Comment: I couldn't disagree more with

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Constitutionalist (see in situ)

I couldn't disagree more with

I couldn't disagree more with your first premise.

To believe your first premise is to believe mankind, including you, stockoneder, is corrupt. I think you are not corrupt, stockhoneder. Not only do I think man isn't corrupt and that I think man is good, I acknowledge something you probably know but for some reason omitted in your comment: the banksters.

Until anarchists discuss the banksters, whose leader I think is Rothschild, which is to discuss history instead of pleasant-but-false stories influencing Americans to think so wrong about their country (and the world, consequently) that they enslave themselves, the anarchist's argument and activity play into the control, not influence but control, of the banksters. Moving from one extreme to the other is the recipe for failure, particularly if that movement is without ending what compelled, what caused, it.

stockoneder, I hope you rethink your liberty prescription. The Constitution is the cure. Perhaps long after the United States has settled into normalcy, the American populace by then entrenched in liberty would move into anarchism, but it probably wouldn't.

If nothing else, stockoneder, promote constitutionalism as the step to anarchism, the middle ground between statism and anarchism; although I think you and I can agree constitutionalism is close to anarchism. After all, the constitution is a defensive instrument, an instrument of restraint, on the federal government and an excellent reference for state governments if their constitutions don't already display freedom's principles. Because, going right to anarchism while life is how it is will produce misery eternally for everyone except the controllers, the banksters. Their control is inordinate. (Research, please, and allow the dots and connections among them materialize, and let where a void is speak for itself. There're enough dots and connections to deduce what should occupy the voids. The research is long, deep and wide, but it does exist.)

Government isn't bad, the Rothschilds and their henchmen are bad. As the months go by, stockoneder, pay attention to whether your fellow anarchists discuss the banksters and how they, the anarchists, do if they do. Do they advocate nothing less than imprisoning the banksters? Or do those like minded people of yours just not talk about the banksters? Be objective, let your environment inform you of itself, let those people in your circle show you their knowledge and intents.

Believing the congregation of people named government is bad without addressing how today's government came to fruition consigns one's self to slavery, misses the obvious in life and dismisses what you talked favorably about, history, the study of mankind's events, and all other studies, all other endeavors.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton