I think someone should start asking McCain if there should be a draft. If they think a surge worked (just more numbers in a concentrated area as far as I understand it), don't they need more troops to continue this "strategy."

Note how Romney and McCain put on their best shit eating grins as they watch Paul fly off into hysterics in his attempt to wake up the Party.

I'm really hating the non-existant format of recent debates and their playing only to the presumptive leading candidates. It's like you've ham-strung the electorate as everyone is forced to embrace the leading ass way too early. Isn't there a rational way to run the primaries?

So you just write Ron Paul off as a nut? For what?

Ron Paul makes the incredibly important point that the war has nothing to do with protecting America, and the other two sit there grinning. Unbelievable.

To borrow John Edwards's phrase, Ron Paul was the grownup in that exchange.

Ron Paul is right on a lot more issues than just the war Norm, but at least he prioritizes. If we don't end the war and many of our other entanglements over seas, you can forget about changing our health-care system...we'll be far to busy going bankrupt to be able to do anything constructive about it.

What about Libertarians makes them "nuts". As a libertarian I'm constantly being called crazy when I engage in political debate, but when we actually discuss issues they are never able to ratify their reason as to why Libertarians are crazy. Ending the war on drugs, abolishing secretive and unaccountable branches of government (the CIA), ending corporate subsidies (agriculture, oil, military industrial complex), ending sanctions (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Burma) abolishing the income tax, repealing all laws against victimless crimes (prostitution, nudity, profanity) and that individuals are the absolute owners of their lives. What about libertarian philosophy do you object to? Is it the opposition to state run health care?

"What about Libertarians makes them "nuts"."

Nothing...you could just as easily blow Norm's views off as being that of a Liberal "Nut", and it would carry about as much meaning. Libertarians have a LOT of good ideas, and so do Liberals...and it is my humble opinion that all good ideas should get a chance to be heard.

Ron Paul is viewed as nuts because he has "free-market" views on the economy that a very small minority of economists would agree with. He has supposedly faithful views of the constitution that few scholars of constitutional law would agree with. But because these extreme ideas are very simple, some people mistakenly think he must be the only one telling the truth. The only ideas which ae correct are ones which are exac copies of liberal ideas--that Iraq had no connection to terrorism, etc. But his root reason for not wanting the Iraq war is really an isolationist view about sovereignty. He thinks that OBL is really upset about violations of sovereignty which is absurd.

Air420--yes, among many other things I reject the libertarian doctrine because it only seems to case about the abuse of government power, not the abuse of other forms of social power. Liberals worry about both. Conservatives worry about neither.

About Ron Paul's idea of bankruptcy. Yes, we have our spending priorities really screwed up. But not having the money is not the problem. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is much lower than it was when Clinton became president. Ron Paul thinks our dollar is weak beacuse of the deficit and monetary policy, but it has even more to do with our balance of payments in general. We have a major candidate for the presidency who thinks that pegging it to gold would solve he problem. It would be economically disasterous in general, but it would also be very bad for the poor.

The staggering thing about McCain is how he can get so many voters who completely disagree with him. In NH we won anti-war voters. In FL he won pro-choice voters. There were candidates who had views like these but the voters rejected them for McCain. We have to decide if we're more sick of war or more sick of Bush. Because McCain maybe a GOP alternative to Bush, but he was been for every single war that has ever been proposed ever since he got into Congress. Seriously.

For those who don't understand the philosophy behind liberty or libertarians rather, here's a video that helps to explain it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

"The only ideas which ae correct are ones which are exac copies of liberal ideas--that Iraq had no connection to terrorism, etc."

These aren't ideas, they are simple observations that many people have made from the start, including myself...and I do not label my self a liberal. Why is it that your "Liberal" candidates have not then embraced these ideas though, by deciding to stop the funding of the war? I mean talk is cheep. Obama and Hillary in reality do not have a problem with the war, they just don't agree with how it's being waged. Just look at how they've been voting.

republicans wanna be your daddy, liberals wanna be your mommy and libertarians want to treat you like adults.

"But his root reason for not wanting the Iraq war is really an isolationist view about sovereignty. He thinks that OBL is really upset about violations of sovereignty which is absurd."

So why exactly should he be against the war in iraq? what reason would satisfy you?

You know, there are some things I admire about John McCain, and am no Romney fan, but I can't believe how shamelessly McCain is distoring Romney's past statement here.

