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

[JohnBrown1917]

Punk is a genre of music that largely died in the 90s, what they are for or against doesn't matter. Like any music scene, most are for getting laid and listening to music and buying merch. Punk is just "People who various hair styles, patches on a jacket and buttons and tattoos." its a consume lifestyle brand. Anarchists could be anything, AnCaps, AnComs, you know various flavors of whatever. AnCaps for example believe the are the ultimate Libertarians.

punk is still alive and kicking. and still dominated by leftists and anarchists. like it has always been.


ancaps are also the polar opposite of what anarchism stands. it's cool that you have no idea what anarchism theory is even about, but don't start pretending you actually have any idea about it.

[Theodarzna]

punk is still alive and kicking. and still dominated by leftists and anarchists. like it has always been.


ancaps are also the polar opposite of what anarchism stands. it's cool that you have no idea what anarchism theory is even about, but don't start pretending you actually have any idea about it.

Ah, I can now guess what your genre of music is. I was a scene girl myself, emo, screamo, that was great.

And, AnCaps are still a type of Anarchist. All Anarchists seem incorrect IMHO, be they AnCaps or AnComs, its all incorrect. But that is more of its own topic.

[Felya]

Ah, I can now guess what your genre of music is. I was a scene girl myself, emo, screamo, that was great.

No shit... there is a big difference between punk and scene... Kinda how there is a difference between wearing baggy pants, because you are broke and shopping at a thrift shop... and buying the 200$ version from hot topic...

And, AnCaps are still a type of Anarchist. All Anarchists seem incorrect IMHO, be they AnCaps or AnComs, its all incorrect. But that is more of its own topic.

From a perspective of a NeoCon... no shit...

[Glorious Leader]

Ah, I can now guess what your genre of music is. I was a scene girl myself, emo, screamo, that was great.

And, AnCaps are still a type of Anarchist. All Anarchists seem incorrect IMHO, be they AnCaps or AnComs, its all incorrect. But that is more of its own topic.

Ancaps are not anarchists. You would have to have no clue what anarchism actually stood for to consider them a part of the anarchist movement.

- - - Updated - - -

There are a ton of forms of anarchism. AnCap is one of them. And it’s no more fanciful than any of the rest.
.

Anarchism as a political movement stands opposed to hierarchy domination and exploitation. Capitalism can't exist without these.

[bladeXcrasher]

Let me make it real simple...

Corporate PACs receive funding from corporate profits.
BLM and PP receive their funding from individual donations.

The only reason why BLM or PP need a PAC or lobbying, because otherwise they won’t have a voice. Treating lobbying as bribe, removes the disadvantage none profit organization face, against companies that measure their lobbying versus the saving it would result in.

On top of this, corporations already dissolve personal or individual liability, because they incorporated. That’s the whole point of being a corporation... to not take on the liability as an individual.

Lobbying in no way, shape or form... helps BLM or PP... just compare how much corporate super PACs spend to create wedge issues like BLM or controversy over PP. There would be no controversy for BLM or PP to need to even lobby, if it were not for the corporate arm pushing said controversy, because they can’t win on corporate tax cuts alone.

Look at Trump... His campaign was mostly attacking BLM and things like PP... who paid for that? Why does PP and BLM need a super PAC, for a manufactured battle, paid for by corporations?

- - - Updated - - -



Keep telling your self... sorry, I mean... keep listening to Tim Pool... this predates 9/11...

Vandals good Hitler bad.

[Mayhem]

I specifically chose simple things, because the entire point is compromise, and a willingness to not always get what you want. otherwise, you have no cause to complain when the other side does the same thing when they are in power.

Even worse, for someone like me, the revenge-style governance means that liberty is attacked each and every time.

I'm well aware that many rely on the government, which is exactly what I'm trying to stop.... to the tune of about 2-3% a year. That really isn't that much, when it comes down to it.

You can't ask or even hope for compromise if you are unwilling to explain what your simple solution would mean for a million people.

Well, that and you ever ambiguity about everything. You want 2-3% fewer to rely on the government per year? How many is that? How many people are directly or indirectly relying on the government paying them? And why do you think is it ok to attack their liberty and freedom?

