Generation TEA
Parties are tools for elections, not philosophies.
The nature of politics is undergoing a radical transformation. Our two party system is no longer meeting the needs of a growing number of activists. Historically, the Republican Party was able to represent the interests of right of center conservatives. With issues becoming more complex, and expectations of activists changing, this is no longer the case.
The Republican Party has a single goal…the election of Republicans. There is nothing at all wrong with this. It has a role to fill, and it fills it well.
Unfortunately, the shear number of issues being faced in the public realm today creates an increasing number of possible political perspectives. These issue differences, as well as differences in election and advocacy strategy, have begun to cause strife within the Party itself, which is not positively conducive to the Party’s goal of electing Republicans.
When there are differences on issues within the Party structure, the dissenting side is told to just be quiet for the sake of “unity”. We hear calls to an oft-misunderstood “Reagan’s 11th Commandment” which essentially translates to “thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans”. Ultimately, this serves to breed resentment among activists when there are serious differences on a policy and the strength of the Party is diminished as a result.
Issue advocacy is simply not possible within the structure of the Republican Party except for a handful of generalities. It has no power to enforce Party beliefs on elected officials who are Party members. When an elected official violates the Party platform, there is no recourse. The platform itself is flawed because there is clearly not unanimous consent on every issue found within it. Moreover, people who are actually elected to offices within the Party are forbidden from being vocal critics of elected politicians, forbidden from taking sides in primary disputes, and basically have no choice but to attempt to defend often competing visions being outlined by various elected officials.
For the sake of the Party, there must be another opportunity available for activists. There must be a way to advocate for issues that are important to the individual, even if this means taking on sitting representatives who happen to also be Republicans. There must be an organized effort to confront issue-based policy without the strings attached of being for “Republican victory at all costs”. The new reality is that Republican victory doesn’t always translate to policy victory. It has to be the right Republican…or Independent…or Libertarian, as the case may be.
Enter the Tea Party and the Liberty movement.
Frequently misunderstood, maligned, and mistreated, the “Liber-TEA” movement is the heart and soul of limited government. Issues and policy are at the forefront, not the mission of simply supporting people blindly who claim to be members. In fact, people who ran on Tea Party platforms but failed to legislate in that manner have quickly found themselves in the proverbial doghouse. (Re: Congresswoman Renee Elmers, etc)
Liber-TEA benefits from the lack of hierarchal structure. Individual groups are able to determine for themselves the issues and policies they wish to advocate. They are free to pursue activism as they see fit. More often than not, the confronted liberal policy is coming from Democrats, but there is a freedom found in being able to criticize (when necessary) members of the Republican Party who fail to represent as expected.
It needs to be made clear, the Tea Party is not against the Republican Party. Candidates supported are probably 90% Republican. Liber-TEA simply has different goals and offers an alternative venue for activism for supporters of limited government…regardless of which Party they otherwise affiliate with. It is a movement of ideas that can work seamlessly alongside existing partisan organizations, but free from their restrictions. It welcomes all who share the values associated with limited government regardless of party affiliation. It is a big tent of ideas where members are not forced to support candidates or policies simply because they affiliate with a political party.
There is freedom in supporting freedom in a non-partisan manner.
If you are tired of party politics and want a way to be active on issues that your current political party doesn’t allow you to be, then find and join a local Liber-TEA organization.
Embrace the ability to speak your mind and have an independent thought. If you are a Republican, embrace not being forced to associate with the McCains and Grahams and Romneys of the world just because they happen to wear jersey R.
Join us and let us unite, educate, and inspire people to take back this country one issue at a time.
Just don’t disagree with anything anyone within the group says, it’s Liber-TEA, not liberty. Oh, and bring your checkbook, their corporate donors are evaporating live water on a stove.
Zon – Why don’t you make an appearance at Dilworth Neighborhood Grille on a Monday night?
You are so quick to make snide & condescending remarks – why not experience one of our meetings in person and then condemn the actions of people that are worried about our traditional republican form of representational democracy?
Dennis, you’re asking Zon to stand up and be counted. Not him. He is a strong supporting of corporatism and nothing will sway him to part from his food trough.
Few things excite me like reading an article like this. 3rd parties are very unlikely to get a vote from me in any given election, but RINO’s, they stand no chance of ever getting my vote. Sometimes not voting feels as good as voting. There was a time not long ago when writing this great proclamation would have heresy, thank the lord that has changed, the health of true conservatism lies in the balance.
