[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/6657578499/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/6657578499/]libertarianism-anarchy-for-rich-people[/url]

And your expectation of who your daughter will hook up with is your expectation and nobody elses...

but I'm not ready to give the ownership of the proud word 'libertarian' to capitalists, and 'anarchy' has nothing to do with rich people and inherently violent notion of "capitalistic ownership".

As for Clint, talking against (bi-partisan) debt, social exclusion ("unemployment&quot and minding about other people's personal choices is just plain decent and common sense. And I don't expect him to be expert on economical political theories and philosophies.

Regarding political philosophies, David Graeber said well: suppose there are two islands, one for anarchists practicing horizontal democracy and commons, and one for capitalist "libertarians" and private property. Without threat and use of violence the "labor" will move to the anarchist island in no time leaving capitalists to do their own work without any slaves and servants.

When you are wanting your cake (to be a conservative) and eat it too (and also be a social liberal) ... you could be called a libertarian ... and anarchy is an ingrained privilege

When your family grows larger (300 million +) your expenditure to house, feed, and cloth that family grows (debt to any measure besides GDP) ... and unemployment is definitely exclusionary in the most definitive terms (when you have no income other than government handouts, which have a definitive time limit, due to the hypocrite Ayn Rand), and especially people in Clint's position should be minding his own businesses not other peoples, and that is really just plain decent common sense ... and he most certainly is not an expert in political philosophies ... maybe Spanish spaghetti westerns .... and Hogs Breath ...

Well quoting a more famous and better political philosopher such as Noam Chomsky asserts that in most countries the terms "libertarian" and "libertarianism" are synonymous with left anarchism. In the United States people commonly associate the term libertarian with those who have economically conservative and socially liberal views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

What do you mean by anarchy being ingrained privilege?

to uphold liberty you cannot be an anarchist ... therefore, anarchy is a privilege bestowed on an individual by a government that promotes liberty ...



The following quotes are taken from ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_anarchism


"Anarchism promotes a rejection of philosophies, ideologies, institutions, and representatives of authority, in support of liberty."


"It asserts that cooperation is preferable to competition in promoting social harmony; that cooperation is only authentic when it is voluntary; and that government authority is unnecessary at best, or harmful at worst."

"Liberty" that is or needs to be upheld by government and leaders is of course anything but.

parroting other peoples interests ...

Please afford yourself some inner examination and do research on countries with less/no government in the world ... I will help you on your search ... here is a country that has had no government since 1991 ... try your anarchy in this country and you will find yourself hanging from the nearest bridge overhead ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14094503

Isn't other people's interests together with mine what social capital and democracy means?

Yes, there is lot of hierarchic violence in Somalia, robber bands and foreign state invaders and religious hierarchies etc. that have nothing to do with anarchy, and as you say may be very hostile and violent towards anarchic democracy. There is practical example of anarchic self-governance much closer where you live: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Good_Government

And as you probably know, the state of bad government in Mexico is much similar to Somalia, various violent hierarchic organizations fighting and fighting, murdering, raping robbing, and violently suppressing further anarchic rebellions and autonomic self-governance in Oaxaca etc. etc.

not yours, or then again maybe it is yours ... and I am posting with a Walton ... ?

So, the rest of your post agrees with my position/logic, that you cannot have anarchy without a strong government committed to liberty/freedom ...

The class of capitalistic ownership mafiosos (Romney etc) want more and more violence mechanisms to protect their organized crime racket called "state" and keep on robbing more and more from all of our relations. Social democratic, "liberal" etc. reformists today (with certain South American exceptions) have abandoned any and all idea of radical revolutionary change and are fighting just for more crumbs from the table of their oppressors, while giving full support to imperialist oppression and robbery of the so called 3rd and 4th worlds.

You have some interest in indigenous peoples. Most of them are very anarchic, in anthropological study most human cultures - those called "primitive" by so called civilized people - are anarchic. Zapatista revolution which I mentioned is founded on its roots of indigenous anarchic democracy, not what liberals and social democratic reformists see as "strong government" of hierarchic monopoly of violence.

As we agreed in earlier discussion, many naturally anarchic indigenous people rather drink themselves to death than join the hierarchic violence of "strong government" that destroyed their way of life on their way to suicide.

Forest is not dependent from House, from "Strong Government" of hierarchic organization of putting things under control. Forest can live without house. House is dependent from Forest and cannot live without it.

House that knows how to live as part of forest makes Forest more rich, adding to the multitude of voices and song of Forest and brings more beauty. House that tries to put Forest under it's control is trying to kill what it lives from.

It's on at 4p here

'NO' ...

of today's GOP.


Pssst.... Clint..... Rmoney is NO libertarian and the GOP does NOT want to "leave everybody alone"!


There's no fool like an old fool.

He maybe (self-admittedly ) senile, but not the fool you think. The criticism of GOP is "pretty clear" as you say, so why not just accept it like it is, as perfectly clear criticism from an "old fool"?

In his speech Clint told Romney to go fuck himself, and as we see, Romney did as told. Clint is his own message, nobody's fool.

I agree Rmoney is well and truly fucked.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing Clint is running some kind of double-secret black op for Obama.

Clint made a fool of himself and he's fooling himself if he thinks acting like a jolly old man now will make anyone forget his disgraceful comments at the RNC.

It was classic performance art, the chair "told" Clint to tell Romney to !"#¤&%.

And no, Clint is not running "double-secret black op for Obama" either. It's not black-or-white, there is world outside the with-us-or-against-us bipartisan mutual delusion which interprets everything as Democratic or Republican and sees nothing else. The world where most people live, DU and freeperland being exceptions, not the norm.

a party's national convention, that's about as "partisan" as it gets in my book.

“If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to go to a political convention and say something, they’re gonna have to take what they get.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021369456

I think he doesn't give a damn about Romney or helping him get elected. Nor is he promoting Obama.

He went out and just winged it and got a lot of publicity for his movie, which comes out this week I believe.

And if that's why he did it, then he's an even bigger asshole than I thought.

Clint's obviously smart in a lot of ways but I can where that still applies to him now.

When running for mayor of Carmel, his opponent accused him of wanting to turn the pristine community into another Hollywood.

"If I wanted to live in a place like Hollywood," responded Eastwood, "I'd live in Hollywood."

I knew he was a Republican, but at that moment I thought I could vote for him.