After Oklahoma City, militias were the big bugaboo that everyone was supposed to be scared of, then after 9/11 it was terrorists, are anarchists next? At one of the parties conventions last year (I don't recall if it was democrats or republicans) there was some riot started by "anarchists". Same thing now at G20. Are we going to be the new thing that people are supposed to be terrified of?
Good question. It seems this is an inevitable step in the process of becoming more successful, i.e. the fact that anarchy is becoming far less fringe. I say "far less fringe" right now because that's just the first step toward becoming a part of mainstream understanding. I'd say this is good news. Of course, we should be doing all we can to educate the public about what we're really about and we cannot be too redundant stressing that we are working for peaceful evolution and not insurgency.
Some anarchist on the left still believe in "propaganda of the deed" and don't look at private property favorably (without exploitation). Rothbard questioned whether or not any corporation that derived more than 50% of it's profits via the state could be considered "private property" and thus just for appropriation via homesteading.
Glad I'm a Voluntaryist. ;)
I like "Modern Abolitionist", personally. ;D
Quote from: Moebius Tripp on April 01, 2009, 03:26 PM NHFT
I like "Modern Abolitionist", personally. ;D
Oh, I like that.
The black-clad, red bandana-masked, rock throwing "anarchists"communists have been burning cars and smashing windows at every G-whatever meeting for a couple of decades now. No doubt some of them are provocateurs, but many are just brainwashed angry yutes who believe capitalism is evil.
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 01, 2009, 12:58 PM NHFT
Some anarchist on the left still believe in "propaganda of the deed" and don't look at private property favorably (without exploitation). Rothbard questioned whether or not any corporation that derived more than 50% of it's profits via the state could be considered "private property" and thus just for appropriation via homesteading.
There is a
very interesting discussion of this issue
here (http://aaeblog.com/2009/03/31/advocatus-diaboli/).
Quote from: KBCraig on April 01, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
yutes
(http://thumbnails.hulu.com/10/71/33265_512x288_generated__p6E4cuhUgUyemyjuwnuycA.jpg)
Two what? Did you say "yutes"?
Quote from: dalebert on April 01, 2009, 03:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Moebius Tripp on April 01, 2009, 03:26 PM NHFT
I like "Modern Abolitionist", personally. ;D
Oh, I like that.
Modern Anarchist
Good Anarchist
Nonviolent Anarchist
Intelligent Anarchist
Anarchist w/o Bombs
Principled Anarchist
Practical Anarchist
(adjective) Anarchist
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 01, 2009, 03:13 PM NHFT
Glad I'm a Voluntaryist. ;)
Yeah I like saying that, people don't even know what you're talking about. It's feels so non threatening too which I enjoy since I seem to scare everyone I come into contact with. But I do like telling people I'm an anarchist too, because well they seem so surprised, like it never crossed their mind there are other options.
QuoteThere is a very interesting discussion of this issure here.
Yes, all of my left-libertarian buddies (Roderick Long and Kevin Carson) are out in full force - a guns a blazin!
Quote from: KBCraig on April 01, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
The black-clad, red bandana-masked, rock throwing "anarchists"communists have been burning cars and smashing windows at every G-whatever meeting for a couple of decades now. No doubt some of them are provocateurs, but many are just brainwashed angry yutes who believe capitalism is evil.
The G20 isn't really about free market though... the capitalistic aspects of it are more corporatist and socialist in nature.
Group of 20=Government 20
Correct.
But governments tend to support corporatist or socialist policies... even both at the same time.
Next will be the Pacifists. ;D
Those bomb throwing pacifists really irk me.
Quote from: Jacobus on April 02, 2009, 08:23 AM NHFT
Next will be the Pacifists. ;D
Reports are already extant categorizing Quakers as potential terrorists.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 02, 2009, 06:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 01, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
The black-clad, red bandana-masked, rock throwing "anarchists"communists have been burning cars and smashing windows at every G-whatever meeting for a couple of decades now. No doubt some of them are provocateurs, but many are just brainwashed angry yutes who believe capitalism is evil.
The G20 isn't really about free market though... the capitalistic aspects of it are more corporatist and socialist in nature.
Absolutely true. Corporatism is the fiscal model of Facism. But these protesters seem oppose to wealth in any form. Except, of course, the trust funds that paid for their elite educations, and which let them live without real jobs.