I don’t have a problem with political parties. I have a problem with politicians who set themselves up as ruling elites who live in a closed city surrounded by a vast moat of other people’s money.
The very basis of liberty is grounded in the individual. It lives and dies only through the actions of the individual.
A truly free person leads, organizes, and governs himself accordingly; he understands that in order to preserve and protect his OWN liberty he MUST respect the equal liberties of OTHERS; as well, he must be WILLING and ABLE to defend his OWN liberty against the aggression of others on EQUAL terms to that aggression.
As such, the relationships between truly free people cannot be anything other than purely voluntary and mutually respectful. Therefore, a free people, living in liberty, needs no leaders (political, religious, or otherwise). They need no organization. They need no political parties or groups. They co-exist voluntarily in a balance of mutual respect reinforced by the knowledge that overstepping one’s rights will be met with an equal return of force.
All of this is not to say that from time-to-time a free people cannot come together as an organized group to achieve some common goal that is desirable or beneficial to the group; however, in such a society this organized behavior is temporary in nature, completely voluntary, exists only so long as needed or desired by the individuals, and – most importantly – REQUIRES the consent of ALL affected individuals whether they are part of the group or NOT. The very application of laws, rules, penalties, and the like to individuals who have NOT consented to such is the application of naked AGGRESSION, backed by FORCE. Both of which destroy liberty and voluntary association, and which should be met with the same in no unequal measure.
Whether we realize it or admit it, it only the desire to control others through force that leads us to organize, form, promote, and grow groups of people for political purposes.
Leaving the Republican party to join the TEA party is an exercise in the attempted control of others, which, if successful will ultimately lead to less liberty, not more.
Leaving the Republican party to become an individual that refuses to consent to being controlled through aggression and force is a better expression of one’s God-given liberty.
James Monroe believed political parties were destructive to the Republic. During his tenure in the White House during the Era of Good Feelings, the only party was the Jeffersonian Republicans. The Federalist Party had collapsed during the War of 1812. Regional bickering caused the Democratic Republican Party to spilt in two several factions one becoming the Democrats and the other the New Republican party which died in 1835 and was replaced by the Whigs.
Parties come and go. If the GOP dies out either the Democrats will break up into factions and a new party will form or we’ll become Venezuela.
Not necessarily, Skyler. From the Daily Bell interview with Jeff Berwick of the Dollar Vigilante…
Daily Bell: What about the Tea Party in the US? We think the movement is getting bigger.
Jeff Berwick: What I have found interesting is that the libertarian mindset is so foreign to the political class one-party system that Harry Reid (Communist-Nevada) called Tea Partiers anarchists! They (Tea Partiers) for the most part aren’t anarchists at all but constitutionalists or minarchists. What is nice, however, is that the word libertarian is finally being understood in the “land of the free” and is actually a cool thing to be now. Glenn Beck, who is a neocon, calls himself a libertarian. Bill Maher, who is a liberal, calls himself a libertarian. And the Republican Party is actually realizing that if they want a chance of winning, they will have to get the vote of the Ron Paul libertarians. Even better is that if libertarians form a substantial part of the Republican Party, it will destroy the Republican Party as we know it and soon after it will destroy the federal government. Because once people become libertarian it usually isn’t very long until they become true anarchists and realize that government itself is an unnecessary evil. A popular Internet meme put it best: “What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? About six months.”
I was Libertarian when Libertarian wasn’t cool – and the problem I see is folks CALLING themselves Libertarian but not having a clue what that means – for example saying you are Libertarian then supporting Ammendment One – with excuse that “government has a right to promote/forbid certain things forthe collective good” WHAT? I had high hopes that the Tea party would swing the R’s to the Libertarian side…but the few meetings I have been to the majority of the folks there were the same old right-winger bible thumping, poor folk hating, bank backside licking control freaks the Republicans have always been known for.
Dang, girl. We still need to get the wifey and your hubby together over some red wine and deer roast!
Wouldn’t you say then that therein lies a pitfall of the Tea (for lack of a better expression) movement? One libertarian faction and a conservative in many senses uncompromisingly opposed. The concept of government enforcing marriage requirements, morality laws, and even drug laws, is consuming for a social conservative, and very distasteful for a libertarian. Have the libertarians decided to give in to those things?
It may be, Zon. As to “giving in” that could be stated as, “submission is not the same as consent”, yet even the Libertarian party (a la Gary Johnson) doesn’t seem to get it either. I wouldn’t join that party any more than I would any other at this point.
