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

[Machismo]

Only in your delusional mind.
You already admitted earlier that you weren't interested in convincing anyone of your fantasies. Which means you're trolling.

"I'm the only one interested in freedom and liberty...!"

Lol cry harder...

I do love the peanut gallery, it's always nice to have a fan.

Meanwhile, could you tell me why you support corporate-backed regulations in order to give them a competitive advantage so damn much?

[Shadowferal]

Why don't you support Trump anymore?

[Machismo]

Why don't you support Trump anymore?

When did I ever?

[Shadowferal]

According to your shit-libertarian logic, if you don't refute it then you support it. And you referenced trump support favorably. Which comes as no surprise.

[Mayhem]

Well, considering you tried to say regulations are marketing, I wanted to make sure we're on the same page.

You do realize people are allowed to disagree with government, right? Or, are you going to agree with them when they restrict abortions?

Ok, not yet, maybe a dent.

Your position and post history so far in order.

People should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming others.

Your position from the beginning. So far so good. Sounds reasonable, until people with undesirable traits enter the scene.

They should not be forced to serve Nazis.

Denying to serve someone might harm them. Sure, not serving Nazis sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Now what if you exchange Nazi with Gay, or Black, or Hispanic, or Woman?

Corporations use government to push regulations that stifle competition. I'm reminded of when Jack Daniel's Distillery tried to use the Kentucky government to determine that it couldn't be called Kentucky whiskey unless it was aged in the same barrels thar they used.

Then there's the organic-food industry that tried to force labeling restrictions on their competitors in order to help sell the narrative that organic food is better.

Back then it was Kentucky, not Tennesse, good for you no one caught it because you haven't posted any links with it. The organic-food industry must also be the big player, right? Anyway both of these as has since been established were regulations that dealt with harm. But as you haven't provided links yet you could go on with this.

I do not support those regulations and restrictions, because they are dealing with actions that cause no harm.

And now it gets tricky because what constitutes harm is decided by:

when dealing with government actions, the government decides

You don't support regulations and restrictions that are dealing with actions that cause no harm. Yet you give the ones implementing the regulations and restrictions the sole authority on deciding what constitutes harm.

So if the government says the restrictions are implemented to deal with actions that cause harm you are for them. You don't give a shit about what the regulations actually do or don't do, because the word of the government is enough for you.

[Ivanstone]

You are the one to say that their motives are irrelevant (but only when it fits your narrative).

Well, it's a goof thing that abortion will still be legal, just more regulated for your protection.

My narrative is the correct one. You complain about unfair advantage because of a regulation but your sole example of someone who was harmed was the one distiller who actually did receive unfair advantage.

So now you like the Trap laws. Make up your mind.

[Machismo]

Ok, not yet, maybe a dent.

Your position and post history so far in order.



Your position from the beginning. So far so good. Sounds reasonable, until people with undesirable traits enter the scene.



Denying to serve someone might harm them. Sure, not serving Nazis sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Now what if you exchange Nazi with Gay, or Black, or Hispanic, or Woman?



Back then it was Kentucky, not Tennesse, good for you no one caught it because you haven't posted any links with it. The organic-food industry must also be the big player, right? Anyway both of these as has since been established were regulations that dealt with harm. But as you haven't provided links yet you could go on with this.



And now it gets tricky because what constitutes harm is decided by:



You don't support regulations and restrictions that are dealing with actions that cause no harm. Yet you give the ones implementing the regulations and restrictions the sole authority on deciding what constitutes harm.

So if the government says the restrictions are implemented to deal with actions that cause harm you are for them. You don't give a shit about what the regulations actually do or don't do, because the word of the government is enough for you.

Nope, no harm was ever established by you guys, that's the point. But yes, if the government wants to push legislation, that's what it will do. And yes, that means when the government decides to restrict abortion, then you also have to stick with that. I already said they decide, but that I often disagree. And, I hope you do, as well. We'll see when those abortion restrictions come rolling in.

I look forward to you trying to defend the conservatives banning abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

That worked so well! Meanwhile, the policies you support would do nothing to prevent them from happening. Unless you’re saying you should be god king. Any minute now you’ll outline how you would prevent them, your opposition has yet to do so.

Oh, unlike you, I don't want to rule over everyone, and take away their liberties.

- - - Updated - - -

My narrative is the correct one. You complain about unfair advantage because of a regulation but your sole example of someone who was harmed was the one distiller who actually did receive unfair advantage.

So now you like the Trap laws. Make up your mind.

Nope, I hate them, because they all restricted actions that were not harming others.

Try and keep up.

[bladeXcrasher]

I for one am outraged Smirnoff won't be able to make my favorite 100% potatoe tequila. Think of all the liberty we are missing.

