Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Machismo]

And yet the only ones that believe you are Trump followers.

"I believe in maximizing freedom and liberty...and corporations are people too..so them as well..."

----

The lies and deception are always on you. Again you have shown nothing but cheap empty rhetoric. You're a GOP speech on a bad day, with all the contempt for history on display.

- - - Updated - - -

Cheerleader for corporations...and using the typical buzzword...

I literally provided examples of such things, and the dude tried to defend it as marketing.

Or, did you ignore that part?

- - - Updated - - -

You're really only arguing for even more regulation at this point. Because we need rules, even libertarian clowns like yourself acknowledge this i think. So if we can't ditch the rules the only way to punish those who abuse the rules is to make further rules to prevent them from abusing them. Or eat the rich.

Nope, you are lying.

The existence of a rule is not a justification for that rule. Some rules are just plain bad, as was pointed out with examples. If you want to argue in favor of corporations using the government to regulate their competitors, be my guest.

It's weird watching you guys support corporatism.

[Glorious Leader]

I literally provided examples of such things, and the dude tried to defend it as marketing.

Or, did you ignore that part?

- - - Updated - - -



Nope, you are lying.

The existence of a rule is not a justification for that rule. Some rules are just plain bad, as was pointed out with examples. If you want to argue in favor of corporations using the government to regulate their competitors, be my guest.

It's weird watching you guys support corporatism.

Its only weird because you've twisted the case for rules and regulations and are seemingly ignorant of their purpose. If a rule exists and that rule is being abused the answer isn't to throw out the the rule, the answer is to punish the abuser. This is no way shape or form support for corporatism, but rather a simple acknowledgement that rules exist and they exist for a reason. Now your position that we should eliminate rules that are abused is corporatism pure and simple because the motivation to abuse those rules doesn't end with the elimination of those rules, you've some eliminated an obstacle along the way. You're suggesting we punish the palace guard and ignore the individual that bribed him.

[Muzjhath]

Except the information wasn't relevant. It's specifically about GMO foods, so this isn't a safety issue. It's no different than requiring them to label the names of the people who worked in the packaging plant.

- - - Updated - - -



Where did I say all are bad? No, I do not think all regulations are bad. This was specifically a conversation about regulations pushed by corporations in order to limit competition.

I'll fucking wait on the evidence.

Some consumers might for one reason or another, no matter how valid, want to know if something is Bio-Engineered or grown through Selected Aggriculture.
Why are you against consumer knowledge?

[Machismo]

Its only weird because you've twisted the case for rules and regulations and are seemingly ignorant of their purpose. If a rule exists and that rule is being abused the answer isn't to throw out the the rule, the answer is to punish the abuser. This is no way shape or form support for corporatism, but rather a simple acknowledgement that rules exist and they exist for a reason. Now your position that we should eliminate rules that are abused is corporatism pure and simple because the motivation to abuse those rules doesn't end with the elimination of those rules, you've some eliminated an obstacle along the way. You're suggesting we punish the palace guard and ignore the individual that bribed him.

I literally pointed to two examples that showed corruption with the system. DO you support those regulations pushed by corporations in order to regulate and limit their competitors?

One dude just called it "marketing."

I'm saying that those rules should have never existed in the first place, and I pointed out how. The reason those rules exist, is to shift competitive advantage in the favor of a specific corporation.

[Shadowferal]

Its only weird because you've twisted the case for rules and regulations and are seemingly ignorant of their purpose. .

Considering his ignorance and zero knowledge of history and its context it comes as no surprise. Libertarians have akways been insistent on deriding, ignoring or rewriting history.

[Machismo]

Some consumers might for one reason or another, no matter how valid, want to know if something is Bio-Engineered or grown through Selected Aggriculture.
Why are you against consumer knowledge?

Some consumers might, for one reason or another, no matter how valid want to know if something was handled by a person of color, or a Jewish person.

Why are you against consumer knowledge?

Or, are you saying we should have a rule that says the name and race of everyone who handled a product?

The existence of a law is never a justification for that law.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering his ignorance and zero knowledge of history and its context it comes as no surprise. Libertarians have akways been insistent on deriding, ignoring or rewriting history.

Alas, I provided answers. Do you support those corporatist regulations I provided?

[Shadowferal]

Some consumers might for one reason or another, no matter how valid, want to know if something is Bio-Engineered or grown through Selected Aggriculture. Why are you against consumer knowledge?

He's already conceded the fact that he can't convince anyone of any validity of his beliefs. That's why he has only mockery and derision left. I can't fathom the waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Alas, I provided answers. Do you support those corporatist regulations I provided?

No you didn't.

[Machismo]

He's already conceded the fact that he can't convince anyone of any validity of his beliefs. That's why he has only mockery and derision left. I can't fathom the waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

No you didn't.

Yes, I did.

Do you support those corporatist regulations I pointed out, or not?

[Shadowferal]

Yes, I did. Do you support those corporatist regulations I pointed out, or not?

No one buys into your libertarian train wreckage of thinking.

[Muzjhath]

Some consumers might, for one reason or another, no matter how valid want to know if something was handled by a person of color, or a Jewish person.

Why are you against consumer knowledge?

Or, are you saying we should have a rule that says the name and race of everyone who handled a product?

The existence of a law is never a justification for that law.

- - - Updated - - -



Alas, I provided answers. Do you support those corporatist regulations I provided?

For the last, I didn't check the specifics. But if say the Jack Daniels one said "has to be produced in Tennessee" I'd be 100% for it. Even if a corporation is pushing it. Fair and reasonable for Tennessee whisky.
The other one I've got very little knowledge about. In my experience it's generally consumers who want things GMO/Organic tagged etc. While corporations do not. But that might be different in some very select parts of the US.

