-_____-

[otoshigo]

Okay, I'm just putting this out there, because I'm angry and frustrated.

Tea Partyers are anarchists.  There.  I said it.

I mean, what else am I supposed to think when people say they'd rather the country default on its payments than compromise with the Democrats and even members of their own party?  Do they even have any concept of what that will do

Comments

[magic_7_words]

I can't believe we'd ever default. They'll pull something out of some back room at the last minute. They're just trying to scare people and get their attention.

That's not to defend anyone who actually believes we should default, of course. I just doubt there are nearly as many of those people as we're being led to believe. And of the ones who say they are, I expect most are bluffing.

I'm not saying they're all mature enough to deserve to hold office. But I don't think they'll do any serious long-term damage.

[otoshigo]

Six days...

I don't know. I'm just so tired and terrified about all this. It's the only thing I've been hearing on the radio these days. I don't see what scaring us is supposed to accomplish. The only time scare tactics actually worked was when Tricky Dick was doing it to other countries. We shouldn't be in-fighting to the point of being incapable of government. I mean, for pete's sake, no one in the Constitutional Convention was happy about the end product, but see how long that lasted. And that was because of compromise. I swear GW got it right from the beginning: these party politics are going to be the death of us.

[magic_7_words]

Huh, thought I already left a comment on this.

GW was right about a lot of things. He didn't run for office, either. Maybe that's our problem. We should just promote military leaders. Eh, on second thoughts, maybe not...

PS--turn off the radio for a few days. Raising your blood pressure isn't doing anyone any good. You can always go back and catch up on headlines later.

[lizsallie]

I agree entirely, and good god I hope nothing approaching default happens. I’d rather have the 14th amendment solution, as odd as that is.
Just one small anarchy-definition quibble (as a philosophical anarchist myself):
If we go by Kant’s definition (see “Anarchy” wikipedia page for source):
A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)
Therefore, I consider the Tea Partyers barbarians. Not anarchists. Anarchists properly defined are those who support any form of governance (even if that “form” is a lack of form), which does not coerce those living within it. That’s the only qualification. It’s not about murderous rampages or having no laws, nor is it anything like what the Tea Partyers have advocated, nor is it what they have become.
In short, “anarchist” is far, far too kind a label for these politicians.

[otoshigo]

Heh, I'll admit, I'm not much of a philosopher. I nearly failed the Philosophy of Ethics. Kant's morality was the only thing that made any sense to me. ^^; So I normally go by the dictionary definition of anarchy, that being a state of lawlessness/absence of government/disorder/what have you