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 02, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jacobus on April 02, 2009, 08:23 AM NHFT
Next will be the Pacifists. ;D
Reports are already extant categorizing Quakers as potential terrorists.
I have this sick feeling that you're not joking.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 02, 2009, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 02, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jacobus on April 02, 2009, 08:23 AM NHFT
Next will be the Pacifists. ;D
Reports are already extant categorizing Quakers as potential terrorists.
I have this sick feeling that you're not joking.
Hey ya never know what there shipping around in the oatmeal boxes!
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 02, 2009, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 02, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Reports are already extant categorizing Quakers as potential terrorists.
I have this sick feeling that you're not joking.
Well, to be fair, John McCain did start off all his comments with, "Friend..."
Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on April 02, 2009, 02:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jacobus on April 02, 2009, 08:23 AM NHFT
Next will be the Pacifists. ;D
Reports are already extant categorizing Quakers as potential terrorists.
So THAT'S who stole my oatmeal. ^-^
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 02, 2009, 04:24 PM NHFT
I have this sick feeling that you're not joking.
For once I'm not:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Agency_spied_on_Baltimore_0110.html
Quote from: KBCraig on April 02, 2009, 04:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 02, 2009, 06:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 01, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
The black-clad, red bandana-masked, rock throwing "anarchists"communists have been burning cars and smashing windows at every G-whatever meeting for a couple of decades now. No doubt some of them are provocateurs, but many are just brainwashed angry yutes who believe capitalism is evil.
The G20 isn't really about free market though... the capitalistic aspects of it are more corporatist and socialist in nature.
Absolutely true. Corporatism is the fiscal model of Facism. But these protesters seem oppose to wealth in any form. Except, of course, the trust funds that paid for their elite educations, and which let them live without real jobs.
But the politicos trying to strike a balance between the economics are pushing the extremes of the continuum.
Its like having your right and left wrist pulled on in opposing directions... sooner or later something has to give... but in the meantime you try to make yourself comfortable and ignore the pain.
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 01, 2009, 03:13 PM NHFT
Glad I'm a Voluntaryist. ;)
That's a good point Kevin. There are people, I call them left anarchists, who engage in non-peaceful actions. Get a good brand name for Voluntarist (Voluntaryist?) going and then (poof) you're not a part of the Bugaboo. Until next week, when there will be a bugaboo about voluntarists.
Quote from: freeman4liberty on April 03, 2009, 01:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kevin Dean on April 01, 2009, 03:13 PM NHFT
Glad I'm a Voluntaryist. ;)
There are people, I call them left anarchists, who engage in non-peaceful actions.
That's because they believe property relations as currently configured
ARE force and thus non-peaceful and their actions are purely defensive in nature.
oh, they've been doing this for a very long time. I remember the seattle WTO protest where the news kept on saying that the anarchist were attacking the police, but they only ever showed anarchist getting the snot beat out of them by the police. And they did not retaliate in any of the videos. Or at least the ones I saw.
The propaganda works; when I first ordered materials on libertarianism, my parents freaked because they thought I was going to become an anarchist and blow stuff up. Well, they were sorta right...
Quote from: KBCraig on April 02, 2009, 04:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 02, 2009, 06:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 01, 2009, 04:28 PM NHFT
The black-clad, red bandana-masked, rock throwing "anarchists"communists have been burning cars and smashing windows at every G-whatever meeting for a couple of decades now. No doubt some of them are provocateurs, but many are just brainwashed angry yutes who believe capitalism is evil.
The G20 isn't really about free market though... the capitalistic aspects of it are more corporatist and socialist in nature.
Absolutely true. Corporatism is the fiscal model of Facism. But these protesters seem oppose to wealth in any form. Except, of course, the trust funds that paid for their elite educations, and which let them live without real jobs.
Most beliefs that people carry have elements of truth. Both right, and left. The older I get, the more I see the elements of truth in leftist ideology, including the wealth aspect. I have wondered for a while now if the lefts distrust of the wealthy may be more than just class envy. The bailouts under Bush the "Decider", and Obama the 2nd decider, made it crystal clear that many, though not all wealthy are just as parasitical as the politicians.
