Republicans want to create anarchy in the United States

[FormerRepublican]

It's clear from my experience both within and without the Republican Party that the original premise of limited but effective government has morphed into a desire for total anarchy. No function of government is acceptable to Republicans any longer (except, perhaps, for the military). My question is - why the change? Why is Anarchy, a form of government that has proven ineffectively disasterous everywhere it has appeared, suddenly the form of government Republicans espouse?

Perhaps my views have been formed by watching the increasing levels of corruption within our government, but it has occurred to me that it's much easier to engage in corrupt practices that result in big dollars in the midst of Anarchy. Perhaps the new views espoused by the Republican Party are a way to loot even more tax and other dollars from America.

There was a time when failure to support the Constitution of the United States would have been unthinkable by a publically elected official. No longer. Constitutional values are stretched and broken in support of Republican Party priorities, to include the implementation of Anarchy. This is made evident through the Plame leak, and the growing voices within the Republican Party that decry free speech and civil rights protected in the Constitution. Why would the Republican Party object to Constitutional protections? First, because Anarchy by it's very nature can't support enforcement of Constitutional protections. Second, Constitutional rights give power to the people, which in turn risks exposing the continuing and increasing corruption of government. Empowering the common man creates a rival for political power that they feel should be reserved to government officials in creating anarchy to implement their corrupt profit schemes.

Never has our country been in more danger of losing the rights we were granted in the Constitution by the founders of this country. Never has our Constitution been under more serious attack than now. It's true that Republican elected officials are working for government, but whose government is it? Certainly not the government of "We the People" as outlined in our Constution. This should concern every American who values what our nation stands for. If we turn away and ignore what's happening in our country, we could find that the US Consitution is no more than a historical piece of paper with no legal or foundational meaning.

There is a reason why civil rights were included in the Constitution by the founding fathers - they who had experienced government tyranny and injustice first hand. There is a reason why the founding fathers protected the rights of "We the People" as a cure for tyranny and injustice. If we ignore their wisdom as contained in the document they produced, we risk returning to the government tyranny they sacrificed and spilt blood to free us from. That would be a poor legacy left to our children in addition to the trillions of dollars of Bush debt.

[NewJeffCT]

1. it's planned anarchy

their goal is to turn so many people off to the government through incompetence, corruption, cronyism, treason, etc. that nobody will trust it ever again.

They've already made huge strides since Reagan came to office.

[Bloodblister Bob]

2. Anarchy is not a form of government...

It is the absence of government.

[FormerRepublican]

3. The absence of government is itself a form of government.

[Bloodblister Bob]

4. In what universe?

[FormerRepublican]

5. Note form number one...

...on Wikipedia's 'List of Forms of Government':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. If they were actually numbered, it would be zero: non-government

[Bloodblister Bob]

10. Try a real dictionary before Wikipedia:

"Anarchy: Want of goverment; a state of society when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient and individuals do what they please with impunity; politial confusion."
-- Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1859.

[FormerRepublican]

12. Peruse the origins of words.

A dictionary gives definitions of words. An encyclopedia gives meaning for ideas. A dictionary is insufficient to do anything other than define a single word since it cannot put that word in context with other ideas.

The root of the word anarchy itself denotes a form of government, although admittedly its the form of government that is against all rulers.

"anarchy (noun) - Break this word into three morphographic parts:


Parts: an- = not or against
-arch = ruler
-y = a noun ending

Meaning: the state of not having a ruling or effective government"

http://www.rit.edu/~seawww/wordknowledge/wordkn04whatis.html

[Bloodblister Bob]

15. Defintions are "insufficient" only if you don't like the defintion. n/t

[FormerRepublican]

18. Considering the fact that every dictionary has a different definition...

...and the meanings of words change depending on who uses them and how they are used, I would consider a dictionary definition of a word without larger context to be inexact at best.

Tell me, if I live in a country that is currently in a state of anarchy, doesn't that tell me the status of it's government?

Perhaps the word you should define is "form."

"form (fôrm) KEY

NOUN:


The shape and structure of an object.
The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.

The essence of something.
The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind: a form of animal life; a form of blackmail.

Procedure as determined or governed by regulation or custom.
A fixed order of words or procedures, as for use in a ceremony; a formula.
A document with blanks for the insertion of details or information: insurance forms.

Manners or conduct as governed by etiquette, decorum, or custom.
Behavior according to a fixed or accepted standard: Tardiness is considered bad form.
Performance considered with regard to acknowledged criteria: a good jump shooter having an unusual form.