Not to mention the fact congress never declared war.

"But his root reason for not wanting the Iraq war is really an isolationist view about sovereignty. He thinks that OBL is really upset about violations of sovereignty which is absurd."

I think it's cute how Liberals feel threatened when someone from another party or ideology agrees with them on an issue...they have to make haste to define there reason for sharing the same view to be somehow different, and their reasons more relevant and rational. Hate to break it to you liberals but you don't have a monopoly on the Anti-War racket anymore. :( snif snif

Ron Paul is "crazy" because he wants to get rid of almost all government. Basically take our federal government back to the way it was in 1789 or thereabouts.

So how much worse would the gov'ts response to Katrina have been? Well there would have been no government to respond, except the state gov't I guess. Look at the job they did. A Libertarian would argue that the local gov'ts would be more powerful and able to respond if the fed. gov't was less strong. That may be true for some and would likely not be true for most, which is the reason our federal gov't evolved to be strong, because the local and state gov'ts just couldn't cope with the problems the country faced.

A study of history will show each and every expansion of federal power and why it happened. The first major expansion of power was the Civil War. Without the expansion of power then there would be no US as we know it today. Before that you had the Federal Bank, which was put in place because it was so difficult for people to do business in the US - there were no standards. Anyone could and many did make their own money.

Libertarians might argue that after the Civil War the federal gov't should have given all the power it ceased back to the States, but didn't. This was impossible because of the damage to the country the war caused.

Anyway I ramble. Sorry.

I think one's political views come a lot from what they fear.

It seems the more you think the masses are stupid and just going to mess everything up... you tilt conservative

It seems the more you fear people in power... you tilt liberal

It seems the more you fear governments... libertarian

The more you fear corporations... green party.

Personally I'm afraid of governments merging with corporations and linking everyone into a matrix which somehow leads everyone to have superhero powers. :)

"A study of history will show each and every expansion of federal power and why it happened."

This is true...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be reevaluating these expansions of power today. Liberals talk about gay rights and how the Government should allow homosexuals to be able to marry...what Libertarians would ask is why is the Government even regulating our marriages to begin with??? If marriage returned to being simply a religious function, we wouldn't even be having the debate on gay rights in regards to marriage. But yeah there were reasons for these expansions of power when they were originally put into place, of course...but that doesn't mean they are still relevant, OR that their existence continues to serve the greater good.

I kind of like many of the Libertarian position on issues relating to personal liberties but their economic policies betray a profound ignorance of how economies actually work. Their proposals on limiting Federal government and aggrandizing State rights is a recipe for the Balkanization of the United States.

Ron Paul is nuts because he talks about things like the gold standard, and that sounds silly because it's old and i dont even really know what it is.

what is callous and cruel about ending the war or to not imprison people for using drugs or to not take their money and spy on them? Dont be such a nanny norm. its not crazy, it's just too radical for you, some might even call it. strange that someone who calls themselves a liberal would be against liberty....

Oh the oh so evil and cruel free market!

"Oh the oh so evil and cruel free market!"

well in all fairness, the free market system does have it's down falls...like having to watch the success of no-tallents like 50 cent cash in on it. :P lol

I really don't know enough about Libertarians to understand how they think government will work. I don't even know which countries follow libertarian ideology....that's always helpful to see how something works. (One thing I have seen in action is government run health care programs. That does work and why anyone would be against everyone being able to get health care as opposed to only if you've got enough money is really beyond me.)

re: the gays rights comment.

the reason such an issue (gods i can't believe an anarch is about to defend gov't. i feel dirty...) as gay marriage is important in the republic that you have is relatively simple: it's not the religious status they are after, it's the legal rights that come with it in full. the opposition fo civil unions comes directly from the constant reduction of available rights in them which make civilunions non-commisrent with marriage. spousal health insurance, survivor benefits, tax pooling, et. al. are all related to the legal status of marriage in your republic. to that end the only available way to safeguard those rights is federal acknowledgement of them, otherwise the legal rights would be denied on religious grounds, i.e. it's not a man and woman therefore not a marriage therefore go suck an egg.

but there are other places where the libertarian as opposed to the social anarch model fails horridly: right of egalitarianism. look back at the 50s and 60s, and then tell me the odds of segregation ceasing to exist without federal mandates. it was a major uphill battle even then, but the state had said rather blatantly that blacks were not to mix with whites and had to have seperate facilities for everything. it was pretty close to apartheid in some states. it took federal level action and direct intervention to bring about the egality that was supposedly "inherent" in the rights of "man" such that if the nation had been libertarian at the time, segregation would still exist today. the problems seen in libertarianism are legion, the most critical being the rights of individuals without economic might and the abuse of the majority by the minority who hold bourgeoisie influence pretensions and power.

the areas where "liberals" and anarchs agree is that corporation are a threat, because they are the new aristocracy. and they lave no head to cut off, no body for the firing squad, no soul to damn and no conscience to plague.

