Maggie's Farm

Well, when it comes to him being a 'radical' of any sort, if someone's hollering "Change! Change! Change!" over and over again at the top of his voice, what else could he be? That's basically the definition of the word. Add destruction to the mix and it becomes 'anarchist.'

As far as "don't see it as permanent", there was a real ugly article by Michael Medved floating around yesterday that talked of the long-term repercussions, like laws and entitlements that won't be able to be reversed, not to mention the Supreme Court selections. Obama will certainly be gone one day, but, as they say, his legacy will live on.

Okay, here's the post:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/10/22/the_consequences_of_defeat

And he didn't even catch everything. One of the commenters at Hot Air mentioned two more things and another added a third.

"Although for the life of me I can’t develop a war cry out of kazoo."

It's amazingly difficult, isn't it? You end up sounding like a 2rd grader trying to play "The Mulberry Bush." Even in unison, they lack that certain 'gumption' to really drive fear into the enemy's heart. Sun Tzu knew this, and now so do we.

Well, if you're playing that game, you fail to understand what the word "anarchy" means:

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

2. Political disorder and confusion. [caused by that "destruction" stuff I mentioned]

3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

"...what most anarchists believe."

How does one "believe" in an absence?

The three definitions were from the American Heritage Dictionary. Meant to credit it, forgot.

The first link didn't work, but the second one was interesting, and I remember spending a while on the same site a year ago when chasing down some info on Ayn Rand.

Their FAQ confirms that the dictionary's multiple use of "absence" is correct. But here's the point:

While it's easy to sit there in a comfy armchair and loftily claim that "anarchy" merely means the absence of leaders, it's how you get there that's the issue.

Because, unless you do it with bombs, you'd have to have a general election where everybody voted on whether or not to have "leaders" at all, and it's doubtful the "run it by a committee composed of 2,000 equal members" party is going to win that one.

Ergo, it makes zero sense to be an 'anarchist" unless you're planning on living up to the word's reputation and start lobbing some bombs. The only other way is with an election, and if that ain't ever gonna happen, then it's just pissing into the wind to sit around and pontificate about it.

"It's the libertarian philosophy carried to its logical conclusion."

Smartly put. And I'm still waiting to meet one of those "Libertarian" (capital 'L') things. Sure read a lot of quasi-Libertarians (aka "libertarians"; hello, Neal Boortz; hello, Glenn Reynolds), but the Real Deal Libertarian™ seems amazingly elusive.

At the moment, I'm crushed that Cynthia McKinney isn't going to make the debate tonight. I was going to post a whole blurb on it, but without McKinney (aka "America's Sweetheart"), I'm going to skip it. Only two of the six candidates are going to be there. Their one televised debate and they blow it off? Some commitment to the party, huh?

"but if taxation is theft, and theft is wrong, how can a little taxation be right?"

Well, I'd say the question is illegitimate because it's based on a false premise; that any taxation is "theft". You like paved roads, just to pick Exhibit A? Like the idea you can walk out to the mailbox and not be ravaged by a pack of wild dogs? Like the idea of after-school sports for your kids? You know the drill; it's the excesses and rampant greed that's to blame, not the inherent concept of taxation, itself. Taxes do tons of good.

And, as soon as we use the word "greed", then how can one blame The System -- any system -- and not simply the baser impulses of man? Man is a greedy animal, period, and will more often than not steal when he thinks he can get away with it. That's part of the human psyche, not part of some ideology, and is going to be there no matter what 'system' is being used.

I love skating the thin line between 'cynical' and 'realistic'. :)

Well, never having had kids, I can certainly see your point about the schools. I also certainly considered you might not have kids, but I was going for the generic example, not a specific one. That should have been obvious.

But who, exactly, pays these 'free marketers' who are paving our roads and rounding up stray dogs? Do we split it up and ask everyone to pay their fair share? What if -- to use your argument -- you don't use those other roads? But now we have to put a GPS unit in your car to make sure you don't cheat and use those roads that you didn't pay for, right?

And, have you actually thought that "toll booth" idea all the way through? That would be a toll booth...where? At every intersection? Every other intersection? You don't foresee people making elaborate zigzag patterns through town to avoid them? And, if we divvy up the yearly tax into per-use payments, the toll would be about a nickel per section of road, right? Of course, we could use those electronic instant-pay things and just drive right on through the booths, assuming you don't mind the government tracking your every movement every instant you're in your car.

(Actually, they're probably already tracking you through that RFID chip in the sole of your shoe, so never mind that last part)

Back to the free-market street pavers, if the cost isn't split between everybody and it's some 'Official Payer' paying them, where does he get the money? Donations? Wealthy patrons of the arts?

Where?

How about if we only tax rich people? Doesn't that make the most sense of all? You, uh, actually planning on spending that 80 million dollars before you die, Mr. Landed Estate Owner?

At some point, it becomes pretty easy to see why the word "anarchy" was invented in the first place.

I'm going to buzz next door for a few hours and help a neighbor with his computer, but thanks for the fun conversation and let's pick up on it the next time it relates to a post. Your idea of 'networks' has merit.

It's probably no coincidence that as I've been going back and forth with you this last hour, I've been getting a post ready for Maggie's on government waste.

Ironically enough, the subject of this post on government waste is probably the one agency that you couldn't turn over to the free market:

The U.S. Mint. :)