Rand wondered why leaders in business did not directly challenge the gov't, in fact, she was frustrated by the fact that they didn't. But why challenge something that you benefit from? Bill Gates benefited from copyright, Warren Buffet and his Geico insurance from mandatory insurance in virtually every state, oh, and his overpriced patented Kirby vacuums. One of the largest employers in Keene has as its core focus's health products and 'defense' products, both completely regulated.
Collectivization, aka, painting with a broad brush is to be avoided, but the left is right, many, though not all, business people are just as morally crooked as the gov't. Atlas will never shrug, not intentionally anyway, though it may die of cancerous exhaustion. :-\
Quote from: freeman4liberty on April 03, 2009, 01:14 PM NHFT
That's a good point Kevin. There are people, I call them left anarchists, who engage in non-peaceful actions. Get a good brand name for Voluntarist (Voluntaryist?) going and then (poof) you're not a part of the Bugaboo. Until next week, when there will be a bugaboo about voluntarists.
I take particular issue with this, as I consider myself a left anarchist. Left anarchists have since the foundations of classical Anarchism opposed violence and vandalism as a means to achieve their goals. Bakunin (whom most of these anarchists take much of their philosophy from) decried wanton violence against the State as terrorism, which only serves to turn the uninformed masses against the cause. Of course, it should be clearly pointed out that he had no problem with armed revolution, which I don't think any of us really oppose if it came down to it. Goldman plainly stated that (paraphrasing) "violence should not be used because those who know best how to use violence are already in league with the State", or put plainly, we can't beat them at their own game and we would only be stooping to their level.
Now, that said, this entire thread bugs the shit out of me. You're all so quick to classify AnComms and AnSynds as "the bomb throwers", when the reality is that "the bomb throwers" are a fringe of our further Left brethren in and of itself. As far as I can tell, most of the people who have posted in here are guilty of trying to create a rift that
shouldn't fucking be there. What ever happened to Anarchism Without Adjectives? Who
gives a fuck about economic preference within the context of anarchism?
All of this denial of them being "real anarchists" has started to get to me lately. They're just as entitled to the tradition as we are, even if some of them don't see it that way (and lord knows it goes the other way as well).
Well said, A.J.
I don't think they are really anarchists... more in love with the concept.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 04, 2009, 09:51 PM NHFT
I don't think they are really anarchists... more in love with the concept.
I don't think Anarcho-Capitalists are really anarchists... more in love with the concept.
Agreed.
Capitalism would revert to mutualism outside the structured nature of governance.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 05, 2009, 01:22 PM NHFT
Agreed.
Capitalism would revert to mutualism outside the structured nature of governance.
+1...right on!
Quote from: AnarchoJesse on April 04, 2009, 02:30 PM NHFT
I take particular issue with this, as I consider myself a left anarchist. Left anarchists have since the foundations of classical Anarchism opposed violence and vandalism as a means to achieve their goals. Bakunin (whom most of these anarchists take much of their philosophy from) decried wanton violence against the State as terrorism, which only serves to turn the uninformed masses against the cause. Of course, it should be clearly pointed out that he had no problem with armed revolution, which I don't think any of us really oppose if it came down to it. Goldman plainly stated that (paraphrasing) "violence should not be used because those who know best how to use violence are already in league with the State", or put plainly, we can't beat them at their own game and we would only be stooping to their level.
Now, that said, this entire thread bugs the shit out of me. You're all so quick to classify AnComms and AnSynds as "the bomb throwers", when the reality is that "the bomb throwers" are a fringe of our further Left brethren in and of itself. As far as I can tell, most of the people who have posted in here are guilty of trying to create a rift that shouldn't fucking be there. What ever happened to Anarchism Without Adjectives? Who gives a fuck about economic preference within the context of anarchism?
All of this denial of them being "real anarchists" has started to get to me lately. They're just as entitled to the tradition as we are, even if some of them don't see it that way (and lord knows it goes the other way as well).
Thank you for your comments.
I think everything would be fixed if we could just define our terms. What we need is some good anarchist word-smithing. Once we get a strict definition of what an anarchist is and isn't, then we can convince everyone else to be an anarchist. Simple! A perfect anarchist mission statement! Who wants to write one? No wait, we need to have a vote to see who's pure enough to write one!
I know pat K loves Mission Statement stuff
Maybe PatK can be the Official Underground Mission Statement Wordsmith. He does have a flair with language.