"What about Libertarians makes them "nuts"."

I'm very, very close to being Libertarian in my soul, without calling myself one. I definitely take a jaundiced view of big government led by smarmy megalomaniacs who seduce the wide-eyed electorate into thinking that, within their generation, this enlightened party will be your servant without becoming your master. It's the most dangerous crock of shit, because it's so easy to pump full of virtues which all sound so noble and make you FEEL good. I've never seen a Libertarian candidate or pundit, however, that didn't embarrass me. They tend to be dogmatic ideologues without wanting to deal with the complexities of the world as it is. I also think that perhaps, deep down, Libertarians fear success because otherwise then they'd be "the man" in a system which contradicts their independent leanings.

Ron Paul makes the incredibly important point that the war has nothing to do with protecting America, and the other two sit there grinning

But this is simply false. The war in Iraq probably was not necessary to protect America, but certainly success in Iraq is now. If Iraq fails the entire world will be less secure. Anybody can see that.

Paul is just doing what everyone who campaigns on 'ending the Iraq war' does: keep judging things based on what we should have done, not what we should do. At some point you have to accept that we invaded the country, and it's our mess to fix.

That is not to say that every libertarian is callous and cruel, but that their ideas would inevitably lead to that.

Hey, we're in agreement on something.

Contrary to how they are framed, libertarians do not 'treat you like adults'. They treat you as expendable. Libertarianism is an entirely selfish ideology.

My disenchantment with it grew immensely when I started hearing libertarians defending Wal-Mart's business practices. There's a reason we put restrictions on the 'free market'.

Of all the things I think about Paul, I'll always respect him for standing up in the middle of the republican race and saying "WTF, are you guys Crazy?" Regardless of where the war is now, and what paul wants to do now, his unending questioning of why we are there makes me smile.

I hope you people that diss Ron Paul are aware of our possible economic collapse that rarely (if ever) gets talked about:

Commentary from Warren Buffet: http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle2003102603.html

Commentary from the U.S. government's accountant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64

Summary: - Social security and medicare alone will bankrupt us (similar to the way entitlements bankrupted Argentina). Situation is made worse from borrowing from the social security trust. - We have to borrow from foreign countries and print money to pay for everything. - Foreign countries (Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) hold trillions of dollars of our debt and realize what's going to happen. They're in the process of dumping the dollar by using other currencies and taking over our country by buying up U.S. assets (remember that Dubai port scandal? That was just the tip of the iceberg) and can threaten us at any time because of the economic leverage they have over us. - We have very shady accounting and the general public isn't really aware of the giant scope of these problems and most politicians are either unaware, profiting, or too incompetent about this issue.

I suggest all of you pick up a copy of Harry Browne's book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World". I had the same complaints against libertarianism but that book really opened my eyes as to why everything else is worse in comparison (not to mention that it's a pretty practical book in terms of protecting your own lifestyle without the help of anyone else even if you don't accept libertarianism).

I am just curious for people who consider themselves liberals when do people become responsible for themselves? Any situation where stealing from the rich to give to the poor is wrong? Is there a certain point you get to where you draw the line and say ok we shouldnt all have to pay for somebody else to get this?

I guess these questions could be asked of any ideology but since this is a liberal site, Ill ask this for now.

Paul is just doing what everyone who campaigns on 'ending the Iraq war' does: keep judging things based on what we should have done, not what we should do. At some point you have to accept that we invaded the country, and it's our mess to fix.

This worries me, but I agree with Calligraph on this one point. We meddled in Iraq and now we have to clean up the fucking mess that we made there. The problem is that I don't think that we're capable of cleaning up the mess. Hell, the mess in Afghanistan is still a mess. We headed off to Iraq like a bunch of cowboys before we dealt with Afghanistan and now the Taliban fundamentalists are back in charge again..

