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

[Machismo]

Listen, we all oppose the shitty abortion law that fallaciously argues from a standpoint of consumer protections. If we socialized medicine it wouldn't be an issue, because patients aren't consumers. Or they shouldn't be at least. What about my question. If we get rid of consumer protections what stops me from selling you a "car" that has no engine but is super sweet and made out of cardboard?

Thats the problem... opposing those laws is a good thing, they are shitty laws.

The problem is that the very reason to oppose those laws, is why you'd oppose a much more innocuous regulation like the ones I pointed out. But, people had already climbed all over each other to support those regulations in order to shit on me, that they couldn't actually justify opposing those abortion laws. They so desperately wanted to mock something so minor, they didn't realize they were trapping themselves.

Thats why they cannot answer, because they literally justified those abortion restrictions in their previous arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, but no one has to make up anything about you. You show what you are and your trashy beliefs all by yourself.

I'm not the one shilling for corporation-backed legislation in order to stymie competition.

[Machismo]

What level of consumer protection do you support? None?

Nope, that answer has remained the same from the beginning.

And yes, it has been answered.

[Machismo]

Awesome, so you don't support consumer protections then. In your society I can sell you anything through false advertising and fuck you.

Nope, wrong again.

[Scottyjscizzle]

Besides the wardrobe?

Seems they want all benefits of society n none of the responsibility, it all seems very narcissistic..

this video showed up in youtube recommended after some metal songs which led metal kids in the 80s

Most comments though are about Bernie looking the same


Could a politician just walk around today in a mall n ask people questions?

Going to go with the broad spectrum of these ideologies, since they can vary by person/area/etc.

Libertarianism is all about "maximizing freedom" via free association/contracts/etc. You'll get a mixture of people who want the bare minimum government including stuff such as discarding minimum wage as it "stops the free exercise of labor, and why shouldn't slavery be allowed if the other person is ok with it!!?" to "I'm a conservative who happens to like drugs" most will still want a government for stuff such as military/international relations/etc

Anarchists' seek to abolish hierarchy, including the state. Typically this includes anti-capitalist thoughts, and encourages horizontal power structures (democratically elected councils, workers unions, etc)

Punk rockers are a fucking fan group for a music genre. a large portion of which has leftist ideologies such as Anarchism, marxism, etc. Its not a policial ideology in and of itself and includes a sub group that has attracted Fascists/other extreme right-wing ideologies over the years.

[Machismo]

I asked you to clarify so you wouldn't call me a liar and you refused to answer. Your rules.

It's something I have answered numerous times. That's the problem. My answer on government regulations and actions has not changed.

[Machismo]

Yeah, you've said you support limited regulations. What that actually means has never been clarified. Which is why I ask questions and then you refuse to answer them in any way shape or form.

Then why deliberately misinterpret, again?

For when you want the quote:

Awesome, so you don't support consumer protections then. In your society I can sell you anything through false advertising and fuck you.

[Machismo]

I don't know whether consumer protections extend to that considering you're saying all of us support the Texas abortion law because we support a form of consumer protection that you don't. You're saying if we support the one we support the other. Via that logic then, you'd have to support the Texas abortion law because you support consumer protections and it's written that way. BUT you also say, very clearly, you're opposed to it. So, are you getting where I was leading you now?

Are they government action and force?

You'd know that, if you had read my link with the legal definition.

My argument has always been based on whether it restricted an action that causes harm. If you would have read 50 pages ago, you wouldn't have to keep asking the same fucking questions.

You seem to be ignoring the justifications for why people were supporting such things.

[Machismo]

You support having a government though... how else do they protect people without action and force?

Once again, try reading what I typed.

I'm not opposed to the existence of government, nor the use of force... merely when those things are applied and used.

[Machismo]

I did. You’re leaving out big parts because you think we all know exactly what you think and believe. Your posts aren’t mandatory reading.

So, you're blaming me, because you didn't read what I typed several times in this thread, even to you?

[Shadowferal]

Machismo's regurgitated bullshit is just tiresome and nauseating... A strange thing to feel.

[Machismo]

What? That you want government? Or that wanting consumer protections somehow means you want restrictions on abortion when they’e two separate issues? Or how about government action and force. They decide what harms people and how to protect them, how do they do that without action and force?

As was previously typed...

"I'm not opposed to the existence of government, nor the use of force... merely when those things are applied and used."

Do I have to hold your hand?

