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

[PC2]

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?

People will be more reasonable in the future so they won't want to do harmful and unethical things that should never happen. A state enforcement agency would be unnecessary.

[Machismo]

How do you suggest we do something about them? PACs are the biggest way bad laws are pushed by “all the people”...

PACs are one way, so are lobbyists, grass-roots organizations, people, corporations, they all do it.

I'd rather stop them all from shitting on liberty.

Stop the shitty laws they push, and oppose them.

[Edge-]

People will be more reasonable in the future

You can't use any past behaviors or trends to predict the future, I thought. Why is it that nobody but you seems to be able to "predict the future"?

- - - Updated - - -

PACs are one way, so are lobbyists, grass-roots organizations, people, corporations, they all do it.

I'd rather stop them all from shitting on liberty.

Grass-roots organizations...are shitting in liberty?

[Machismo]

People will be more reasonable in the future so they won't want to do harmful and unethical things that should never happen. A state enforcement agency would be unnecessary.

How would you know this, you already claimed past actions cannot predict the future.

So, this claim is utterly without merit.

[Machismo]

You can't use any past behaviors or trends to predict the future, I thought. Why is it that nobody but you seems to be able to "predict the future"?

- - - Updated - - -



Grass-roots organizations...are shitting in liberty?

Sure, plenty of organizations, corporations, people, and PACs shit on liberty. Shall I point you to anti-abortion groups that popped up?

- - - Updated - - -

I already said get rid of corps. Lobbyists can go too. Grass roots is a weird thing to get on about, let’s dial down on that and “people”. Who picks the government in your world?

That's the thing, you want some gone, but not others... because you want the power shift to be in your favor.

That's what this has always been about... power.

[Machismo]

And by your grass roots opposition you’re doing what you oppose them doing...

Oh, I pointed to opposition to all of them, or did you not notice? I oppose anyone and everyone pushing shitty laws.

They are also free to oppose me.

[Edge-]

Sure, plenty of organizations, corporations, people, and PACs shit on liberty. Shall I point you to anti-abortion groups that popped up?

Grassroots organizations are literally just "the people" banding together on an issue. What does abortion have to do with it? There are potentially grassroots groups for everything, they're not inherently good or bad but they are inherently "the people" - at least if we're not talking about the corporate backed "grassroots" organizations.

Man, this whole argument over the total lack of a coherent ideology because nuance doesn't exist is really boring.

[Machismo]

Grassroots organizations are literally just "the people" banding together on an issue. What does abortion have to do with it? There are potentially grassroots groups for everything, they're not inherently good or bad but they are inherently "the people" - at least if we're not talking about the corporate backed "grassroots" organizations.

Man, this whole argument over the total lack of a coherent ideology because nuance doesn't exist is really boring.

And sometimes, those "people" attack the shit out of liberty.

We've been discussing abortion for hours, as the restrictions on it were labeled as protecting the patient (consumer protections).

I agree, grass-roots organizations are just "the people." I was simply adding them in as one of the mechanisms in which bad government comes to be.

[Machismo]

It has nothing to do with my power. It has to do with what is best for the people. If you know what the people want(grass roots, etc) then you use expert guidance to find the best path forward. When you have an imbalance via wealth the rich have undue influence on that process. Which is the biggest problem we have. The GOP stands in the way of policies the public wants, experts endorse, and society needs, because of outsized influence. I want balance. Not a tipping of the scales.

No, it's what you think is best for the people.

With PACs and corporations out of the picture, you have more power, based on your political affiliation.

This is literally tipping the scales in your favor.

- - - Updated - - -

It has nothing to do with my power. It has to do with what is best for the people. If you know what the people want(grass roots, etc) then you use expert guidance to find the best path forward. When you have an imbalance via wealth the rich have undue influence on that process. Which is the biggest problem we have. The GOP stands in the way of policies the public wants, experts endorse, and society needs, because of outsized influence. I want balance. Not a tipping of the scales.

- - - Updated - - -



Right, so you want no say in government policies. Who picks your government?

You seem to be ignoring some words... try again.

Unlike you, just because I oppose something, doesn't mean I want to ban it.

[Edge-]

And sometimes, those "people" attack the shit out of liberty.

Yes, which is one reason why absolutes are stupid as hell. Because people, and groups of people, can push for things that they may think are good and others think are bad. And it's up to the government to find some kind of solution/middle ground there that doesn't simply involved everyone that doesn't like X or Y fucking off to another country.

That's not a functional society, that's a society of individual governments because nobody will fully agree on everything and there are no "objective" goods/bads.

We've been discussing abortion for hours, as the restrictions on it were labeled as protecting the patient (consumer protections).

Yes, and? Who cares what someone calls it, that's pointless and meaningless. They could call abortion restrictions, "Grape Cherry Soda" and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Though weird to call people seeking medical care "consumers", they're usually "patients" but whatever.