Why not increase taxes and use that surplus exclusively to pay off debt? It would hit those who profited the most of the borrowed future money more which makes it fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on which flavor of anarchy the individual espouses. Just like with Libertarians. It’s a weird hodgepodge of contradictions and you just have to deal with it. See this thread for evidence of the Libertarian side.

The guy that came up with the idea of anarcho-capitalism said himself it has nothing to do with anarchism.

[Ihavewaffles]

I created a monster...

[Machismo]

You can't ask or even hope for compromise if you are unwilling to explain what your simple solution would mean for a million people.

Well, that and you ever ambiguity about everything. You want 2-3% fewer to rely on the government per year? How many is that? How many people are directly or indirectly relying on the government paying them? And why do you think is it ok to attack their liberty and freedom?

Why not increase taxes and use that surplus exclusively to pay off debt? It would hit those who profited the most of the borrowed future money more which makes it fair.

- - - Updated - - -



The guy that came up with the idea of anarcho-capitalism said himself it has nothing to do with anarchism.

I want the government to be able to become more efficient, and less all-encompassing, at a rate of 2-3% a year. The USDA owns more than 30 buildings in the DC area alone. The NSA has up to 40k employees, and the DoD has spent an ungodly sum on a mediocre fighter jet.

As for increasing taxes, the problem is that that just promotes the government spending more. We have increased taxes, and we just ended up spending more and more. And therein lies the problem, who is paying those increased taxes. It's always the "other" guy paying it. I get that you're not an American, but if you were, how much more would you be willing to personally pay to balance the budget? As it stands, the deficit alone is over $3k per person, per year. Oh, and that's not including the Covid impact, which would be an additional... $7600 per person. Yes, that's how much extra the government has spent in the past year.

So, would you be willing to hand the government $10k right now, and another $3k a year, per member of your family? Or, ar you going to demand someone else pay the lion's share of that?

[Mayhem]

Care to link that? As far as I’m aware he started as a regular anarchist and evolved into what he described as ancap. Never heard him say his politics had nothing to do with anarchism.

"Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property[44] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[45]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I mean, of course, he could've been lying but if anarchism rejects capitalism then anarcho-capitalism makes no sense to be a form of anarchism.

- - - Updated - - -

I want the government to be able to become more efficient, and less all-encompassing, at a rate of 2-3% a year. The USDA owns more than 30 buildings in the DC area alone. The NSA has up to 40k employees, and the DoD has spent an ungodly sum on a mediocre fighter jet.

As for increasing taxes, the problem is that that just promotes the government spending more. We have increased taxes, and we just ended up spending more and more. And therein lies the problem, who is paying those increased taxes. It's always the "other" guy paying it. I get that you're not an American, but if you were, how much more would you be willing to personally pay to balance the budget? As it stands, the deficit alone is over $3k per person, per year. Oh, and that's not including the Covid impact, which would be an additional... $7600 per person. Yes, that's how much extra the government has spent in the past year.

So, would you be willing to hand the government $10k right now, and another $3k a year, per member of your family? Or, ar you going to demand someone else pay the lion's share of that?

I have no clue why you posted this, you could've just read my post instead because everything you've just asked is already covered in that post.

[Machismo]

"Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property[44] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism.[45]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I mean, of course, he could've been lying but if anarchism rejects capitalism then anarcho-capitalism makes no sense to be a form of anarchism.

- - - Updated - - -



I have no clue why you posted this, you could've just read my post instead because everything you've just asked is already covered in that post.

I posted it to show exactly how much it would cost to balance the budget, and that doesn't even cover paying down chunks of the debt. I also wanted to highlight the issue, wanting other people to pay for it. That's how bit the annual deficit is... per person. Sure, it's a lot easier to have someone else pay for it, which just screams of selfishness. If you think raising taxes is the answer, how much more would you personally be willing to pay? Is it the average that would be required? Is it even close?

This is usually the part where I hear someone say the wealthy just need to sell a yacht.

