Two political quick Q's:US Veto's and AC

[Jack Bando]

1)I know if something is vetoed and then passed again by 2/3rds, it's a law. What if it had 2/3rds to begin with, can it be vetoed in hope that when it gets voted on again it doesn't get 2/3rds?

2)What is AC everyone talks about? I tried seraching the board/internet but couldn't find anything.

Thanks.

[Propertarian]

1) I'm not sure about this, but it would seem kind of silly to veto something like this, because the president can't veto it and then have the next congress vote on it, as far as I know.

2) AC is the view that everything would be great if we eliminated the state and reverted to hypercapitalism; Anarcho-capitalism. Kind of strange theory, because anarchy is generally thought to presuppose human goodness, and capitalism is thought to presuppose human greed.

[Jack Bando]

Regarding #1, I'm not counting when the congress is about to quit for its session. Take the bill Bush vetoed in July for example. If it had 2/3rds, could he even veto it in the first place.

Does this board alone call it AC or is it a general term I've just missed.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
1)I know if something is vetoed and then passed again by 2/3rds, it's a law. What if it had 2/3rds to begin with, can it be vetoed in hope that when it gets voted on again it doesn't get 2/3rds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it can still be vetoed, and another vote must be taken to override the veto.

[hmkpoker]

AC = anarcho-capitalism. It is a political belief of radical individual sovereignty, free markets, no taxes, no state, no democracy, and no socialism.

About a quarter of the people on this forum identify as anarcho-capitalist, myself included.

wiki
Link to old ACism threads
FAQ thread

Mises.org: huge database of information on Austrian economics and ACism.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
2)What is AC everyone talks about? I tried seraching the board/internet but couldn't find anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

AC = Anarcho-capitalism

(copy paste from a mail I sent someone


There are two kinds of libertarians: minarchist and anarchist (also called market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist). The first one seeks for a small government. Like only defense, law, police; that kind of thing. They think everything else can be provided for by the free market. However, they think that in order to support things like property rights and for the free market to exist, you absolutely need a state.

The second one (including me, and most people I know who study this seriously) holds that the entire concept of the state is illegitimate. The state is a monopolist of force within a certain region: it's territory. And within it, you cannot opt out of any service it provides (including negative services). So because of this power difference, it has a natural tendency to grow untill all free (market) activity is swallowed and it cannot even support itself anymore through this parasitical relationsip. This behaviour is observed in all states in the history of man (including today).
So the market anarchist holds that everything that is valued can be provided by the free market. And the things that the minarchist holds that should be a monopoly, the market anarchist holds there should be competition: arbitration, security, money/banking, etc.

For a description of the model of free market arbitration, insurance and security, go here:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Listen_In_1.htm . Podcasts 1, 2 and 3.

For a moral argument against the state, see podcasts 7 and 8.

They can also be found as written articles here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux-arch.html .

For a financial analysis of the state:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81464492478834
This lecture belongs to the Mises Institute. http://www.mises.org/ . "The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of strange theory, because anarchy is generally thought to presuppose human goodness, and capitalism is thought to presuppose human greed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading too much Chomsky will give you brain cancer [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
1)I know if something is vetoed and then passed again by 2/3rds, it's a law. What if it had 2/3rds to begin with, can it be vetoed in hope that when it gets voted on again it doesn't get 2/3rds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, often times politicians won't revote yea on a bill that their president vetoed if they are of the same party. Ie, if something is passed by 2/3rds and a republican vetoes it, it may not get 2/3rds again since republicans may not wish to break ranks with the president.