Proven ability to perform: a musician at the top of her form.
Fitness, as of an athlete or animal, with regard to health or training.
The past performance of a racehorse.
A racing form.

Method of arrangement or manner of coordinating elements in literary or musical composition or in organized discourse: presented my ideas in outline form; a treatise in the form of a dialogue.
A particular type or example of such arrangement: The essay is a literary form.
The design, structure, or pattern of a work of art: symphonic form.

A mold for the setting of concrete.
A model of the human figure or part of it used for displaying clothes.
A proportioned model that may be adjusted for fitting clothes.
A grade in a British secondary school or in some American private schools: the sixth form.

A linguistic form.
The external aspect of words with regard to their inflections, pronunciation, or spelling.

Chiefly British A long seat; a bench.
The resting place of a hare.
Botany A subdivision of a variety usually differing in one trivial characteristic, such as flower color.
VERB:
formed , form·ing , forms
VERB:
tr.


To give form to; shape: form clay into figures.
To develop in the mind; conceive: form an opinion.

To shape or mold (dough, for example) into a particular form.
To arrange oneself in: Holding out his arms, the cheerleader formed a T. The acrobats formed a pyramid.
To organize or arrange: The environmentalists formed their own party.
To fashion, train, or develop by instruction or precept: form a child's mind.
To come to have; develop or acquire: form a habit.
To constitute or compose a usually basic element, part, or characteristic of.

To produce (a tense, for example) by inflection: form the pluperfect.
To make (a word) by derivation or composition.
To put in order; arrange.
VERB:
intr.

To become formed or shaped.
To come into being by taking form; arise.
To assume a specified form, shape, or pattern.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English forme, from Latin frma

OTHER FORMS:
forma·bili·ty (Noun), forma·ble (Adjective)

SYNONYMS:
form , figure , shape , configuration , contour , profile

These nouns refer to the external outline of a thing. Form is the outline and structure of a thing as opposed to its substance: a brooch in the form of a lovers' knot. Figure refers usually to form as established by bounding or enclosing lines: The cube is a solid geometric figure. Shape implies three-dimensional definition that indicates both outline and bulk or mass: "He faced her, a hooded and cloaked shape" (Joseph Conrad). Configuration stresses the pattern formed by the arrangement of parts within an outline: The map shows the configuration of North America, with its mountains, rivers, and plains. Contour refers especially to the outline of a three-dimensional figure: I traced the contour of the bow with my finger. Profile denotes the outline of something viewed against a background and especially the outline of the human face in side view: The police took a photograph of the mugger's profile."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/form

[Bloodblister Bob]

23. A country in anarchy has no government. Hello? n/t

[postulater]

6. They are not interested in government.

They are not intereseted in a United States. What they want is the end of people's governments throughout the world. Governments just get in the way. Corporations know no boundaries, their workforce is spread throughout the world. Why should they allow any government anywhere to prevent them from exploiting the people of any region anywhere? George Bush is just a puppet, the real power brokers know he is ineffective at making anything happen so they didn't worry about him screwing them. That's why they put him in power.

Optimum corporate profit can only happen when the corporations are not restricted by any government regulations. They want to be able to set their own rules.

In their eyes the Wild West frontier never ended, it just moved overseas and they are still staking claims. They need free resources and near-slave labor to minimize expenses and they need huge markets to peddle the goods to.

[FormerRepublican]

8. Probably the closest form of government the Republicans espouse...

...is anarcho-capitalism as defined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

There is one exception. They are more than willing to allow the government to grant a specific company monopoly - Halliburton no-bid contracts, for example.

I don't suppose anyone has pointed out to them that this form of government simply doesn't work. With Somalia as an example, I shudder to think what the US would become should they succeed in fully implementing it.

Here's a taste from Wikipedia that sounds awfully familiar:

"Critics often assert that anarcho-capitalism will degenerate into plutocracy or feudalism in practice. They argue that it is a rational economic decision for organizations with the ability to exert coercion (private police, security and military forces) to exploit groups with less power. In this kind of environment, piracy, military imperialism, and slavery can be very profitable. Taken to its logical extreme, this argument assumes that allowing such "security" organizations to exert coercive power will inevitably lead to their becoming a de facto state."