- - - Updated - - -

Machismo's regurgitated bullshit is just tiresome and nauseating... A strange thing to feel.

And yet, I've managed to get a half dozen of you guys to defend corporatism.

[Machismo]

Yet you want those things to exist and be used, so you’re very contradictory here. You said you want limited government right? It would then have to be applied and used to limit harm to other people... right? Aince the government’s job would be deciding that shit in your society? As you previously stated at least.

Nope, this is you simply trying to build a straw man, and misconstruing what I said... again.

You're seemingly continuously surprised that I'm not an anarchist, and don't know how to handle it.

[Machismo]

How? Which part is inaccurate?

Your assertions of it being contradictory.

[Shadowferal]

... And yet, I've managed to get a half dozen of you guys to defend corporatism.

No you haven't.
When someone doesn't respond to your delusional shit, you make it all up.

...you sad pathetic punchline creating a storyline for no reason other than your fragile little ego.

[Machismo]

You object to government and force being applied and used is what you wrote...

I oppose that use of force when I feel it is unwarranted. I support it when I feel it is justifiable in order to prevent/punish an action that causes harm.

I support being able to arrest a murderer, but not kneeling on a guys neck, murdering him.

- - - Updated - - -

No you haven't.
When someone doesn't respond to your delusional shit, you make it all up.

...you sad pathetic punchline creating a storyline for no reason other than your fragile little ego.

Yep, enjoy!!!

It's weird how far people will go to defend their consumer protections.

- - - Updated - - -

I’ll cut to the point. You also say government decides what’s banned in your society, an application of government. It would then have to enforce said bans which would be it being used and then force being applied(and used). Otherwise how do you enforce said bans?

You seem to keep arguing as if I'm an anarchist who doesn't support government or the use of force at all.

[Machismo]

Then your beliefs are misleading as stated, it should be something about overreach. As written you oppose it entirely. And, guess what!, just like you we have limits.

I'm not misleading, you are simply misinterpreting.

Show me, as written, where I oppose it entirely.

I'll fucking wait.

[Glorious Leader]

And yet, I've managed to get a half dozen of you guys to defend corporatism.

Nobody has done that. We have simple refused to accept the notion that removal of regulation is actually a hindrance to corporate control of the government.

[Machismo]

See what you wrote here? It doesn’t allow for application or use of either. It’s an absolute statement that you object to that. Now, objecting to how they’re used at times is true of everyone currently. It’s why we lobby for change. Not sure why you refuse to accept that.

I don't oppose government, nor the use of force, merely the times that they are applied. That doesn't mean I oppose all force, merely when I feel it is unwarranted and unjust.

Like the regulations I pointed out.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody has done that. We have simple refused to accept the notion that removal of regulation is actually a hindrance to corporate control of the government.

One dude called it... marketing.

You still never told me whether you support those regulations?

[Machismo]

His logic is if we support one form of consumer protection we support the disingenuous Texas law masquerading as the same. It’s weird because he does support forms of consumer protections as well, so even if he denies supporting the Texas abortion law he’s also saying he supports it and is defending corporatism.

If your justification is that it's "consumer protections," then I'm pointing to how those are consumer protections.

It's using your arguments against you. I mean, if you are going to blindly defend regulations, just for the sake of defending regulations, then expect me to hold you to it.

My basis is on whether the action causes harm.

- - - Updated - - -

His logic is if we support one form of consumer protection we support the disingenuous Texas law masquerading as the same. It’s weird because he does support forms of consumer protections as well, so even if he denies supporting the Texas abortion law he’s also saying he supports it and is defending corporatism.

- - - Updated - - -



Which means you oppose them having any power then right? If you oppose the time their power is applied then you don’t want them to ban anything. Because that’s their power being applied and you oppose it. Likewise with enforcing those bans.

Nope, wrong again.

I oppose their power when I feel it is unjust. I feel it is unjust when they are using that force to restrict an action that does not cause harm. I support the use of force to restrict an action that causes harm.

Welcome to the conversation, and what I have been saying for... fucking ever.

[Machismo]

No, my position is get corps and pacs outta politics and vote in quality public servants to clean up unnecessary regulations that do more harm than good. As previously stated multiple times. See how I didn’t freak out and just keep telling you repeatedly for hours tonight?

But, what about all the people pushing bad laws?

It seems you want to do nothing about them...

You see, I'm less concerned with what type of entity is pushing the shitty law, and more concerned with stopping the shitty law itself.