If the only answer to major deficits is "raise taxes on someone else," then you have the exact reason why that "someone else" will do everything they can to prevent it... including lobbying, donating to politicians, leaving, pushing tax loopholes, shifting funds overseas, buying other companies to show losses, or any other host of options.

This is why I find it hilarious that people call libertarians selfish. The complete and utter lack of self-awareness is astounding...

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, I can now guess what your genre of music is. I was a scene girl myself, emo, screamo, that was great.

And, AnCaps are still a type of Anarchist. All Anarchists seem incorrect IMHO, be they AnCaps or AnComs, its all incorrect. But that is more of its own topic.

So, to be clear, you'd prefer they support ethno-nationalism like you do?

[Mayhem]

I posted it to show exactly how much it would cost to balance the budget, and that doesn't even cover paying down chunks of the debt. I also wanted to highlight the issue, wanting other people to pay for it. That's how bit the annual deficit is... per person. Sure, it's a lot easier to have someone else pay for it, which just screams of selfishness. If you think raising taxes is the answer, how much more would you personally be willing to pay? Is it the average that would be required? Is it even close?

This is usually the part where I hear someone say the wealthy just need to sell a yacht.

If the only answer to major deficits is "raise taxes on someone else," then you have the exact reason why that "someone else" will do everything they can to prevent it... including lobbying, donating to politicians, leaving, pushing tax loopholes, shifting funds overseas, buying other companies to show losses, or any other host of options.

This is why I find it hilarious that people call libertarians selfish. The complete and utter lack of self-awareness is astounding...

The selfish argument is nonsense.

It is a fact that wealthy people benefit more from society and government spending, asking them to pay more than now, not even their fair share, just a bit more, to balance the budget is in no way selfish.

What's selfish is if you want others who can't provide more to pay the price for your gains.

You are fine with people losing their jobs and/or getting paid less just so you don't have to pay more in taxes and then have the guts to call those who think that's wrong, selfish.

And to argue, they'd fight it because they have the means to do so, is just giving up, not trying to make meaningful or lasting change.

- - - Updated - - -

You’re misunderstanding. He’s saying it’s a new unique form of anarchism and was distinguishing it from other forms. The man was a proponent of anarchism his entire life. Hell, it’s why he and Ayn Rand were constantly at odds.

I don't see a difference between what you're saying and what I am saying. I mean, they are in major parts polar opposite to each other.

[Machismo]

The selfish argument is nonsense.

It is a fact that wealthy people benefit more from society and government spending, asking them to pay more than now, not even their fair share, just a bit more, to balance the budget is in no way selfish.

What's selfish is if you want others who can't provide more to pay the price for your gains.

You are fine with people losing their jobs and/or getting paid less just so you don't have to pay more in taxes and then have the guts to call those who think that's wrong, selfish.

And to argue, they'd fight it because they have the means to do so, is just giving up, not trying to make meaningful or lasting change.

Which points to the issue, pure fucking selfishness.

They also already pay more, both in dollar amount, and in percentage of income. From what I can tell, you're willing to pay zero extra dollars, which means the wealthy (whatever the fuck that even means) will be paying for all of it. For just this year, that's over $3 trillion. To put that burden on the wealthy, means massive job losses, closed companies, and a huge economic recession.

If you don't think people will lose their jobs on a massive scale, then you are deluded.

If you're answer is to always tax someone else more, to pay for the continued increase of the things you want, that makes you a sugar baby.

I also hear the narrative that it's a fact that wealthy people benefit more from government society and government spending, yet never seem to be provided with numbers or methodology to back it up.

[JohnBrown1917]

Ah, I can now guess what your genre of music is. I was a scene girl myself, emo, screamo, that was great.

And, AnCaps are still a type of Anarchist. All Anarchists seem incorrect IMHO, be they AnCaps or AnComs, its all incorrect. But that is more of its own topic.

Not really, and communism is even one of the early anarchists movements if anything. Ancaps are just a fancy name for extreme liberalism/libertarian that only exists on the internet.

