Posted on 05/25/2011 7:43:26 PM PDT by danielmryan
Her referring to herself as an anarchist did throw me off, reading the linked sites does make her positions clearer.
If we studied anarchy outside the spoonfed definitions and education we’ve rec’d on it, we’d find quite a different picture. It isn’t the big bad wolf we’ve been taught to believe. There’s more to it than that.
There are “bomb throwing chaos” anarchists, and there are “government does everything worse than a private solution would (either worse, or more expensively, or using force when none is needed)” anarchists. She is the latter.
Admittedly, it's the only LOL I've ever gotten.
I'm with you Johnny. Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite books:
"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Professor Bernardo de la Paz In Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Consider that quote stolen.
I’m with y’all.
Another good read is Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan.
All have interesting political undertones.
My parents didn't have a clue, and I didn't clue them in.
Heinlein, via his writing, was my mentor, from ages 7-10. Quite an impressionable age.
/johnny
What do you do now? The owner is the government. You pay a fee for a license to drive. You pay a fee for an agent of the government to inspect your car, and to register your car. You pay taxes on your gasoline to pay for the upkeep of the owner's roads.
You cannot travel on a road without paying a fee (or dozen) to the owner. In your case, the owner is the government.
Why is the government a better owner than a private party?
/johnny
Everything about paying the government "owner" is right; nobody gets a free ride.
I was just saying that an anarcho-capitalist believes there is no need for a government because everything can be done as well or better by the private sector.
I wouldn't personally go as quite far as an outright AC with the total elimination of government, but most things would be better provided by private hands. The reason being that it would provide a truer cost and benefit without the usual government subsidies, breaks, and regulation that distorts the market.
There is also the well known commons problem where if everyone owns something, then no one owns it or cares about it. Owners of private property will protect it in their own interest.
By the way, I've always thought the best way to save an endangered species like tigers for instance, would be to sell them to someone so that they have a financial interest in breeding them and of course selling body parts to the Chinese for whatever they do with them.
Government has grown stupid large since then. I propose we scale federal government back to what the Constitution permits, and deny them any power outside of those clearly defined limits.
Call me crazy, but I think it would work.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.