KS, what you say is true, but only partially. You completely ignore those who break the rules to their own, perceived, advantage. The majority follow the generally accepted rules of the highway, which are given to them by the government. Those include stopping for redlights, which people don’t do regularly – you see 3 or 4 more running the light. They include driving on the right side, staying in your lane etc. But there are others who, regularly, don’t follow the accepted rules of the road. And they do get tickets, cause wrecks and kill themselves and others.
It is not a state of anarchy, but just another place where most people work together but some don’t. It is the some who don’t who give us the need for government. Etc. I’ve said all this before.
Lewis, a mechanical engineer friend of mind told me once that when his team sits down to design a new widget the first thing they do is go the extreme, and then they work backwards from there. This helps assure they don’t leave anything off the table in an effort to design the best possible product, even if the extreme is not possible or feasible. In attempting to arrive at a form of government that balances the least amount of government with the largest amount of liberty while serving the needs of both society and the individual, anarchy is the extreme (the ideal, so to speak) from which we can start while realizing though it may not be possible or feasible, its consideration will likely lead us to the best possible outcome.
That said, think of the billions of dollars (tens? hundreds?) that are spent (causing economic damage to society) enforcing laws on a minuscule minority of the population that by and large are not harming anyone in their actions. Not only is fining someone for speeding or cutting you off (or a million other “crimes”) where no one is harmed a violation of private property rights, it does more economic damage in supporting than any benefit it might provide.
Try the one in Gastonia. They are mostly poor folks. The two issues I have with them are immigration and Social Security/Medicare. But you might have any disagreements because they don’t toe the line you want them to. Much as you don’t like the Libertarians who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
KS proposes or advocates anarchy. It’s a great ideal but man is not civilized enough to handle anarchy. We will continue to need and have governments because of the nature of man and we will continue to have abusive governments because of the nature of man.
In reality, Lewis, I agree and that saddens me. We have the capability to be so much more than we are, and yet we choose on the whole to be less. The nature of man works against man for sure, but the nature of man is also filled with good if only he would embrace it. Is this path harder? Does it require greater self-discipline? Does it require restraint and sacrifice? Absolutely, but our capacity to overcome them nullifies any reason to use that as an excuse for accepting less of ourselves or our fellow man.
That said, we can’t all get or have everything we want in life. This is just a fact. So it is clear to me the best thing we can do is to devise a system where a) I get the most I can, while b) allowing others to do the same, and c) ensuring we do not interfere with each other’s attempts to do so. Under such a system we will still fail short of getting everything we want, but such shortage will not be due to interference in our lives.
Government, however, by definition and design, requires interference in both my life and the lives of others. Therefore, whether one is liberal or conservative, gay or straight, young or old, male or female, black or white, etc., it seems simple to me that people of ALL belief systems would experience a better life if government interference was eliminated. Liberals could have abortions, Republicans could have guns, or whatever. As long as we didn’t interfere with one another, and we had a simple system of resolution for such, we would all experience the most life has to offer.
Now one could say, “But that’s what the TEA party and the Republicans and the conservatives are trying to do! They’re fighting for us and less government interference by limiting government!!”
To which I would say: 1) Yeah, right…. and 2) If less interference is better, wouldn’t no interference be better? And if so, what is stopping us from making that choice?
I have no problem with anyone who beleives marriage is between a man and a woman. My problem is trying to LEGISLATE that, or any other “belief.”
B-C-G-B-I-N-G-O
BCG and KS – do you both actually propose anarchy? Because any government is only a reflection of what the people believe. Governments are not based on any scientifically provable fact, but only upon what the people BELIEVE is the correct way to organize their society. They are, much as religions are, only a organized system of beliefs. ie
Do you believe in property rights? They exist because you believe in them and the people have caused government to enforce such rights. Otherwise, it is the rule of might makes right.
Lewis, I know you’re a smart man. But either you don’t know the definition of anarchy or you’re more of a cynic towards the limitations of man’s ability to govern himself than I am.
So let me ask you this: Does government dictate your personal relationships? Of course not. These relationships exist and function in a purely anarchic state. Families, companies, organizations, friendships, clubs, churches, etc. – they all exist without government dictating who, what, when, where, and how we interact with one another. Yet, all of these relationships have rules that govern them, be they written (contracts) or not. The rules of conduct are established between the participants, even when they are unspoken, and participation in the relationships are voluntary and mutual. Participants who engage on a 100% voluntary/mutual basis, without any coercion from either party is pure anarchy. By definition.