I have yet to hear of any reasonable plan to stabilize Iraq. We used to support the Shia, now we're supporting the Sunni (the very people who were on Hussein's side) and we're now killing the Shia, the very people who Hussein killed...

It's a fucking mess..

(continuing my line of inquiry from another thread-maybe this is a better place to address it)

so is this the best we can do, joanne, throw up our hands and declare the fucking mess?

i understand that among people who support staying in iraq that there's an argument about what exactly to do there- how to tie up the loose ends as much as possible, which could obviously take quite a long time.

so, i'm wondering what a similar argument among "cut and runners" might sound like.

i have no position on this matter. :)

so is this the best we can do, joanne, throw up our hands and declare the fucking mess?

Hell, I don't know what the answer is. We've fucked things up royally and what to do now? I have no idea!

And, again, that's JoAnn, with no "e"

i have no position on this matter. :)

Well, nice that you can smile about it. I find the entire debacle depressing!

throw up our hands

And what's this bit about "our" hands? I thought that you have no position on the matter...

what's this bit about "our" hands?

well, it's hard as an israeli/american. as an american i think it foolhardy and even criminal that we invaded iraq a second time in the first place, and the reasons for being there now are considerably, shall we say, less compelling.

as an israeli, however, i was pleased to see anyone kick saddams ass, and furthermore, having "big brother" around in the event of inevitable bullying by the many and powerful neighborhood bullies is an extremely seductive idea.

so the next time someone tells you there's no dual loyalty among american jews (or at least american/israeli jews) tell 'em i said to blow it out their ass.

Ron Paul is nuts because he talks about things like the gold standard, and that sounds silly because it's old and i dont even really know what it is.

That's like saying "I'm for the Iraq War even though I'm not exactly sure what an Iraq is." You can trash the Gold Standard all you'd like since I have no emotional attachments to it but at least if you're going to dismiss something have some substance.

But this is simply false. The war in Iraq probably was not necessary to protect America, but certainly success in Iraq is now. If Iraq fails the entire world will be less secure. Anybody can see that.

Nonsense. Not only do experts disagree with that view but even our enemies! This war has never been about national security. If you look at the evolution of pretexts used to stay in Iraq we've gone from WMDs to 9/11-Iraq links to Saddam is an evil dictator that must be taken out and McCain in a debate with Ron paul a while back said that we should now stay to raise troop morale.

so the next time someone tells you there's no dual loyalty among american jews (or at least american/israeli jews) tell 'em i said to blow it out their ass.

Ouf! This is a complex topic and anyone who would say anything this simplistic should be blown off.

Nonsense. Not only do experts disagree with that view but even our enemies! This war has never been about national security. If you look at the evolution of pretexts used to stay in Iraq we've gone from WMDs to 9/11-Iraq links to Saddam is an evil dictator that must be taken out and McCain in a debate with Ron paul a while back said that we should now stay to raise troop morale.

Well, we have certainly upset the balance. What are we to do now? Just leave and say "what will be will be" after we made a mess out of the situation?

And, no, I don't have any answers. I just feel that the U.S. invaded Iraq, overthrew their goverment, and now we're responsible.

What a mess we've made over there! :(

Nonsense. Not only do experts disagree with that view but even our enemies! This war has never been about national security. If you look at the evolution of pretexts used to stay in Iraq we've gone from WMDs to 9/11-Iraq links to Saddam is an evil dictator that must be taken out and McCain in a debate with Ron paul a while back said that we should now stay to raise troop morale.

I'm not sure how true that is. There were many pretexts for going to Iraq - basically the things you listed - but there really is no need to list reasons to stay. There's only one reason. We started something there, and the best course of action is to keep trying to finish it.

It's quite possible that candidates have used the same rationale to 'justify' staying, but that's politics. I don't think it's any more or less reprehensible than the people who say 'we need to get out of Iraq'. Both are political positions, not policy positions.

The problem is that the real message gets old. If a candidate just kept saying over and over (as I do) that we need to stay in Iraq because we need to finish the job, they'd be mocked and derided by a sound-bite-driven media system. Bush tried this, if you recall, saying over and over that we need to 'stay the course'. It became a joke (largely because that's how our modern culture connects with politics: via jokes, ridicule, and cynicism).

I am just curious for people who consider themselves liberals when do people become responsible for themselves? Any situation where stealing from the rich to give to the poor is wrong? Is there a certain point you get to where you draw the line and say ok we shouldnt all have to pay for somebody else to get this?