I just find it hard to reason that the entire crowd would be of one concept.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 06, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
I think everything would be fixed if we could just define our terms. What we need is some good anarchist word-smithing. Once we get a strict definition of what an anarchist is and isn't, then we can convince everyone else to be an anarchist. Simple! A perfect anarchist mission statement! Who wants to write one? No wait, we need to have a vote to see who's pure enough to write one!
Perhaps we could do the reverse, and start redefining statist terms and get everyone all confused... Like, calling ourselves republicans, and trying to convince everyone that republicans are anarchist :)... (maybe easier with democrats).
How about the Alignment system?
http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
Just a thought.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 06, 2009, 10:45 AM NHFT
Maybe PatK can be the Official Underground Mission Statement Wordsmith. He does have a flair with language.
Yeah and maybe you and Lloyd can go jump
in the really cold stream water.
i agree with jesse. i don't understand why people want to create division among people who mostly agree with you. :-\
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 06, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
I think everything would be fixed if we could just define our terms. What we need is some good anarchist word-smithing. Once we get a strict definition of what an anarchist is and isn't, then we can convince everyone else to be an anarchist. Simple! A perfect anarchist mission statement! Who wants to write one? No wait, we need to have a vote to see who's pure enough to write one!
lol. I nominate Menno.
Quote from: Caleb on April 06, 2009, 08:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 06, 2009, 08:51 AM NHFT
I think everything would be fixed if we could just define our terms. What we need is some good anarchist word-smithing. Once we get a strict definition of what an anarchist is and isn't, then we can convince everyone else to be an anarchist. Simple! A perfect anarchist mission statement! Who wants to write one? No wait, we need to have a vote to see who's pure enough to write one!
lol. I nominate Menno.
Whoa big west coast slap down!
Quote from: Pat K on April 06, 2009, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 06, 2009, 08:24 PM NHFT
I nominate Menno.
Whoa big west coast slap down!
I think our favorite commie just said that Big Hair beats Big Belly! :o
Point of Order!
I haven't heard a motion to nominate yet! You can't be making nominations until someones moves to make a nomination!
It's right there in Robert's Rules of Order! I think! I've never read it! Haven't even seen it! But I've heard everybody say so! Everybody! In every meeting I've been in! "Nobody has made a motion! Somebody needs to make a motion!"
Go to a meeting! You'll hear them!
We need an anarchy purity test like those tests that ask you all the kinds of sex you've had and drugs you've tried.
Quote from: Pat K on April 06, 2009, 06:51 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on April 06, 2009, 10:45 AM NHFT
Maybe PatK can be the Official Underground Mission Statement Wordsmith. He does have a flair with language.
Yeah and maybe you and Lloyd can go jump
in the really cold stream water.
See!! Such flair! Such pizazz!
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
I almost got a perfect score. :)
Quote from: Caleb on April 06, 2009, 08:23 PM NHFT
i agree with jesse. i don't understand why people want to create division among people who mostly agree with you. :-\
Because the other person's views are not well understood. I have talked to people who are on the left and are close to anarchist, and they don't seem like they can explain their positions well. Perhaps when I make it to New Hampshire Jesse and I could have coffee and I would gain from his perspective. As long as a person rejects harming peaceful people, or their property, through direct action or action through the state, I would consider that that person and I are on the same team.
Quote from: dalebert on April 07, 2009, 07:46 AM NHFT
We need an anarchy purity test
Some of these posters are coming dangerously close to an anarcharrest on charges of orderly conduct!
LOL!
QuoteAs long as a person rejects harming peaceful people, or their property, through direct action or action through the state, I would consider that that person and I are on the same team.
Well all of the hyphenated anarchist's divisions hedge around one singular issue that you seem to so cavalierly assume in your above statement...
What is property and how is it
JUSTLY derived?
That is it in a nutshell...
The left-anarchists questions how private property and a market system can lead to
EQUAL freedom.
The right-anarchists question how private property and a market system doesn't lead to freedom and necessitate that equality and freedom have to be traded off against one another.
Bill, I would say that the state is a human institution. In the same way I would say that property rights are a human institution. I reject the first human institution and I accept the second. I am open to ideas, I have questions. I would prefer to talk in person, and I won't be up there till July/Aug.
