How the heck did you arrive at the conclusion that, my comments are anywhere close to the democrats’ definition of democracy?
And then, you end your comments with conservatives needing to align ourselves with anarchists?
Anarchy is nowhere close to what conservatives believe.
And, what the heck is a “neo-liberal”? There is no such thing when it comes to anybody aligned with democrats/liberals/progressives/communists/socialists. They all work towards he same goals, and a liberal by any other name is just as dangerous, “neo” or not.
Awesome !!
Got someones attention.
Last thing first.
A Neo-Liberal is someone that has redefined the concepts of freedom/liberty and fundamentally accepts the higher power to be man. This of course is an elitist position.
It’s not your comments, but an effort to understand how the opposition views the world.
The Neo-Liberal is one that sees democracy as the equalization of outcomes, as opposed to the process.
The language has changed.
I got what you where saying, and I meant no disrespect. However the issue you raise has no meaning with those that have a completely different concept of what is Liberty.
As far as anarchy:
I can’t imagine an anarchist that supports any Gov’t control or influence.
That’s all.
Our republic is basically “anarchy with guard rails”. As it should be.
The guard rails are virtue, peer pressure if you will.
Please, understand that the nature of the debate has changed with a generational indoctrination of truth.
When we talk to the liberals of today, it’s as if we live in two separate worlds. Why is that?
There is and has been an expectation that when folks do what is inherent in human nature, they will find truth as a matter of logical conclusion.
And when they have come to base all of what they know on either random events or determinism, all individualism is lost.
See, it’s the definitions of concepts that have created this dichotomy. We are not speaking the same language.