Anarchism

[Something completely different]

Really? I think that what deregulation there was, was a sham. There are regulations that restrict what business/industry X can do, there are regulations that give business/industry X benefits, and there are regulations that restrict what business/industry Y can do, which has benefits for business/industry X.

There were no regulations what soever on what transactions with capital should be legal and wich should not. Mainly as a result of the neoliberalist movements (which you would call liberterian) which gained momentum in western europe in the 90s and had been exported to here from the Fatcher (UK), Reagan (USA) administrations, and were taken over by Kohl (D) and Chirak (F).
We have a term in German economics which is called "Realwirtschaft" meaning in translation "real economy" - of which I dont know if it exists in the US political vocabulary. This term is used to describe industries and buisnesses which produce "actual" products or "real existing products". A car company, software devolpment firm, chemical industry for example would be called "real economy".
But if for example a financial firm would buy up a company - load it with dept - cash in bonuses - and then bankrupt and sell of that company.
Does this actual produce a real existing product?!
The deregulations of the 90s in Europe made it easier for companies which didn`t deal with "real" products to do buisness. Before - and after 2008 today - it was always seen as essential that the "real" economy had to be bigger and make more profit than the part of the economy which actualy didn`t produce products - and that this "non-real" part of the economy shouldn`t harm the "real" part.
If you take a look at the current crisis in Spain, during the 90s regulations on building and control of consumer-producer exchange was cut.
As a result estates were built all arround Spain, more than actualy could ever be sold - and therefor were worthless. This bubble of usless, worthless capital in Spain and Portugal in the 90s, is one of the prime examples of how a deregulated market can have catastrophic consequences.
I will not deny that there are catastrophic counterexamples, like greece.
But to simply say that the deregulations didn`t play a role in the recent financial crisis because those deregulations were a "sham" - is simply like the ignorant communist who keeps saying that the Udssr is not a example of failed communism because "real communism" was never achieved.

And I think the point of his rant is not that 'he could rule the world', rather, it is that no-one should.

was trying to make a german joke, not knowing that most probably wont understand it.
A person who holds a speech in wich he setts himself above democratic principles, disregards opposition, brings forward no facts and simply tries to theatricaly stage himself and\or his views, is called by some of my friends and me a: führer\bunker - speech.

Ripping it apart? Hardly. Grammatically speaking, that was a hard read.

Well at least I had the interest and will to learn a language which isn`t my mothertounge, if you want to debate in german your welcome.
If not I see this statement as a pittyfull excuse for not having an actual argument.

I presented one basic resolution & that is the abolition of the state/government.

You presented no resolution and not a single factual statement which could back up why such a thing be good.
In short, you simply repeated on and on, how great your views were without proving how great they actauly are.
And worst of all - you reject democracy.

From the first phrases in Karl Poppers book; The Open Sociaty and it`s enemies:

It is widely believed that a truly scientific or philosophical attitude towards politics, and a deeper understanding of social life in general, must be based upon a contemplation and interpretation of human history. .......

......He (social scientist or philosopher) sees the individual as a pawn, a somewhat insignificant instrument in the general development of mankind. And he finds that the realy importent actors on the stage of History are eighter the great Nations and their Great Leaders, or perhaps the great classes, or the Great Ideas......

....,he (social scientist or philosopher) will try to understand the development of historical development. If he succeeds in this, he will of course, be able to predict future developments. He might then put politics upon a solid basis, and give us practical advice by telling us which political actions are likely to succeed or fail. this is a brief description of an attitude which I call historicism

Karl Popper, The Open Sociaty and it`s Enemies; first published 1945, reprinted second edition (2007) published by Routleg Classic; page 3-4.

Your views are historicist, you reject the proposition of constantly possible political change being the fundermental tool for progress within a sociaty, and claim a totalitarian standard to be the solution of sociaties problems, as they will lead it to a "perfect" desteny.

Gain people's support? You obviously didn't read my words closely enough.

I indeed stopped at a certain part, if I want to whatch bad adds I turn on midday TV. What else as a theatrical attempt to stage yourself and your views can this here be called:

Integrity & sincerity are ancient tomes in the dust bins of history. The oppressive nature that is this country sickens me. Everyone is fighting for some common good, yet the common good is only for those whom are weak, incompetent & lazy. The down-trodden have been enthroned & the virtuous dethroned. We reward failure & chastise those who do well. We have made it a character flaw to be wealthy & to be successful. We have substituted lending a hand to duty. Somewhere along the way, we became weak. We became a nation riddled with helpless leaches & psychic vampires. We are no longer a nation of strong, hard working, individuals. We are now a nation of selflessness, handouts & the collective.

pathetic that someone would actualy call something like that an "argument".

As far as facts are concerned, I can & will provide them at a later time, when I have more time.

when is later? When you will stop posting your views because you acknowlege that they are totalitarian and dont stand the test of democracy.

If you bring factual arguments wich also ensure a logisticaly and logical solution to current political problems, which can be used within the constraints of a democracy, from a liberterian party view, I am willing to read and think through those and if convinced eaven accept those as a pragmatic individual and citizen of a republic.

But if you continue to bring forward totalitarian nonsence, and believe it to be an "argument", you will in essence prove nothing but your ignorance.