Issues like abortion? Ideally that's for the society to figure out on their own, for better or worse. You're never going to get uniform opinion on any issue.

I agree, grass-roots organizations are just "the people." I was simply adding them in as one of the mechanisms in which bad government comes to be.

Literally everything can bring about bad government.

This is the kind of inability to process nuance that is why nobody can figure out what the fuck you're arguing: Because there's no coherent ideology backing it at all. Just a bunch of insanely vague personal opinions followed by binary ultimatums that become less binary when you want them to.

[Machismo]

But, you don’t want people influencing government policy. I’m trying to understand how that happens if one exists. Why can’t you explain it?

Once again, just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I want to ban it.

[Machismo]

Yes, which is one reason why absolutes are stupid as hell. Because people, and groups of people, can push for things that they may think are good and others think are bad. And it's up to the government to find some kind of solution/middle ground there that doesn't simply involved everyone that doesn't like X or Y fucking off to another country.

That's not a functional society, that's a society of individual governments because nobody will fully agree on everything and there are no "objective" goods/bads.



Yes, and? Who cares what someone calls it, that's pointless and meaningless. They could call abortion restrictions, "Grape Cherry Soda" and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.

Issues like abortion? Ideally that's for the society to figure out on their own, for better or worse. You're never going to get uniform opinion on any issue.



Literally everything can bring about bad government.

This is the kind of inability to process nuance that is why nobody can figure out what the fuck you're arguing: Because there's no coherent ideology backing it at all. Just a bunch of insanely vague personal opinions followed by binary ultimatums that become less binary when you want them to.

Which is why I will oppose it when people do it, corporations do it, grass-roots organizations do it, and PACs do it.

Yes, everything can bring about bad government, which is my entire point. It's not just corporations and PACs. He's trying to railroad me into supporting and on corporations and PACS being involved in politics.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you don’t want to stop all that influence you talked about. You just don’t like it. Same with the Texas legislation. You don’t want to ban that kind of stuff, you just want to say yuck. So you tacitly support it all. Good to know.

I want to stop the shitty laws they attempt to push, I don't want to take away their speech.

I'd no more silence you, than I would a company.

[PC2]

You can't use any past behaviors or trends to predict the future, I thought. Why is it that nobody but you seems to be able to "predict the future"?

Yes we can only guess about the future. Society could regress and people could become more violent and unreasonable in the future. It's possible, but I don't think it'll happen because most all of our societal challenges aren't that hard so I have hard time believing that society will regress instead of becoming more rational and enlightened.

[Machismo]

Yes we can only guess about the future. Society could regress and people could become more violent and unreasonable in the future. It's possible, but I don't think it'll happen because most all of our societal challenges aren't that hard so I have hard time believing that society will regress instead of becoming more rational and enlightened.

So, you admit your claim is without any merit.

[Machismo]

Damn, so you do want to ban stuff you dislike. And I haven’t tried to silence anyone. Companies can do all the ads they like, but they shouldn’t be allowed to bribe politicians through donations. Weird you call others a corporatist when supporting the right of corporations to control shit while others are ACTIVELY opposing such influence.

Jesus, you're drowning at this point.

Once again, just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I want to ban it.

I don't like you, and I don't like the shitty laws you support. That doesn't mean I'm going to try and ban you. That's your thing.

You've literally called for banning corporations and PACs from donating to politicians.

Oh, and I also support your freedom to donate to politicians.

[Machismo]

No, you just want to ban the shitty law. Try and keep up.

I want to stop them from every coming to be, or get rid of them if they do exist.

Shall I explain the metric for that? You seem to be faltering.

[Machismo]

A ban prohibits them from coming into existence. Do you need a dictionary?

Well, as stated, I do support some government.

If you push a shitty law, I will oppose it.

[PC2]

So, you admit your claim is without any merit.

Like I said we can only guess or conjecture about the future. If merit requires a guarantee then yeah future predictions of society will never have any merit.

For you I don't understand how you could be so pessimistic while still being a libertarian. Increasing individual liberty and downsizing government only makes sense if you're optimistic that people will make ethically good decisions on their own without the need for state force and regulation.

[Machismo]

So you DO support banning things you dislike?

Lord...

If you want to keep pushing shitty laws like the regulations I pointed to, I will oppose you.

Where am I officially or legally prohibiting it?

Meanwhile, what I said:

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be ignoring some words... try again.

Unlike you, just because I oppose something, doesn't mean I want to ban it.

[Machismo]

Like I said we can only guess or conjecture about the future. If merit requires a guarantee then yeah future predictions of society will never have any merit.

For you I don't understand how you could be so pessimistic while still being a libertarian. Increasing individual liberty and downsizing government only makes sense if you're optimistic that people will make ethically good decisions on their own without the need for state force and regulation.

Thanks for admitting you're claim is utterly baseless.

Make sure to not brush your teeth, and there's no way to know that it would prevent tooth decay or bad breath.