If someone did change a political party from the inside... wouldn't all the people who believed otherwise leave? Plus, if the conservatives were ever Libertarianised from the inside, no one would vote for them EVER.
It's just absurd to think you can trick people into voting for freedom by changing the policies of their party, it completely misses the point of government.
On that piece on anarchy: ISTM that the biggest danger to the system as proposed is that the leader of one of the "defence contractors" decides to suborn some of the others and then set himself up as dictator, i.e. the biggest threat to Anarchy is not anarchy but Monarchy.
So... Anarchy is the solution to Anarchy? Damn straight.
It is funny that people accept that we can achieve Anarchy (by asking questions about it's existence) but then belief an organisation MORE powerfully invasive than the largest to ever exist (necessary if it can't simply be overcome like the current one) will magically arise from that lack of consolidated power and force us all under its grasp.
And yet, The Already existing monopolies on force in the Western World can't even keep the most securely kept citizens (prisoners) away from Cigarettes, Mobile Phones and any other contraband they want.
The first one doesn't really seem relevant, or confused to the point your making about me.
The second however looks fun.I shall enjoy read that one on the train along with the latest Raccoon scribblings.
Unfortunately, I am rather busy at the moment to get into back and forth on account of having been recently presented with a huge bag of festering shite from a bunch of essentially IT salesmen. Now I have to figure out how to actually use it in a way that we might possibly one day make some money out of.
6 comments:
If someone did change a political party from the inside... wouldn't all the people who believed otherwise leave? Plus, if the conservatives were ever Libertarianised from the inside, no one would vote for them EVER.
It's just absurd to think you can trick people into voting for freedom by changing the policies of their party, it completely misses the point of government.
On that piece on anarchy: ISTM that the biggest danger to the system as proposed is that the leader of one of the "defence contractors" decides to suborn some of the others and then set himself up as dictator, i.e. the biggest threat to Anarchy is not anarchy but Monarchy.
So... Anarchy is the solution to Anarchy? Damn straight.
It is funny that people accept that we can achieve Anarchy (by asking questions about it's existence) but then belief an organisation MORE powerfully invasive than the largest to ever exist (necessary if it can't simply be overcome like the current one) will magically arise from that lack of consolidated power and force us all under its grasp.
And yet, The Already existing monopolies on force in the Western World can't even keep the most securely kept citizens (prisoners) away from Cigarettes, Mobile Phones and any other contraband they want.
Anarchy ftw...
The first one doesn't really seem relevant, or confused to the point your making about me.
The second however looks fun.I shall enjoy read that one on the train along with the latest Raccoon scribblings.
Unfortunately, I am rather busy at the moment to get into back and forth on account of having been recently presented with a huge bag of festering shite from a bunch of essentially IT salesmen. Now I have to figure out how to actually use it in a way that we might possibly one day make some money out of.
Pop.
Glad to see our spastic dyslexic keeping up his standards of spelling.
Post a Comment