[Beasty]

Why anyone would want one party to dominate the senate and the house AND hold the executive branch is beyond me. It just makes it easier for them to fuck you over. When they bicker like children, at least a bit of time adds some rational thought to their actions. If everything pumped through one party then no one is gonna question any of there extremist bullshit. I take it your a democrat battle?

[SmG Battlefire]

No, but I would choose them over Republicans during elections.

[Beasty]

Why is that?

[SmG Battlefire]

Let's put it this way Beasty.

If Mitt Romney, we would have gone to war against Iran long time ago. I could tell he is hungry for war just like John McCain who wants to get full involvement with Syria.

[Beasty]

Oh I agree. Mitt Romneys head was way too far up his own ass to run this country. But obama isnt really any good either. With the forced health care, and the gun legislation. I don't know why people feel the need to vote if they feel they are just picking the lesser of two evils.

[SmG Battlefire]

But what's worth. It's best to chose the one that less bad than the other.

[Beasty]

Why? I dont want either of them in power. Ill have no part in purting them there just because someone says "its my duty as an american to vote".

[SmG Battlefire]

Well overall I'm not a Anarchist fan. To put it in better words I'm against it.
I think a Anarchist society would be unstable. With different beliefs and ideals. It would be hard to cooperate to push society forward.

What I think is have a smaller govt with the same branches. But have govt and cooperation separate. And have the people have power to vote and shut down a govt and install a better one.

[Beasty]

An anarchism isn't a governless land -____- an anarchism is a desentralized government. Imagine breaking the 50 states up even further, lets say split it into maybe 100 or 150 states. Then completley ditch the federal government all together, so that the only federal thing would be a convention between these states to decide on how to act in international affairs. As far as national things are concerned, every state has there own laws and regulations. This is pretty much what a basic anarchism is. Though I personally see a much more refined version. I personally think that these small "states" should each encompass maybe a the size of a few towns? Doing this would localize the giverning to a level so desentralized it is far more likley that the people elected to represent and run these communities would obviously care a great deal about whats best for that area, seems how you've refined it to a level where your representitive is your neighbor.

Anarchism is a good thing. We get a bad rep throughout history, and people think that we want a fucking free for all, with looting and no laws at all. I dont think at that kind of level people would respect a trust code. But I do genuinely believe that decentraloation puts the power for the first time truly in a citizens hands, and with a greater ammount of self-determination humans generally become more mature and rational.