[Machismo]

I don’t either, but I actually want to do more than pay lip service to no harm coming from our society to its own members. Meanwhile, you keep paying lip service claiming doing so means you’re actively opposing the harm. You’re not. The policies you advocate for will end with even more harm than what we currently see. And you don’t even deny it. You just affirm you’d rather they be free to harm society than keep corporations and special interests from being able to override the will of the people.

Well, I look forward to opposing you, just like I oppose them.

[Ivanstone]

Nope, I hate them, because they all restricted actions that were not harming others.

Try and keep up.

So, there's not a lot of rational thought happening. You couldn't even get the law right in the first place and there are other separate laws that govern the whiskey trade. In any event, you have continually failed to prove not even a single instance of genuine harm. Meanwhile that particular industry has expanded.

This problem was solved many pages ago:
Each individual law should be judged on its own merits.

There used to be laws against miscegenation and for segregation. Now there are not. Those laws were judged to be without merit and were stricken. So much for your submoronic belief that government only add more and more lies to restrict liberty.

[Machismo]

Great. Feel free to oppose me advocating for the liberties you claim to support. While I also oppose the corporatism you so openly espouse.

Well, sometimes you're opposing liberty, so I'll oppose you.

[Ivanstone]

Well, I look forward to opposing you, just like I oppose them.

And no one believes you actually oppose them. Without that sweet, sweet fundamentalist anti-abortion money the party of small government is dead in the water.

[Machismo]

So, there's not a lot of rational thought happening. You couldn't even get the law right in the first place and there are other separate laws that govern the whiskey trade. In any event, you have continually failed to prove not even a single instance of genuine harm. Meanwhile that particular industry has expanded.

This problem was solved many pages ago:
Each individual law should be judged on its own merits.

There used to be laws against miscegenation and for segregation. Now there are not. Those laws were judged to be without merit and were stricken. So much for your submoronic belief that government only add more and more lies to restrict liberty.

The actions beforehand were not harming others, so I oppose any restriction to those actions.

That's the point.

I look forward to you cheering on the consumer protections when the GOP pushes their abortion regulations.

- - - Updated - - -

Only when that liberty harms society. Something you claim to be all about...

It's a shame you despise liberty so damn much.

- - - Updated - - -

And no one believes you actually oppose them. Without that sweet, sweet fundamentalist anti-abortion money the party of small government is dead in the water.

Umm, restricting abortions is big government... and an attack on liberty.

[Machismo]

It’s a shame you despise society so much and would prefer policies that are as harmful as possible, while also being a massive corporatist. Which would also lead to a distinct lack of liberty. Remind me who hates liberty again?

Please, tell me more when all those abortion restrictions come raining down.

[Ivanstone]

The actions beforehand were not harming others, so I oppose any restriction to those actions.

Consumers were being harmed by not having correctly labelled whiskey. People work hard to make a unique product that reflects local history and you would wipe it all away for no reason beyond your twisted sense of liberty.

That's the point.

Virtually all alcohol everywhere is a protected item. Do you think that hard working Blue Agave farmers and Tequila distillers should have their regulatory protections removed so someone can make potato Tequila?

- - - Updated - - -

Umm, restricting abortions is big government... and an attack on liberty.

The GOP would undo a ton of regulations and not enforce a bunch more. Its their calling card. In exchange, no more abortions.

[Machismo]

Consumers were being harmed by not having correctly labelled whiskey. People work hard to make a unique product that reflects local history and you would wipe it all away for no reason beyond your twisted sense of liberty.

That's the point.

Virtually all alcohol everywhere is a protected item. Do you think that hard working Blue Agave farmers and Tequila distillers should have their regulatory protections removed so someone can make potato Tequila?

- - - Updated - - -



The GOP would undo a ton of regulations and not enforce a bunch more. Its their calling card. In exchange, no more abortions.

Well, they love their regulations, just like you guys do.

Consumers are harmed by not having properly-performed abortions. Austin County worked hard to make a unique product, and they want everyone to be held to that standard.

That's the point.

Virtually all medical procedures everywhere are a protected and regulated service.

[Shadowferal]

Please, tell me more when all those abortion restrictions come raining down.

.and when will that happen?

[Edge-]

Well, they love their regulations, just like you guys do.

Consumers are harmed by not having properly-performed abortions. Austin County worked hard to make a unique product, and they want everyone to be held to that standard.

That's the point.

Virtually all medical procedures everywhere are a protected and regulated service.

Man, the fact that you even waste time with transparently bad-faith arguments like this speaks volumes. We've been over this already, but I see that it was a waste of time on my part.

[Machismo]

.and when will that happen?

Wll, considering the GOP have a 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS< it's only a matter of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, the fact that you even waste time with transparently bad-faith arguments like this speaks volumes. We've been over this already, but I see that it was a waste of time on my part.

It's their arguments.

[Edge-]

It's their arguments.

Yet here you are, making it on their behalf. Instead of not making them on their behalf because they're bad-faith arguments, as we've already discussed in addressing the qualitative analysis of regulations rather than just broad generalities that are pretty useless to discuss.