Also, think about I-77 during rush hour – as in your public relationships with the strangers also on the road. In the Charlotte area (say from 85 down to 485) the maximum speed limit is 55 and the minimum is 40 (or maybe 45?). But rarely do people actually drive between these speeds during this time. Its with 10mph or wide-ass open at 70+mph. Thus, outside of the law, without any government interference, on a completely voluntary basis these drivers, in public, create what is called “spontaneous order”. An order that benefits individuals and the group as a whole. The drivers, without ever saying a word, “agree” to a system of order that, for the most part quite successfully, serves all. The same goes for standing in line at Wal-Mart or any other store. There are no laws that say we to stand in line. But we do it, and thus again… Spontaneous order. This is anarchy in the midst of your life whether you recognize it or not.
Thus, we can say anarchy is NOT the lack of governance (as I said in an earlier comment free people govern themselves accordingly, as I have shown above). Anarchy is merely the lack of coercive government, which includes forcing people to submit to the dictates of government against their will – even if the people are harming no one.
Now, if one were to pair anarchy with a lack of the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights, one would end up with chaos. And I don’t think anyone wants that. Now, you might say we need government to enforce the RoL and PPR. Really? How’s that working out for us?
You said earlier humans are not civilized enough yet for anarchy, but as I’ve shown above we practice it quite successfully all day long, every day of our lives. So all I am saying is, I like the way I interact with my wife, my family, my friends, my co-workers, and most people on the road and in the public places I visit. We cooperate and we interact voluntarily for our mutual benefit. If I am supporting anarchy in an effort to further that effect with the added benefit of increasing liberty, then so be it.
Lewis: On your second question/point: “(PPR) exist because you believe in them and the people have caused government to enforce such rights”.
If we’re gonna get metaphysical, everything exists because we believe it does. And yes, people have caused govco to enforce them – bad choice on the people’s part. Such rights would exist and would be enforced in a society without government. This is not to say PPR could not be oppressed by the “mighty” against SOME people in a society without government, however, 1) the government coercively oppresses these rights across the board for ALL regardless of lack of consent, and 2) look at our society…. only about 3 – 5% are violent or evil. Do you not think if govco stepped aside good people who respect the RoL and PPR would not cull the violent and evil in the act of defending their own property? Me thinks it would be swift and complete.
Besides, government’s enforcement of PPR at the whims of the people is about as screwed up as wooden watch. Look at the Muslim “ground zero” mosque case versus the baker who was just ordered by the judge that he MUST make wedding cakes for gay marriages despite that going against his religious beliefs. Conservatives didn’t want the mosque built and wanted to use govco force to stop the owner. Liberals don’t want bakers telling gays to go stuff it (no pun intended) so they want to use govco force to get the cake. Now, I don’t care about Muslims, religious beliefs, or gays. But … the site for the mosque was private property and the bakery is privately owned. The guy who wants to build a mosque and the baker should tell both the conservatives and the liberals to go to hell, and the government should have nothing to do with either.
KS Lacking the ability to coerce, government will not exist. The ability to legally coerce, within constitutional limits, which are designed by the people to define government, is what government is.
If you actually believe people can live without government, you are not paying attention. Further, your example of using how people behave on highways is not an example for lack of government, but the need for government. When they see the sign saying ‘lane ends’ they should merge. Instead, many of them speed ahead of those who did merge, seeking personal advantage. This is a common everyday occurence. Some people don’t wait, they don’t drive friendly, they don’t allow people to merge, or get in, they use every opportunity to gain a 5 second advantage. Yet you believe this is civilized behavior. No, it is a reflection of how people act when they believe they can get away with relatively anonymous behavior.
Cynic, no realist. Crime against others do exist and without the coercive force of government, will increase, not decrease. But that is not the sole reason for government. You said “and we had a simple system of resolution for such, we would all experience the most life has to offer” What is this simple system except government. And you also asked about the Rule of Law and property rights. earlier I said “We will continue to need and have governments because of the nature of man and we will continue to have abusive governments because of the nature of man. ”
So while you propose a limited government, I point out that we had one 200 years ago and man has changed that to become what we have today. When this one falls, as it will, the people in this country will have a chance to start over. In the meantime, those who seek power will use government for their own ends, and if government does not exist, people will use their own power.
Anarchy – Defined
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
The first definition is the primary meaning and usage of the word, thus, as I said and as you posted: “absence of government”
Lewis, First off I admit I am talking about an ideal. And, I agree most people are not prepared (or civilized, to use your word) to live in such freedom. But, even as an admitted cynic, it is undeniable man has the capacity to do so; I would argue his lack of ability at the present time (manifested through the behaviors you mention) is due to largely to government interference, indoctrination, etc.
