Kropotkin and anarchy

No, essentially it means every man for himself.

 

Oh, come on now... There is a LOT more at stake than your very simplistic black and white example.

Have you never studied the Federalist Papers and do you not understand the relationship the Founders and Framers had with both Locke and Montesquieu who both argued contra the utopians that the natural state of affairs among men is freedom and that they will select a government that best represents them in that quest to continue in their unalienable rights?

Utopians eternal quest is to place in power a tyranny powerful enough to impliment centralized planning and thus control ALL the populace so as to usher in a peacable world. Obama is example #1 of the utopian mindset. He doesn't care a whit what gets broken in his quest to finally centralize EVERYTHING so that FINALLY we can have peace and prosperity.

That, in and of itself, is the major dividing line between a Democrat (or RINO) and a true conservative Republican. Sadly, most Americans, and likely you as well by the tenor of your argument, have little understanding of what is being done to us and why, so they therefore can easily stipulate that there is no real difference between the candidates. They are WRONG.

 

Some may be, others not. Have to ask the individual Republican. I would offer that THIS issue markes the primary difference in worldview between RINO Republicans (also called moderate, liberal, etc.) and conservative Republicans.

And, again, ACTUAL PRACTICE does not make for the underlying worldview that one holds while serving in politics. Much of what is assumed to be a power of a President during the campaign is in fact not really a power unless the President begins to take the role of tyrant -- many do -- but others are guilty of nothing more than attempts to play with the system they inherited. In other words, most presidents are limited in what they can do and are often forced to do what they do not wish to do -- especially conservative presidents, of whom we have had FEW INDEED -- in order to continue the governance of the people.

 

So that explains everything and makes a true tyrant such as Obama possible...

How about a response to the issues I raised above? What of Roosevelt who intentionally gave us the Great Society and where he purposefully overhauled the very Constitution given this nation by its Framers.

 

It was not amended. It was RADICALLY reinterpreted. Something Lincoln did not do. Lincoln, for his actual tyranny while in office did so for a reason, but did not radically re-arrange the Constitution and its interpretation as did first, Wilson, and later FDR. Those two men changed the entire nature of the discussion from the Founder's and Framer's intent that America would be founded on the philosophy of a free republic versus a centralized Utopian establishment with a class of leaders and everyone else followers.

Have you never been exposed to this issue before? If not, I highly suggest that you look into it before proceeding further.

Here is a snippet that will give you something to use to start your research:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=93&type=issue

Contrast that with this about Locke:

 

No, not really. The Founders and Framers FULLY expected that if we arrived where we are today that we would disband our own government and start again. They would ABHOR where we are today, with Marxist Utopian fantasies of centralized control and robotic-like people who have no real say in anything, but are made to feel good about their part of the process -- electing their new overmasters.

Our F&F, if alive today would be first in line for a new Revolution.

The people who have formed the grass roots Tea Party get this and that is what they are after -- election of people who are TRUE Constitutionalists and who understand the difference between Locke and Marx.