<p>
</p>
<p>America is not a Christian nation in the sense that Israel is a Jewish nation and Iran is an Islamic nation, but the principles and basic tenets of Christianity had a significant influence upon our founding fathers when they created this nation. America was certainly founded upon the principles of Christianity.</p>
<p>^^^The treaty of Tripoli would beg to differ with you:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[US</a> Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797](<a href=“Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money”>Top Cash Earning Games in India 2023 | Best Online Games to earn real money)</p>
<p>The treaty was signed in 1796, so it’s not as if those people who created the treaty had to interpret what the founding fathers really meant upon creating the US. Some of the founding fathers weren’t even Christians.</p>
<p>“Anarchy only works in a small society, not in a society with over 300 million people.”</p>
<p>lol, wut? Can you give me some reasoning, or are you just handing out assertions?</p>
<p>
In this case, people will either be more motivated to vote, since their vote has a direct effect on the issue, or they will be apathetic about the issue, in which case there is no problem. This is much better than it is now, where people have strong opinions about issues and vote for the representative promising to attain their desired outcome, but where the representatives are powerless to follow through with their promises.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is. You’re arguing about implementation, when you should be arguing about effect, under the assumption it was implemented. It’s an unrelated argument, and thus, a straw man.
I guess the expansion would happen on its own when people are free to vote for any party, since the issues significant to them were already addressed by direct vote. I think, most importantly, idiots would stop voting for representatives altogether out of apathy, for the very reason that the only issues they cared about were already addressed. As of now, you vote for the candidate who supports gay marriage and have to deal with the rest of the package he comes with. And how many people actually pay attention to the rest of the package?</p>
<p>While both extremes bother me a lot, the thing that bothers me the most is people taking a stance on one side or the other of an issue and not researching all the facts to back it up. While I usually don’t say much, I love to play devil’s advocate and will occasionally bring up the other side with a better arguement and they just sit there saying the exact same thing over and over again, never advancing the debate.</p>
<p>At my college it is the upper-middle class kids who are conservative/libertarian who are the worst (the school newspaper opinion section is so frustrating!). At high school it was the liberals.</p>
<p>All I would like is for people to be more open minded (although I definately lean towards liberal and think all people who are “moderates” are just too lazy to research the issues and take a side).</p>
<p>Anarchy would never work in any society. Libertarian is the closest you could get, and that still wouldn’t work with a medium/large society (although in theory libertarian is the most efficient political ideology, but we don’t live in a perfect world).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok. Your proposal would cause chaos because it has no well defined measure for what issues matter or the balance of power between representatives and direct voters.</p>
<p>See CA.</p>
<p>Hahaha… Dude, okay. Assume a majority vote has decided how to define issues to be directly voted on. Now that I’ve addressed your obvious straw man, let’s get back to the real argument… Thanks, cutie.</p>
<p>“Anarchy would never work in any society. Libertarian is the closest you could get, and that still wouldn’t work with a medium/large society (although in theory libertarian is the most efficient political ideology, but we don’t live in a perfect world).”</p>
<p>Sorry to be rude, but what are you even talking about? Care to provide an argument?</p>
<p>“the thing that bothers me the most is people taking a stance on one side or the other of an issue and not researching all the facts to back it up.”</p>
<p>Didn’t you just do that to anarchists (and libertarians)? If you think not, prove to me you know anything about anarcho-capitalist theory…</p>
<p>When there is anarchy there are no laws. With no laws, people will do whatever they feel like as long as it benefits them. This leads to theft, looting, riots, public works deteriorating, etc. (what else do you think would happen? People will start paving roads on their own because they feel like it? lol). Baisc economics: people will do whatever they can to advance their utility. Governments put laws into place to make sure no one person advances their utility at the cost of someone elses.</p>
<p>Libertarian is the closest to anarchy in terms of freedoms. There is minimal federal government (just enough to provide national defense, courts, police, and maybe a few other bear essientials), and people can do whatever they feel like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. This is ideal because it assumes people are naturally good and with the extra money they save due to government taxes/inefficienies they will donate this money to charity. Where the government service end, privitization begins. In reality, people are not as nice as some people want to believe. If you give most people a $10,000 bonus, they are going to buy a jet ski/save it for retirement and not give it to the poor for food/subsidized housing.</p>
<p>Okay, I’m not going to get mad at you because it seems you haven’t any education in these areas (although your description of minarchism/libertarianism was suitable, I guess), which is completely understandable.</p>
<p>“When there is anarchy there are no laws”</p>
<p>First, this is just patently false. There’s a good essay by Hans-Herman Hoppe on how a private law society might function. That might be a starting point. </p>
<p>“what else do you think would happen? People will start paving roads on their own because they feel like it?”</p>
<p>No, I expect them to do it because there is a profit involved, just like with any other good/service that warrants demand. Remember, even you said people are mostly concerned with increasing their own utility.</p>
<p>“Stefbot” is a good Youtube channel for anarchist philosophy basics, assuming you are interested</p>
<p>If any of you haven’t read the novel “Snow Crash” I highly recommend it. It basically does to anarchism and extreme libertarianism what Animal Farm and 1984 did to communism, except with more awesomeness.</p>
<p>
that sounds like an interesting read…but why do I get the feeling you wrote it? 
i’ve actually heard good reviews about that as well, I think i’ll read it over winter break when i get the chance.</p>
<p>i’ve become practically apolitical, I know crap about foreign policy, economics or domestic issues. i do know a lot about chem though…I imagine someone will eventually create a manmade genetic virus to destroy the earth and the stuff i know will become handy then…politics schmolitics</p>
<p>I’ve concluded: Welfare for poor kids = good but Octomoms = bad</p>
<p>this is how i’ll vote in 2012: if obama reruns and I still like him, i’ll vote for him, if not, i’ll just vote for the other guy (or gal) unless it’s someone who’s a complete joke, or someone from alaska, or both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I remember, they were using outdated technology. I’m talking about an issued device that no one can hack or tamper with. Only one issued to one person. Not practical in the least? 10 min a day to choose what you feel like needs to changed is TOO much? Come on!</p>
<p>I’d read “Snow Crash”, but I can barely make it through standard fiction, much less cyberpunk. </p>
<p>A refutation of anarchism, though? How?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, but the system you propose hinges entirely on how effective that method is. It seems strange that you’re unwilling (or unable?) to come up with any sort of idea. Until then, I really think there is no reliable and effective way of handling the issue, and that makes the whole plan very impractical. Impracticality is a huge con, whether you believe it’s aside from the issue or not.</p>
<p>If you take the argument in the direction you seem to want to, you’re skipping a step and assuming it is a worthy solution, if only we could find a way to implement it. Does that make sense?</p>
<p>I’m not saying I disagree, but I just made it up on the spot and expected to hear about its flaws :).</p>
<p>I don’t know… I try to think about it, but I keep getting distracted. I think about people voting on gay rights, but it seems so silly to me. I don’t think anyone has the right to deny rights to someone based on sexual orientation, you know? There shouldn’t even need to be an election about it… I can’t believe the world I live in… I’ll think about this later.</p>
<p>Direct democracy is great. Tons of social services, constitutionally mandated homophobia, insufficient taxes, and a bullet train!</p>