To reply to your points in more detail…
=================
“Lacking the ability to coerce, government will not exist. The ability to legally coerce, within constitutional limits, which are designed by the people to define government, is what government is.”
Exactly my point. Government is legalized violence. Some people may need or want to live under that rule, but for those who don’t want to live under such rule why should we be forced to if we aren’t harming anyone? I didn’t choose to be subjected to this legalized violence, so why can’t I opt-out? It’s kind of like the military – we’ve had both a draft and a volunteer force, with all of the evidence pointing to the volunteer force as the better choice of the two. If we can have volunteer troops, why not volunteer citizens? And for that matter, why can states opt-out of the union if they so chose? They joined voluntarily. Should they not be able to leave the same way?
=================
“Further, your example of using how people behave on highways is not an example for lack of government, but the need for government. When they see the sign saying ‘lane ends’ they should merge. Instead ….”
The only thing they should do is not harm others. To force them to do otherwise is to violate their personal property rights. As I said earlier, PPR doesn’t bend to poor taste or rudeness. But as long as they aren’t harming anyone what’s the worry? Being offended is not something I want government handling for me.
=================
“Yet you believe this is civilized behavior. No, it is a reflection of how people act when they believe they can get away with relatively anonymous behavior.”
I didn’t say this was civilized behavior, and if it doesn’t harm you, what do you care?
=================
“Crime against others do exist and without the coercive force of government, will increase, not decrease.”
1) This is an opinion, not fact. 2) If someone aggresses against you or your PPR, do you not have the right to return force in equal or greater measure in order to stop the threat? Yes, you do, even without any government’s permission. Again, most violent crime is a) committed by 3% of the population, b) committed against people they know, and c) habitually repeated. It would not take long for a self-governing people to cull these idiots out. But today we spend all sorts of money and resources on them with worsening results.
================
Re: your question regading my suggestion for “a simple system of resolution for” resolving harms or disputes “outside of government”. Two options immediately come to mind: 1) Privatized civil resolution “courts” that we CHOOSE to be a part (a la arbitration), 2) the Second Amendment.
================
“So while you propose a limited government, I point out that we had one 200 years ago and man has changed that to become what we have today.”
200 years ago we got close. And, yes, he has, but only by demanding government use the threat of violence (coercion) to control the behaviors of others regardless of whether they a) consent to such control, and b) are not harming anyone. This, where we have arrived today, is not a recipe for success as we are seeing today.
But the question is, why has man, given such freedom, chosen to increase governmental oppression? In life we only choose things we are aware of. Anarchy (or something as close to it as realistically possible) is simply another choice in how we can live. If we are unaware of it or unready for it or misunderstand it, it is only because we have not been made aware of it, nor have we come to understand it properly. And of course, by its very definition it is in the government’s best interest that we don’t. So, is it surprising what the TPTB have done to the public’s perception of anarchy as a viable choice in how we live? It’s no accident, I’m sure.
To conclude for the evening, as I started, I am quite aware what we are talking about is an ideal. But ideals exist to serve as goals, the pursuit of which is never a loss for having tried.
So we had to pass A-1 to stop “anarchy”?
BCG: re: Passage of A-1… ??? No sure what you’re asking.
Lewis I’d say the example of the hwy is not Anarchy nor a state of people making contracts with each other in a perfect Libertarian world. There are state troopers watching to highways to keep order. Imagine the Anarchy on 77 heading to lake Norman durng rush hour if everyone knew there were no Highway Patrolmen to give them tickets and points on their insurance.
Skyler – I agree.
Skyler, re: Troopers keeping watch, look at the piece on Cordoba. How many drivers per trooper are there? Is it really troopers that are preventing people from being worse than they, or the illusion that their presence provides? Millions of vehicle miles are driven daily in the stretch you mention, yet how many tickets are issued? How many times do you see a trooper? I would suggest it is NOT the actual troopers that keep the peace, but the drivers themselves. That is anarchy in action. Again, it is not lawless or without governance, its just that the governance that is occurring is happening between the participants themselves. Same a three on three pick up game where the “court rules” are decided by the players. That too is anarchy. Self governance in action.