Good question. It's an issue that boggles my mind as well, and the main reason I've shifted to a more conservative (classical, not neo-con) viewpoint as I've gotten older.

An example is the sub-prime mortgage situation. I'm hearing a lot of ranting about 'corporations' this and 'predatory' that. But the basic problem is that people signed contracts they didn't bother to read or understand. At what point do you hold somebody responsible for that?

I know I wouldn't buy a $500K house that I'd be paying for 30 years without fully understanding every bit of the contract. And while I understand that a lot of people are suffering from this whole mess, at some point you have to point the finger at the idiot who signed the contract. Seriously, who signs on for a variable-rate mortgage?

How much of a working man's tax needs to go to subsidize people who make bad decisions? In my mind, zero. Unless you're my immediate family, your decisions are your own responsibility. Should we have rules to stop usury and blatantly unfair business practices? Sure. Should we stop bailing out companies like airlines and banks? Most definitely. Should we have laws to void all consequences of being irresponsible? No way. Where I break from liberal ideology is in the idea that nobody should ever suffer. Suffering is part of life. If you don't want to suffer, make smart decisions. Our responsibility as a society is to provide the reasonable framework to enable people to make smart decisions. Not to clean up their messes.

i'm curious, calligraph: how do you separate "the pretexts" from "the job"?

because the pretexts look like a job description to me. they're all moot (wmd's) or accomplished ("taking out" saddam).

i'm guessing the answer is something like "remaking iraq in the image of a democracy", but i think that sounds silly as a job description. because then the question becomes "why iraq specifically?"

Suffering is part of life. If you don't want to suffer, make smart decisions.

this is one of the most evil sentances i've ever seen. just sayin'.

Norm, I've been a long time reader of your site here, and I find myself agreeing with many of your views. As I've written here before, however, I support Paul and agree with many of his policies.

I would love it if you would take the time to write a post describing what parts of his platform you seem to disagree with so fervently. For someone who seems to usually be open minded and iconoclastic, I'm somewhat surprised to see you simply label him a "nut". You should know that calling someone crazy is often a convenient way to avoid the difficulties that come with understanding a different perspective.

JoAnn(no "E"): What are we to do now? Just leave and say "what will be will be" after we made a mess out of the situation?

Callgirl: There's only one reason. We started something there, and the best course of action is to keep trying to finish it.

Arend Lijphart's theories of consociationalism demonstrate that contries deeply divided along racial, ethnic, religious, and cultural lines are less likely to adopt and maintain democracy. A power-sharing arrangement (the consociational democracy) will not work in Iraq because although they show promising signs of small ethno-religious segments and small population size, they lack a political culture of moderation and compromise. Thus the relative "stability" you and others (like Tony Snow) speak of is only sustained by our presence and will only continue by us staying there indefinitely. Like Ron Paul said in the clip above, we neither have the money nor the resources for such a project.

We have merely transferred, not only the job, but the cruelty and destruction (and multiplied it tenfold!) of Saddam and handed it over to the United States. The story about the "stability" of Iraq is merely a propaganda tool and you seemed to have unfortunately fallen for it.

This war has also served as pretext to diminish the very rights people are quick to proclaim to spread around the world: Freedom! Liberty! Consider that giving up a liberty for safety describes an oxymoron. When you give up a liberty you lose an element of safety because you no longer have control of that liberty you once had. Whoever takes your liberty now has control over you, thus you lose the very safety of that liberty you once had. As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." This war has been a catastrophe across the board. It not only made us lose our rights, but the economic means to support ourselves. And like Howard Zinn said, the killing of 3,000 in 9/11 was used as justification for the killing of tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq (no sense of proportion is an understatement).

Unfortunately there is nothing we can do and as I said it would be illogical, immoral, and unjustifiable to stay indefinitely in Iraq. We will eventually have to withdraw our troops (or as those from your side with incredibly small penises like to call it "cut and run" as though this we're a fight to uphold an image rather than for national security--which in reality is neither) and the country will inevitably become chaotic. Our only options are to either prolong the agony or admit failure and get the fuck out.

My Warren Buffet link about the U.S. dollar got screwed up above:

link

"it's not the religious status they are after, it's the legal rights that come with it in full. the opposition fo civil unions comes directly from the constant reduction of available rights in them which make civilunions non-commisrent with marriage. spousal health insurance, survivor benefits, tax pooling, et. al. are all related to the legal status of marriage in your republic. to that end the only available way to safeguard those rights is federal acknowledgement of them, otherwise the legal rights would be denied on religious grounds, i.e. it's not a man and woman therefore not a marriage therefore go suck an egg."

