Obama, McCain or Anarchy?

Question

explain why.

Answer 1

Anarchy- there shouldnt be government groups like repubs. or demor.

why cant we just vote for the person we think will do good for our country unstead, people vote for one or the other just because they are republican or demorcrat.

either way, our country is ******

Answer 2

Anarchy is not a viable option under any means.  While political machinations are disgusting, many are absolutely necessary to keep our delicately balanced system of economics and infrastructure running.  This includes Libertarians, which one friend described a major problem with quite well.  "I like Ron Paul, but I also like having roads out of town."

McCain, a fairly solid right-wing Republican who called himself a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, has shown over time that he will compromise on issues with the Democrats so long as they do not interfere with a handful of his core beliefs.  

However, there is a critical issue in that the United States Supreme Court has become deeply politicized over time, and maintains a sense of balance only by a court which has been balanced between federal and state interests.  At this time, the Supreme Court leans towards the state interests, but not without a feeling of moral legislation at times.  Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are expected to retire from the bench in the near future, replacements of these two justices with state interests would leave a relatively imbalanced court with a number of relatively young justices at a time when longevity has been on the rise.

Obama is relatively inexperienced, but greatly charismatic.  While this does not necessarily mean good leadership, it is an element of leadership that is often disparaged by pundits who think they know better.  He would also mark a complete change of hands in political party power.

However, this would mark a complete dominance of two branches of the government by a single party, something that the Republicans had from 2000-2006.  There is a question of a pendulum swinging too far, and whether the Democrats would continue a polarized system of opposition or involve Republicans to a point that they are criticized as if they relinquished power in entirety.

There are ups and downs to both sides.  Personally, I would be tempted to vote for John McCain in the hopes that Iraqi stabilization would mean that withdrawals could happen and budget balancing (one of his primary interests) could be reasonably achieved in a mixed-party power system such as that with Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress.  However, he is in favor of certain censorship within the media that I direly disagree with.  Beyond this, I fear that his hawk mindset combined with a known hot temper could be hazardous for foreign relations.

While I have my reservations about Obama, I have not found any non-negotiable deal breakers with him at this time.  I do hope that he will have strong fiscal advice as well as a push towards a balanced budget, although the latter seems to be a difficult prospect.

Both sides have aspects that make me cringe a bit, but both also appear to be more good than harm in our current situation.  I'm leaning towards Obama right now though, because my personal distaste for institutional censorship is too strong, and a complete dominance of Congress is likely to change hands much sooner than a complete dominance of the Supreme Court, as regrettably polarized as that has become.

Answer 3

Anarchism. We can't trust the state to restrain the state. We can only trust ourselves and each other.

****

Anarchism, in a nutshell, supports free association, opposes the state, and opposes hierarchy. (At the very least, anarchists oppose involuntary hierarchy; anarchists often try to create egalitarian alternatives to the semi-voluntary hierarchies too).

There are several different traditions which respect these values, and usually recognize each other as forms of anarchism. These traditions borrow ideas from classical liberalism, from early socialism, from each other, and sometimes from other sources.

People depend on each other. People tend to create their own voluntary social order, including free association, reciprocity, mutual aid, and, if necessary, mutual defense. Once people create this order, a state, or any other criminal gang, is in trouble. So the state, to preserve itself, must preempt voluntary social order.

Highleyman, "An introduction to anarchism:"

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp00155...

"An anarchist FAQ:"

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/193... or

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (same text)

Answer 4

Anarchy. Both Obama and McCain will **** every American citizen in the *** making the same mistakes as every president has made that came out of our dual-party system. Anarchy, freedom in every aspect, can be the only realistic solution since the parties have indoctrinated the majority of the populace and no third party will rise soon enough to save our country. So be it.