Yes of Course it’s the Illusion of protection. But let the state say no one will patrol the highways and watch Hobbes state of nature materialize on the highways. Your trip will become solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Sklyer, so all the good people -the vast majority – would turn bad just because the state wasn’t there to fine them? That’s like saying everyone would start doing heroin tomorrow if it was made legal. Or that there would be blood in the streets if we let people carry concealed weapons, etc. The vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time self-govern themselves. Why not embrace and encourage that? You and Lewis surprise me in your defense of the nanny state.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=713942118616563
The most notable aspect of Ellmers’ first campaign wasn’t a “Tea Party platform” but ignorant bigotry as expressed in the “victory mosque” ad. Here’s the entire text of that ad:
“After the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, and Cordoba, and Constantinople they built victory mosques. And, now, they want to build a mosque by Ground Zero. Where does Bob Etheridge stand? He won’t say. Won’t speak out. Won’t take a stand. The terrorists haven’t won and we should tell them in plain English, ‘no, there will never be a mosque at Ground Zero.'”
Putting ignorance, bigotry, and politics aside, unless my memory fails, the intended site was private property. The owner, Muslim or otherwise, has every right to do with that property what they want. Private property rights do not bend for poor taste; any politician who would argue otherwise is not worth my vote.
Something we agree completely on. Letting ignorance and fear determine rights is a bad idea.
Ignorance and fear have nothing to do with determining rights. We are born with our rights as a gift from our creator (whatever they may have been).
Private property rights come from the fact that we own our minds and body. Through their use we therefore own our labor and thus the fruits of that labor. If we choose to use those fruits to purchase a building and open a mosque (or a bakery) no other man has a claim to that property as the property itself is an extension of our natural-born right to life. That is why both the Muslim and the Christian baker are right in this case.
Zon, in rereading you comment, I guess I can see how you might say what you did.
Ignorance and fear do lead people to demand government “determine” rights in so much as oppressing the rights of some while elevating the rights of others. Just as it was ignorance and fear that prevented blacks from owning property at one time in the US, it would be ignorance and fear that would prevent anyone from owning property today. To which I would add that firearms are property.
Yup. God may grant rights. But politics can, and do, take them away. I agree much with the Libertarian ideal in many respects, and with why the Libertarian feels the way they do. That laws and policy can be corrupted and that corruption can be exacerbated by political establishments. But I also think doing anything about it is fanciful. Human nature drives the structure of what we have in governing, and until human nature changes neither will our style of being governed.
I asked a question earlier I knew you would respond to. The one regarding compromise over social conservatism and libertarianism. And your response essentially described what political parties do. That is, be a ‘party’ to a common goal even though all the individuals’ goals are not being met necessarily. It’s what humans do for everything from food collection to governing. Even though your description is ‘anti-party’ (the only expression I could think of), it’s still a ‘party’ nonetheless and susceptible to the same corrupting influences associated with our current form of government.
Re: “doing anything about it is fanciful.” Well, then you’ve already given up haven’t you?
Re: “it’s still a ‘party’ nonetheless and susceptible to the same corrupting influences associated with our current form of government.” Agreed, the current Libertarian party is an example. That’s why I do not and would not promote any party. Group think is the epitome of stupid.
And finally, though it be semantics, politics cannot take your rights away. You will die with the same number of rights you were born with. All politics can do is coerce you into exercising them in different ways, up to an including not exercising them at all which may be done through force or your own waiver.
KS, I don’t have a problem with speeding, per se. However, driving 45 in a school zone or a neighborhood is asking for trouble. Also, not stopping for stop signs, cutting people off, tailgating, driving on the wrong side of the road, littering, driving drunk, driving while sleepy, driving slower than others, parking in the roadway and many other actions, are not actions of people who do well without rules to follow. But I repeat myself.
Let me be clear. Anarchy as a way to operate a society is utopian, thus unrealistic and, being unrealistic, is not going to happen. Nuff said.
If such problems as you list are so readily apparent (and they are), obviously a) the people are not following the rules and b) the government is not (or can not) enforce them. So what good are the rules if they’re not followed or enforced? None. Especially when the majority would not “go bad” even if the rules were done away with. I mean, if the laws for all the things you list went away tomorrow would you start acting out? No. So the minority don’t follow them, the government (for the most part) can’t enforce them, and the majority would follow them anyway, why are they still in place???????
All I am saying is by exploring an unrealistic ideal is, let’s take an ideal solution and work backward from there to find something that does work. Who knows, we might end up with the COTUS. But maybe not – maybe there is something better we haven’t thought of yet that IS realistic.
And besides, thought experiments such as this one sharpen our minds even if we are talking about tilting at windmills. Thanks for playing along.
Lunch on me as a consolation? Hit me up.