Quote from: freeman4liberty on April 07, 2009, 11:48 AM NHFT
Bill, I would say that the state is a human institution. In the same way I would say that property rights are a human institution. I reject the first human institution and I accept the second. I am open to ideas, I have questions. I would prefer to talk in person, and I won't be up there till July/Aug.
By accepting the second you are assuming that non-proviso Lockean property right are justly derived.
Others - like me - believe that in a so-called anarchist/non-proviso Lockean society the landowner is just a "state" with rules and taxes who uses force
UNJUSTLY upon those they exclude or contract with.
So narrowly constituted governance as legitimate non-arbitrary, authority
JUSTLY uses defensive force to insure those excluded by exclusive use have their right of self-ownership upheld.
This is Nockian "anarchism"...
Wiki-'There exist many theories. Perhaps one of the most popular was the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one's labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others."'
Can I ask what the difference that Nock proposed?
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:48 PM NHFT
Wiki-'There exist many theories. Perhaps one of the most popular was the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes one's labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others."'
Can I ask what the difference that Nock proposed?
With the wiki entry?
Nothing...
I thought maybe Nock dealt with duration such as matters of estate or abandonment.
I watch the mind bots on TV basically say that everyone who goes against the grain is an anarchist, I prefer rebelrouser. The mind bots don't even know that the kerchiefs are used to deflect a pepper spray attack tsk tsk.
My favorite anarchist are the French anarchist maybe if the people in this country grabbed some balls we would have some of the same benefits that they do, not to mention when they strike a rally the cops get hurt, haha 77 to be exact. Sorry I know that's the evil thinking of an oppressed mind, but I know I can say it and be ignored, but at least get it of my chest.
I respect how this group deals with civil disobedience, you have taught me to be good when irritating the fuzz, In the past I would just tell them off the usual fascist stuff, however I have been watching the Ridely report and I enjoy the stumped looks on the cops faces, like your not giving them the reaction that they want LOL, and the cops look baffled. God bless (or what ever Deity you subscribe to) your hearts.
Quote from: nemoslaw on April 08, 2009, 10:38 PM NHFT
I prefer rebelrouser.
hmmm...I thought it was rabble rouser?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rabble+rouser (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rabble+rouser)
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 09, 2009, 05:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: nemoslaw on April 08, 2009, 10:38 PM NHFT
I prefer rebelrouser.
hmmm...I thought it was rabble rouser?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rabble+rouser (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rabble+rouser)
I had a cat named Rebel once. He was a good mouser. He was a rebelmouser. :P
Quote from: nemoslaw on April 08, 2009, 10:38 PM NHFT
I watch the mind bots on TV basically say that everyone who goes against the grain is an anarchist, I prefer rebelrouser. The mind bots don't even know that the kerchiefs are used to deflect a pepper spray attack tsk tsk.
My favorite anarchist are the French anarchist maybe if the people in this country grabbed some balls we would have some of the same benefits that they do, not to mention when they strike a rally the cops get hurt, haha 77 to be exact. Sorry I know that's the evil thinking of an oppressed mind, but I know I can say it and be ignored, but at least get it of my chest.
I respect how this group deals with civil disobedience, you have taught me to be good when irritating the fuzz, In the past I would just tell them off the usual fascist stuff, however I have been watching the Ridely report and I enjoy the stumped looks on the cops faces, like your not giving them the reaction that they want LOL, and the cops look baffled. God bless (or what ever Deity you subscribe to) your hearts.
Same benefits?
I am sure that you are well aware that our Government taxes the crap out of us, okay where does the money go? Not a hell of a lot goes to benefit the people of this country, I can assure you.
Though France is not perfect, they have a great national respect for who they are and they stand up for it, and the French react quickly at the slightest move by their government, because the people of France own their government. They have better health care, they are healthier as a people less obesity etc. Their employee and unemployment benefits are awesome compared to ours and I think that they have a work week substantially less than ours, yet they are not lazy, but enjoy fine art and wine like we should. They eat better, their food is not polluted like ours especially in the country villages.
I went to the Grand Canyon and Sedona everyone there was foreign, I was like where are all the Americans?! How come they are not enjoying these places? cause their over worked underpaid and overtaxed.
