The problem I see with this is that I feel like these grassroots movements are going to drive hard left, much like how the Tea Party drove hard right.
Doesn't sound like a problem to me. Dogmatic extremism is problematic, yes, but...
Look at it this way. Would you rather have evolutionary anarchists, or revolutionary anarchists? (Assuming you're not one yourself.) One of them works within the system to alter it democratically. The other tears down the system from outside. If you disagree with anarchism, you want the anarchists inside and listened-to. Otherwise they'll just tear the state down themselves.
What the heck is an 'evolutionary anarchist'? Is that like evolution run amok or something?
...I'm pretty sure I fabricated that word, but in my mind, it is the opposite of a revolutionary anarchist.
I consider myself in that category. I don't think that a revolution would be good right now - the powerful would most likely win, and any success would be bought with far too much bloodshed. No, reducing power to sheer strength is not in our interests. If it is possible to change the system from within, to change things
peacefully and without bloodshed, then we should do that.
Of course, it's debatable whether that would work. But again, it's
also debatable whether the people would come out on top in a revolution.
Honestly I'd rather not have anarchists at all.
You've got a few ways to achieve this:
- Convince anarchists that the state is actually good. This requires both a strong theoretical argument and real results - make a government without the problems anarchists point out.
- Use the threat of force to suppress all anarchist movements.
- Kill all anarchists.
Unfortunately, 1 is probably infeasible. So you've got a choice between:
- Engaging in ideological genocide (will result, most likely, in the tool of death being used against you by an oppressor)
- Suppressing us (will result, most likely, in revolution)
- Letting us speak freely (may or may not result in anarchism being realized)
If I were you, I'd pick the bottom.
Oh, so now you're accusing Ispil of trying to kill you? Nice job, you played the victim card very nicely.
Ispil only said that they didn't like the hard left. That's fine. Why are you ranting so much?
Are there any moderates left in politics?
Meh. I agree that radicalization is prevalent, but I don't really see a problem with that. Again, it's
dogmatic or
FREEDOM-reducing radicalization that causes problems. And I am clearly not dogmatic or anti-freedom, which means that your taking issue with my post is anti-free speech and must be censored for the sake of freedom.
So, epiphany on immigration stuff. I think I figured out a "pathway to citizenship" that people won't disagree with.
You'd be surprised how many people can disagree with a concept
just because it came from a "liberal". (And "liberal" means "not as far-right as I am.")
(Granted, leftists can do the same. Sometimes.)
Ah, so you're admitting that some leftists are bad in order to display an air of "rationality" and "fairness". Nice move.
You see, when you join the US military as an immigrant, you can attain citizenship even without permanent residency. Why not extend this to illegal immigrants? They can get citizenship if they fight on the country's behalf.
"I don't want those Mexicans in our army! They'll just cowardly run away, or perhaps shoot us all."
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1411497 times)