrorism isn't kept at bay by military or police tactics. It remains a minority effort because nearly all civilized people consider it inhuman. Killing innocents is regarded as barbaric and those who indulge in it are shunned by the larger society. If they survive at all, they're hiding in caves and preying on fringe anger and frustration. They can poke society in the eye, but they can never hope to "rule" it through terrorism.

When the basic act of using violence to force your will on another is viewed with the same contempt that terrorism is, anarchy will be a viable mode of societal organization. That may be a pipedream currently, but it's not completely inconceivable.

Well most likely first step would be to withdraw all federal support for texas. Second step would be to declare any laws saying that null and void. third step send in federal marshalls or or FBI to arest anyone who continued to act in such a treaasonous and disrespectful manner. If the FBI agents where attacked or other aggessive actions where taken then the military or other federal agents would go in and pacify the dogs. It would be the civil war all over again. And the same results would occur as before the states that resist or defy the federal government would be dfeated, punished and brought back into the fold with their aggressive diobedience forgiven if they promise to be good and obedient.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

You're exactly right. I'll be the first to concede that we as a society are not ready for anarchy. In a post-scarcity world, where cooperation is deemed more valuable than competition, would nurture the desire within each of us to cooperate with our fellow human beings and to develop society where all are not left wanting and each is free to express his/her full capacity and creativity that makes us unique as a human animal.

Sadly, we're not there yet, however, it doesn't hurt to nurture the seeds of a society where liberty is paramount and poverty is nil.

__________________

The nation most generally regarded as the world's moral leader is still in the process of killing at LEAST a 100,000 (almost certainly many more) people for doing nothng more than being citizens of a country whose leader personally offended ours. No more than a generation ago that same nation killed several more hundred thousands in a small nation that wanted to do nothing more than run its economy as it saw fit. Two generations ago, and still in living memory, the world killed some 40 millions as part of a war largely brought on by one of the jewels of civilization systematically executing 13 million people for being of the wrong ethnicity.

Try putting forth on this very board the wild notions that the general populace shouldn't be allowed the instuments of mass murder, or that killing inoffensive animals for the pure pleasure of it is somehow morally repugnant, then let's discuss how ready humanity is to utterly eschew violence.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

What the hell are you talking about? Seriously.....

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

I think the theory of nullification would work better if our elected representative to the Senate were chosen by the legislature of the State they represent. In my opinion, having The People simply rubber stamp party candidates is worse than the chief magistrate of our republic having only a short list to work with when making appointments to any given public office.

In my opinion, the several States are free to provide for their own and several welfare. Any State health care plans could compete with a federal plan, and possibly ensure a better product, at potentially, lower prices for any consumer of statism.

The general government of the Union, is delegated the power to pay the debts of the several United States, for a reason.