As for the former, I'd be absolutely for having a way to know every company and every person who handled a product. Knowing the full chain of production sounds great for consumer knowledge! In Sweden you can very often find out where the animal you're eating lived while buying from the grociery store. It's great.

[Machismo]

No.. No one buys into your libertarian train wreckage of thinking.

So, you don't support those regulations?

Or, are you just shitposting without understanding what is being discussed?

[Muzjhath]

He's already conceded the fact that he can't convince anyone of any validity of his beliefs. That's why he has only mockery and derision left. I can't fathom the waste of time.

Somewhat showing how bullshit his claims are, somewhat bored on a Saturday.

[Machismo]

For the last, I didn't check the specifics. But if say the Jack Daniels one said "has to be produced in Tennessee" I'd be 100% for it. Even if a corporation is pushing it. Fair and reasonable for Tennessee whisky.
The other one I've got very little knowledge about. In my experience it's generally consumers who want things GMO/Organic tagged etc. While corporations do not. But that might be different in some very select parts of the US.

As for the former, I'd be absolutely for having a way to know every company and every person who handled a product. Knowing the full chain of production sounds great for consumer knowledge! In Sweden you can very often find out where the animal you're eating lived while buying from the grociery store. It's great.

Well, you seem to be speaking from a position of ignorance, because that's not what it said.

Let me know when you've become informed on the issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Somewhat showing how bullshit his claims are, somewhat bored on a Saturday.

You literally just admitted to speaking about an issue that you are ignorant on.

- - - Updated - - -

He's already conceded the fact that he can't convince anyone of any validity of his beliefs. That's why he has only mockery and derision left. I can't fathom the waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

No you didn't.

Do you support those regulations, or not?

[Glorious Leader]

I literally pointed to two examples that showed corruption with the system. DO you support those regulations pushed by corporations in order to regulate and limit their competitors?

One dude just called it "marketing."

I'm saying that those rules should have never existed in the first place, and I pointed out how. The reason those rules exist, is to shift competitive advantage in the favor of a specific corporation.

Awesome. So you'd be in favor of even more rules and regulationsin particular campaign finance reform and an end to lobbying and k Street to prevent the alleged instances of abuse on the part of corporations. Because we need the rules...

[Shadowferal]

Somewhat showing how bullshit his claims are, somewhat bored on a Saturday.

Boredom..there's that.
The pitfall is the possibility of agreement with a libertarian. Always examine the historical context and realize that there's nothing there.

[Machismo]

Awesome. So you'd be in favor of even more rules and regulationsin particular campaign finance reform and an end to lobbying and k Street to prevent the alleged instances of abuse on the part of corporations. Because we need the rules...

Nope, you are still lying.

It's weird how you think me opposing these specific rules, means I support some other rules that you are only vaguely mentioning.

- - - Updated - - -

Boredom..there's that.
The pitfall is the possibility of agreement with a libertarian. Always examine the historical context and realize that there's nothing there.

Do you support those regulations, or not?

[Glorious Leader]

Considering his ignorance and zero knowledge of history and its context it comes as no surprise. Libertarians have akways been insistent on deriding, ignoring or rewriting history.

And their particulalrly honest about this. Mises and Hayek were both very clear, you cannot falsify your economic arguments using facts. Its the most prescientific bullshit and its bled over into the mainstream unfortunately

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, you are still lying.

It's weird how you think me opposing these specific rules, means I support some other rules that you are only vaguely mentioning.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you support those regulations, or not?

Again you acknowledge we need rules (I think) but argue that corporations will either use rules to their advantage or craft them for their advantage. Since the first premise is non negotiable (we need rules) what other answer do you propose to restrain corporations from abusing the rules? Again removing the palace guard doesn't stop the motivation for the bribe..

[Machismo]

And their particulalrly honest about this. Mises and Hayek were both very clear, you cannot falsify your economic arguments using facts. Its the most prescientific bullshit and its bled over into the mainstream unfortunately

- - - Updated - - -



Again you acknowledge we need rules (I think) but argue that corporations will either use rules to their advantage or craft them for their advantage. Since the first premise is non negotiable (we need rules) what other answer do you propose to restrain corporations from abusing the rules? Again removing the palace guard doesn't stop the motivation for the bribe..

I argued that both people and corporations will try to push rules and laws for no other reason that gaining a competitive advantage, pushing bigotry, or simply wanting to punish others for acts that are not harmful.

The answer is to not simply support a rule, just because it exists. The answer is to get rid of rules and laws that are there just as a means to punish harmless actions.

[Muzjhath]

I argued that both people and corporations will try to push rules and laws for no other reason that gaining a competitive advantage, pushing bigotry, or simply wanting to punish others for acts that are not harmful.

The answer is to not simply support a rule, just because it exists. The answer is to get rid of rules and laws that are there just as a means to punish harmless actions.

And then comes our counter argument.
Where do you draw the line on the rules and laws to get rid of?
Because it looks the way it does because Capitalists try to get around laws and rules (if any exist) and get people killed.
See, the regulations around fire extingishers.

[Glorious Leader]

I argued that both people and corporations will try to push rules and laws for no other reason that gaining a competitive advantage, pushing bigotry, or simply wanting to punish others for acts that are not harmful.

The answer is to not simply support a rule, just because it exists. The answer is to get rid of rules and laws that are there just as a means to punish harmless actions.

I mean of course the next question is who decides whats harmful but I'm not particularly keen to discuss that because your definition of is dont tax me bro. You are still ignoring the relevant question though.

We need rules
Corporations or people doesn't matter (although corporations have far more power to do so) will abuse existing rules or rule making power.
How do we square the fact that we need rules with the fact that entities will abuse them? WHO decides which rules should be and shouldn't be?