Are Liberals Really Ignorant

As a political anarchist realistically we know that there has to be a government of some form. We push for as little as possible. When the government loans money to banks, car manufacturers and other big industry institutions then passes regulations on how they operate is wrong in our book. If the company fails then it failed for a reason. With minimum wage we see the same thing. If a person doesn't make enough money then get a new job, or a second job. There are times where I worked two jobs. I would rather support myself then have the government support me. If everyone would act on their best interest employers would have to pay decent to keep people working for them. If a job doesn't pay what is deserved then people shouldn't work there. If there aren't jobs in your area, you are either too picky or lazy. Move to an area that has jobs. Make your own job. Too many people rely on the government.

I don't have such a problem with state ran health care. I have a friend in Boston that has it. He is on just about on all the government programs he can find. He is a leech, but still my friend. He has as good of life style as I have, but only works a part-time job cooking somewhere. He loves it. BUT, it is not the Federal government to decide what states do. They should decide on their own. That is why it is set up as states to form a country instead of one big country. The federal government is slowly taking away the states independence by passing laws legislation that could be damaging to the state economy, i.e. cost of everything is a lot higher in California than where I am from, but yet I will have to pay taxes to help them pay for their health care which will cost more than mine. If it was ran on a state level, the handing out of funds would be more equal across the board for that state.

The people in California probably also make a lot more money than people wherever you're from, so they pay more taxes. In fact, they'll probably be subsidizing you, not the other way around.

Yes it technically is more libertarian than conservative, but in reality there are two major parties. I can start an actual anarchist party, but it would never be as prominent as democrats and republicans, and with the smaller parties they are still fondling around getting the support they will need. Until the Tea Part Patriots decide to officially support libertarians they don't have the backing, yet. Give them about ten more years and they can be a viable party.

As far as California making more money than where I am from, yes but just a little. The cost of living verse the money made after taxes is a lot slimmer of a margin, then where I am from. Also there are a lot more people in California that rely of government services than where I am from. So although California makes a little higher earnings than we do, we are still better off. Look up the various government reports, census is usually a good one, and just a little out of date by the time it is published.

If there is something I am missing just put a post with the post number on it and I will look. I am using a little screened computer so it is a little difficult to keep looking back.

Sure, good luck with that.



2005: Arizona got $1.19 in federal spending for each dollar Arizonans paid in federal taxes.
2005: California got $0.78 in federal spending for each dollar Californians paid in federal taxes.
https://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

Seems to me Arizona is the one benefiting and California is the one paying.

In fact, if you look over the states, the liberal ones tend to pay more and the conservative ones tend to take more. What does that tell you?

Isn't "Anarchist Party" some kind of oxymoron?

You'd think so

It tells me that I am not from Arizona. Arizona should be the ideal place for no one; this is the most indecisive place I have ever been. They can't decide what they want here. Arizona is the biggest waste of a state that I have lived in yet. And living here is easy to see why.

And your picture about left-wing being for personal freedom, that is the way it used to be. But if you look back through the past 30 - 40 years that has changed drastically. It has progressed (not sure if that is the right word or not. It is more worried about being nice then letting people have their personal freedom, making everything equal. Life is not equal, if it was I wouldn't be working 12 hour shifts in the military, then working on the weekend just so my wife can go to school. But, I would rather do that then be reliant on the government. The government should rely on its people not the other way around.

I also like debatiang with someone that can look up stuff, good job El_Tino

Yes it is. That is why there isn't one. In the first post I said "I am more of an anarchist" and I have stated that there cannot be a anarchist party, there has to be some form of government.

What is that small party activity? Is that some sort of self-propagating reproductive process, that you call "fondling around"?

fon?dle (fndl)
v. fon?dled, fon?dling, fon?dles
v.tr.
1. To handle, stroke, or caress lovingly. See Synonyms at caress.
2. Obsolete To treat with indulgence and solicitude; pamper.

exactly what it says.

Well, it has been ten minutes since my last post and no more responses, and nobody could convince me liberals weren't ignorant. Only argue what I was saying. It is time for me to get off now. I will check the post later tonight if I can. Had fun.

Please note contradiction in bold.

Anarchy does exist, it is also known as lawlessness. Somalia is one good example. But you say there "can not" be anarchy. What that appears like to me, is you saying there "should not" be anarchy. So how can you call yourself an Anarchist if you don't believe in it? Wanting minimal government is not the same thing as wanting no government at all.

I said I am "more" of an anarchist. Also, Samolia would be a prime example of why there can not be anarchy. You can beleive in something and still know that it would not work, we are not a culture that anarchy could work in, and I will not see it in my time. See it successful anyways.

How can you believe in something while simultaneously believing it can't work? That makes no sense. What exactly is it you believe in?

And your babbling and floundering surely didn't convince anyone that they were, either.