I am well aware of the benefits our government provides to the legal acknowledgement of marriage, but it skirts the issue. Marriage is not what it use to be, and with all the legal benefits you speak of there are just as many draw backs to it as well, if not MORE...and HALF of everyone you know who gets married today will be able to tell you about them one day, when they have to pony up their dow to get devorced. It's just statistics my friend.
By the way, where do Anarchists live exactly? Do they pay their taxes? Do they have citizenship to a Country? I'm only asking these questions because you say your an anarchist and aside from sounding cool in a 70s punk rock band, by calling your self that today just sounds rather silly. I'd love some insight on what exactly an Anarchist is in your mind, and what one does to promote his causes(or lack there of), and can I have some salt with that egg? ;)

bob, this will nswer many of your questions.

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

for the record, i am a canadian, i pay taxes because it helps pay for things like healthcare which under an anarch system would be a communal affair, i have two citizenships, for no other reason then i have no choice but to have them in order to continue to survive, but i would have no problem of having a citizenship as part of an anarch society, since it would be a badge of honour in my mind. :)

there is nothing silly calling oneself an anarch any more then there is calling oneself a democrat - in fact, in the 15th-17th centuries the term "democracy" was written as a way of saying chaos, rebellion, wanton destruction, etc etc.

The word "anarchy" is from the Greek, prefix an (or a), meaning "not," "the want of," "the absence of," or "the lack of", plus archos, meaning "a ruler," "director", "chief," "person in charge," or "authority." Or, as Peter Kropotkin put it, Anarchy comes from the Greek words meaning "contrary to authority." [Anarchism, p. 284]

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean "having no government" or "being without a government," as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply "no government." "An-archy" means "without a ruler," or more generally, "without authority," and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism "attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State." [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means "not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule." [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13]

and there is no egg on my face, unless the petty child of the corporate aristocrat hurls the egg. i would take it and make an omelete to feed those whom i can.

you may mock me for my beliefs, i only hope your eye catches the coming of your corporate master's whip.

As a liberal, I believe the more people that are happy and healthy, the better the society. I think when people don't have anything, it brings out the worst in them, literally leading to racial hatred (Nazis, anyone? I suppose, you, as libertarians would've also been against the Marshall Plan?) and shall we talk about where the fertile grounds for religious fanaticism are? I know there are exceptions - of course, but in general, I promise you, if family feels they are able to get ahead, THAT is what they will be working on.

I don't even get the whole argument Calligraph and Brian (was it) are putting forth. I know the right wing has bred a nice anti- liberal marketing campaign which basically makes it seem like Dicken's times were the good old days - poorhouses, no government help, and the classes stay exactly where they are (and no mention of noblesse oblige - nope - not unless they are immediate family.)

Hey Drudwy, sorry if I sounded mean or came off as a prick framing those questions that way, and calling you silly...It was just my negative reaction to your, "suck an egg" comment. It's very easy to be rude in these blogs I find.
I am genuinely curious about your views, so thanks for sharing...but correct me if I'm wrong, but Anarchy as you described it seems to be very similar to Socialism, or am I wrong?...would you say that there is a significant difference between the two?

there's different types of anarchists - i am a social anarch. i believe the community has the responsibility as well as the priviledge of looking after each other. from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, and surplus is shared by decision of the community.

in that sense, it often resembles socialism in it's original meaning - i.e. the european systems. the problems arise imho from the overt and aristoocratic power of the autocratic authoritarian gov'ts and the bourgeoisie corporations which actively use their wealth and influence to affect changes which benefit them at the expense of the people - as i have said, they have no head to cut off, no body for the firing squad, no soul to damn and no conscience to plague.

i for one do not look happily on the sociopath that is the modern corporation.

it should be noted there are extreme differences between communism and socialism, and the fact that most communist states tened to call themselves socialist did not make them so, anymore then some militaty dictatorships calling themselves "democratic" makes them so.

example: democratic republic of congo.

Love the site, first comment, but just curious why you think Ron Paul is a nut? I don't agree with everything he says, pro-life, etc., but the most important issues for this country are the war and getting back to the constitution. We're quite far from the constitution at this point.