"Critics also point out that anarcho-capitalist ethics do not entail any positive moral obligation to help others in need (see altruism, the ethical doctrine). Like other right libertarians, anarcho-capitalists may argue that no such moral obligation exists or argue that if a moral obligation to help others does exist that there is an overarching moral obligation to refrain from initiating coercion on individuals to enforce it. Anarcho-capitalists believe that helping others should be a matter of free personal choice, and do not recognise any form of social obligation arising from an individual's presence in a society. They, like all right libertarians, believe in a distinction between negative and positive rights in which negative rights should be recognized as being legitimate, and positive rights rejected. Critics often dismiss this stance as being unethical or selfish, or reject the legitimacy of the distinction between positive and negative rights."

Read the full Criticisms of Anarcho-Capitalism in Wikipedia for more.

[seejanerun]

7. Business opportunities

When the government fails because it has been bankrupted by war and pork, guess who gets to perform all of the functions it once performed? Private contractors. And private businesses are not subject to the same consitutional restrictions the government is subject to. Not only will the rich have new business opportunities, they will have an entrenched class of poor people desperate for crumbs and therefore willing to work for a pittance.

This is already happening. Even some military functions are now being performed by private companies, with all of the embezzling and corruption that entails. The Chicago Tribune recently ran stories about a U.S. taxpayer funded pipeline of poor Nepalese lured under false pretenses to low-paying jobs in Iraq.

Also, if the government is driven out of the social services biz, guess who will step in? Needy people will have to look to churches for handouts, which will help reign in any free thinkers who are left--note the new tendency for churches to dictate their parishoners' votes.

Anyway, it is beginning to make sense to me.

[Bloodblister Bob]

11. Neocons are fascists, not anarchists. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

13. Thank you....

where did this anarchy idea come from?

[Bloodblister Bob]

16. Compared to the fascist neocon scenario, anarchy looks damn good. n/t

[FormerRepublican]

17. Unfortunately, what they're doing doesn't fit well into any established...

...definition of forms of government. However, while certain actions are dictatorial (Patriot Act, militarism, increasing power of President vs. institutions), not all actions fit that category.

Lassez-Faire is itself anarchic. For example, free trade agreements fit a more anarchic form of government by eliminating government controls and taxation on trade. A devolution of social programs from government to private charaties is anarchic. As is the desire to eliminate and reduce public schooling in favor of home, religious, and private schooling. The reduction and elimination of government inspection in food production (sometimes with disasterous results) is anarchic. The reduction and elimination of government intervention in matters of discrimination (racial, disability, gender, sexual orientation) is anarchic. The gutting of FEMA and other government institutions is anarchic because it promotes non-governmental responsibility. There are many other examples.

While many actions of the government have been dictatorial, it doesn't mean they're not advancing an anarchic form of government.

[A Simple Game]

14. No, the republicans do not want anarchy.

They want government to pay for the things they want, but do not want to pay for themselves. They don't want to pay for the police, military, etc., but they do want to use them.

[FormerRepublican]

19. I can't argue with that. I know from first hand experience that 'pukes...

...are totally unwilling to pay taxes of any kind. They are also totally unconcerned with the consequences of that.

I would also say that they want to be able to do whatever they want without consequences from the government. Polute, kill protected species, discriminate against others, destroy all unions, etc. From latest evidence, I'd say that also includes criminal behavior. That expectation is completely anti-social and doomed for failure. There will be considerable struggle before they accept failure of their philosophies, however.

[leesa]

20. I agree. The better to institute martial law. That's why it's so comical

to me that Republicans believe it's others who want to take away their guns...projection at its finest.

[newspeak]

21. you cannot have a democratic republic in the New World Order

all you have to do is look at NAFTA and other trade agreements, that put the safety and well-being of the people on a back burner to corporate interest. In the State of CA, benzene was polluting the water by a canadian company, the people and the state went against the company, under NAFTA, the company sued the US and won. Another words they got our taxpaying money to soil our drinking water. The whole concept is not to promote democracies, but smash them. Then, corporations with the state, will rule against the will of the people. It's called FASCISM! Of course, nationalism, is only used to solidify the people against their own interests---labor, environment, civil rights.

[kineneb]

22. anarchy in government, except where personal issues are concerned

I find the dichotomy bizare. Or perhaps it is the fundimental (sorry) hypocrisy of the NeoCons who have coopted the Republican party. They wish to destroy all functions of government which improve the lives of the common citizen (the intentions of the Constitution, for starters) while telling those citizens what they may or may not do in their personal lives. It seem to me that the NeoCons don't really care about "morals," but used the busy-body faction to gain power.

Damn it, I want my Constitution back and those ****s behind bars.