I'm switching parties!

Am I the only republican left who believes in actual conservatism? Yes i do believe so.

In the past 25 years, my party and the party of my ancestors has moved from fiscal conservatism, seperation of church and state, and isolationism to religious demogougery, big government, and the urge to police the world.

I have lost all faith in the policies of the republican party, i am almost ashamed to be called a republican.

I have decided the time to move to Libertarianism.

 

I used to have some respect for the Republican party, but I don't know what's happened to them, especially the past ten years. They've become like a theocracy.

 

Well, there is really no such thing as fiscal conservatism in this country anymore. There is no such thing as limited government anymore. People automatically assume that because Bush espouses a bunch of hollow religious rhetoric conjured by scriptwriters, he's a conservative. People do not understand that this is nothing more than a groomed image, and that other than for all the religious mumbo-jumbo, Bush is really a far leftist. I know all the self-proclaimed leftists in here will try to tell me otherwise, but it's true. Bush is not a conservative.

This is why labels are meaningless. Nothing is what it used to be or is supposed to stand for. Even Libertarianism has come to stand for something different than what it once did. This is why I don't call myself a (L)ibertarian. Even the (l)ibertarian ideology has been hijacked by Democrats and Republicans. Few of the people who call themselves libertarians anymore are libertarians at all, since many of them share either liberal or neoconservative ideals, yet are too embarrassed to call themselves by what they really are.

All I know is that people need to break away from the two-party system. Those playing into the hands of it are only adding to the problem. My advice is not to subscribe to any party at all, but vote with your conscience.

With the exception of a few people like Ron Paul and Bob Barr, I can think of very few people representing this country who are truly conservative in the fiscal sense. Conservatism has become nothing more than a facade, hijacked by a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats to fool idiots that are too gullible to see the big picture.

 

I don't see Bush overthrowing the owning class, in fact Bush is in bed with the parasitic owning class, so I don't how Bush can be a far leftist.

 

As an individual who has been active within the libertarian movement for twelve and a half years, welcome aboard!

 

I think so....
I cannot believe how many "conservatives" support Bush, it's crazy. If I had my way....no federal gov., only small local (state maybe) gov. Cut the police force by 3/4ths at least and the military by 90%. The only area I would increase is environmental protection.

 

The "Parasitic Owning Class"?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I own a house. Does that mean I'm a member of this class?

 

It means you own production and leach off the work of others. A owner of a corperation owns the production of the workers even though they in no way contributed. The Anarchist solution is to have the workers run the production them selves with no owners (making it a common). Anarchism and Marxism are compatible, Anarchist don't care as long as it conforms to the rules of Anarchsim and the people will figure democratically how society should work beyond the rules of Anarchism.

 

Well, you see the problem with killing off the owning class is that you are going to kill everyone who provides employment. I mean, if you kill off everyone who starts a factory, pretty soon people are going to stop opening factories.

Anyways, a, the owners do provide something, the fucking factory and the job in the first place, b, there are worker-owned factories.

 

You can do that through democracy, the people decide democratically to open a new factory so they contract the contruction workers (under worker control) to construct a new factory.

 

Good for you. I have libertarian tendancies myself. (Spiced up with some pretty liberal ideals, however!)

It is always good to evaluate your political ideals, and keep up with the parties platforms to make sure they match. I think (and hope) that libertarianism is gaining popularity and will hopefully be a strong political party in the future. Because right now it only seems like our two major party choices are not so different from eachother, and not so worried about the condition of the general public.

 

Communism,anarchy,and democracy are actually very different political sciences. Perhaps you should read more up on them.Be sure to read up on ALL forms of communism and democracy as well.

Anarchy is not true democracy..Marxism is not democracy. Democracy is about individual freedoms...Marxism is about communal priorities and anarchy is about not having laws at all.

Anarchy and communism(or rather true marxism)in completely incompatible because anarchy doesn't allow for a governing body or laws and certainly not law enforcement.

Whatever you seem to think anarchy is is not accurate and I'm sure many true anarchists would actually take offense to being clumped with communists since anarchy is about 100% individual freedoms and communism is about 100% community.

and the rules of anarchism? Anarchy is about not having rules..no government..no law enforcement...nothing.Just people being allowed to live how they want without restrictions based on other people.

Which sounds great....if you don't mind lynch mobs.

 

sorry..that was directed at that Psyfox or Slyfox person.not Sera Michelle.

 

You also seem to not know what Anarchism really means, try reading the FAQ. Anarchy is compabitable with Marxism if the people under Anarchy want Marxism.

 

The day capitalism fails at its goals is the day i'll be a communist. You fail to understand that society has worked VERY well under capitalism and order. Anarchism is an idea, albeit a bad one, but an idea that can NEVER be put into practice.

 

That is the problem, the goal of capitalism is wealth of the owning class. This is the reason capitalism exists, that is the reason the powerful of the world defends it.

Capitalism is a dead end system. It is not substanable, as the world becomes more industrialized, the wealth divides becomes more an issues as poverty increases. Then you have the damage of the Earth that if gets to great will mean the end of humanity.

Anarchism goal is democracy and freedom. Alot better then the goal of capitalism. If all of humanity can't be free, then humanity does not have a right to exist.

 

Anarchy seems to be working out real well in Somalia, Afghanistan, and NW Pakistan. So basically, you advocate "mob rule". You say anarchism and marxism are compatible if "the people" want marxism? Does this mean if ALL the people want it, or a simple majority? And then those who don't want it will have it imposed upon them by the mob? That's personal freedom? True libertarianism is actually closer to anarchism, much closer. Marxism has about as much in common with anarchism as fascism does. And fascism has much in common with marxism; they are both simply means to impose total control. As someone who's lived under a self-described marxist government, I assure you, there is no personal freedom, and it is a true dead-end road, much more than capitalism is. Why are the marxist countries either completely collapsed, slowly transitioning to capitalism, or hanging on by a thread, while capitalist countries create wealth and advancement in all areas of life and knowledge? But hey, if you're such a fan of oppression, why not move to Cuba or North Korea? If you are such a fan of lawlessness, why not try the NWFP of Pakistan? The problem with your theory, besides it's complete incorrectness, is that even if for some reason it came to pass, it would not work out in reality. Lenin fooled a lot of people into thinking he was creating a "worker's paradise", same for Castro, that he was "freeing them from oppression". Hitler convinced the masses he would restore national pride and prosperity, same for Mussolini. What type of society would we have if the rabble ruled?

 

Anarchism means direct democracy, I don't see it in these nations.

Try reading the Anarchist FAQ

 

It's way too radical of an idea to be taken seriously, but I really think we would be a lot better off if we let the women run the country for a while.

 

I'm all for being an independant and going with whatever I feel should be