I want a Euro rail put in this country with my tax dollars, I want Mexico to clean up their own country and stop running here, so I can go there and utilize my Spanish and not worry about my head being blown off, people don't act like that in Spain. I digress;)
The wine in France is some of the best in the world because it is against the law in most European countries to add poisoning preservatives, the government in France does not have an ATF!In this country all alcohol must be accounted for and warehoused, that is why the nasty head ache causing preservatives are added. Do you think the French would have ever stood for a prohibition, hell no. The French are hella more free than we are, not to mention they bucked the Iraq war from the get go, very smart and they kidnapped money grubbing CEOs which I thought was a great jest, noting that no harm came to them (the CEOS).
I will keep eating my french fries etc., and the French from the country side are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Even when my country was bad mouthing them, they were cordial and humorous to me during my visit and said nothing to me about the BS (freedom fries), they probably felt sorry for me because that tyrant raper of the constitution Bush was in the big seat during my visit to Europe. I could go on but I am sure I will be given a chance to defend my position again and a war of semantics will ensue;)
interesting stuff ...
good reading AnarchoJesse .....
just a tid bit from those of us on the front regards "libertarians", better known as 'propertytarians' ... the only 'freedom' offered by "libertarians" (i have to use the quotes b/c, imo, libertarians --late 20th century US styled-- are not anarchists..) anyway, even according to private-state capitalist Rothbard, the only freedom 'libertarians' offer is the freedom to choose one's master... that is hardly 'anarchist' ...
btw, Kevin Crson is an excellent mutualist writer who penned a very lenghty piece entitled "Vulgar Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, and Corporate Welfare" which describes quite well the many facets of todaze "libertarians"
again, "libertarians" are not anarchists... so, please, for the sake of history and clarity, stop calling yourselves Libertarian if you don't mean Anarchist, hyphenated or not....
Quote from: nemoslaw on April 16, 2009, 02:16 AM NHFT
I am sure that you are well aware that our Government taxes the crap out of us, okay where does the money go? Not a hell of a lot goes to benefit the people of this country, I can assure you.
Though France is not perfect, they have a great national respect for who they are and they stand up for it, and the French react quickly at the slightest move by their government, because the people of France own their government. They have better health care, they are healthier as a people less obesity etc. Their employee and unemployment benefits are awesome compared to ours and I think that they have a work week substantially less than ours, yet they are not lazy, but enjoy fine art and wine like we should. They eat better, their food is not polluted like ours especially in the country villages.
I went to the Grand Canyon and Sedona everyone there was foreign, I was like where are all the Americans?! How come they are not enjoying these places? cause their over worked underpaid and overtaxed.
I want a Euro rail put in this country with my tax dollars, I want Mexico to clean up their own country and stop running here, so I can go there and utilize my Spanish and not worry about my head being blown off, people don't act like that in Spain. I digress;)
The wine in France is some of the best in the world because it is against the law in most European countries to add poisoning preservatives, the government in France does not have an ATF!In this country all alcohol must be accounted for and warehoused, that is why the nasty head ache causing preservatives are added. Do you think the French would have ever stood for a prohibition, hell no. The French are hella more free than we are, not to mention they bucked the Iraq war from the get go, very smart and they kidnapped money grubbing CEOs which I thought was a great jest, noting that no harm came to them (the CEOS).
I will keep eating my french fries etc., and the French from the country side are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Even when my country was bad mouthing them, they were cordial and humorous to me during my visit and said nothing to me about the BS (freedom fries), they probably felt sorry for me because that tyrant raper of the constitution Bush was in the big seat during my visit to Europe. I could go on but I am sure I will be given a chance to defend my position again and a war of semantics will ensue;)
Those benefits for the most part have nothing to do with the country... they are individualistic.
In fact, I have never heard of anarchy associated with nationalism.
QuoteI have never heard of anarchy associated with nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_nationalism#National-Anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_nationalism#National-Anarchism)
The "nationalism" is around racial/cultural lines with pan-secessionism.
Quote from: antijingoist on April 06, 2009, 11:03 AM NHFT
Perhaps we could do the reverse, and start redefining statist terms and get everyone all confused... Like, calling ourselves republicans, and trying to convince everyone that republicans are anarchist :)... (maybe easier with democrats).
Good idea - you should show up for a Cheshire County Republicans meeting. ;)