Anarchy?
Better than socialism.
If that is the case then he is most certainly not a constitutionalist. The constitution never has forbade government intervention in any of those things. I do believe the government should be reigned in and its interventions limited but what he suggests while it may seem appealing is just not the reality that has existed since the founding of this country. I would rather he advocate very specific roll backs in government largess rather than going off the deep end with a generalist philosophy that makes assumptions that are not and have never been true.
As much as I hate to admit it, you can NOT have No Gov’t intervention. However, that intervention is necessary to be curtailed to the bounds that intervention was given.
At least someone is actively working to curtail that intervention, instead of ‘compromising and allowing it to continually grow. Can anyone on this forum remember when the last time the Go’v’t reduced its power or intervention?
Anarchy?
NO. Something WORSE!!!
Kill it at all costs!
If that's what it takes to get our country back, yes.
Liberty, something not seen in the U.S. in generations.
No, if you read the article he specifically states hes not for anarchy and such a philosophy would leave our nations borders unguarded. Also, we dont need the federal government doing everything. Thats why we have states, they were supposed to take care of issues like education, abortion, and welfare. Those issues can be debated in the states and decided in the states without federal interference.
No, if you read the article he specifically states hes not for anarchy and such a philosophy would leave our nations borders unguarded. Also, we dont need the federal government doing everything. Thats why we have states, they were supposed to take care of issues like education, abortion, and welfare. Those issues can be debated in the states and decided in the states without federal interference.