Meanwhile Anarcho-communism dates back all the way to Marx and other anarchist movement to Anarchist philosophers of Marx's time(I.E Rosa)

- - - Updated - - -

There are a ton of forms of anarchism. AnCap is one of them. And it’s no more fanciful than any of the rest.

They oppose the main principles on anarchism, its just a shitty attempt at internet libertarians to rebrand themselves.
Ancaps should try getting involved in european or even middle-eastern anarchist movements, we'll see how that'll go(Spoiler, really bad)

Idk, it is a thread to discuss anarchism vs libertarianism. They’re actually super close in a number of areas, so it’d be interesting to discuss if our resident libertarians were willing to do so. Apparently they want to discuss what other posters support versus less spending and government.

They are as far apart as ideologies can be. A corporate dystopia is very far removed from a society without an hierarchical structure.

[Bodakane]

Which points to the issue, pure fucking selfishness.

They also already pay more, both in dollar amount, and in percentage of income. From what I can tell, you're willing to pay zero extra dollars, which means the wealthy (whatever the fuck that even means) will be paying for all of it. For just this year, that's over $3 trillion. To put that burden on the wealthy, means massive job losses, closed companies, and a huge economic recession.

If you don't think people will lose their jobs on a massive scale, then you are deluded.

If you're answer is to always tax someone else more, to pay for the continued increase of the things you want, that makes you a sugar baby.

I also hear the narrative that it's a fact that wealthy people benefit more from government society and government spending, yet never seem to be provided with numbers or methodology to back it up.

Literally everything you just said isn’t true.

[Felya]

All anarchism is fanciful. I’m not going to keep arguing this point after this, but claiming it’s not a form of anarchism is incorrect. The only other thing I have to add is it feels like Machismo may not be classifying his ideology correctly.

Most people don’t, but a lot of people need to belong to a group or have a guide. There is no single ideology that explains everything... not even in science...

[Machismo]

Literally everything you just said isn’t true.

The evidence of them paying more both in dollar amounts, and as a percentage of their income has already been provided.

I asked how much more he was personally willing to pay, and he said the wealthy should pay for it.

Sugar babies live off of other people... which is exactly what he's calling for.

[Machismo]

All anarchism is fanciful. I’m not going to keep arguing this point after this, but claiming it’s not a form of anarchism is incorrect. The only other thing I have to add is it feels like Machismo may not be classifying his ideology correctly.

Are you back on the anarchy train, again?

[Mayhem]

Which points to the issue, pure fucking selfishness.

They also already pay more, both in dollar amount, and in percentage of income. From what I can tell, you're willing to pay zero extra dollars, which means the wealthy (whatever the fuck that even means) will be paying for all of it. For just this year, that's over $3 trillion. To put that burden on the wealthy, means massive job losses, closed companies, and a huge economic recession.

If you don't think people will lose their jobs on a massive scale, then you are deluded.

If you're answer is to always tax someone else more, to pay for the continued increase of the things you want, that makes you a sugar baby.

I also hear the narrative that it's a fact that wealthy people benefit more from government society and government spending, yet never seem to be provided with numbers or methodology to back it up.

You don't seem to have a problem with selfishness if you're the one profiting. Hypocrite.

I'm coming from a country that has an overall higher tax rate than the US, and you don't see me leaving because of taxes. So, evidently, I am willing to pay more than you are. Maybe don't assume everyone is as selfish as you are.

Oh cool, you just pulled a number out of your ass. Without any reference, I have absolutely no fucking clue what that's supposed to tell me. $3 trillion of what?

There would be no job losses, what are you talking about? Why would the wealthy on top of paying a bit more in taxes, also reduce their income? That makes zero sense. You on the other hand propose job losses as a means to pay off debt. Dude, we're talking about paying off debt, nothing else, not increasing debt, not using these tax dollars for special things, just to pay off debt.

Reading, fucking try it for once.

Oh and to your last point, here have a read: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...-and-the-rest/

Next, you're somehow going to try to explain how the wealthy aren't part of society. Right?

[Machismo]

Are you ready to provide some kind of primer for your actual ideology? You claim it’s incredibly rigid. Should be easy to do.

I already have...

You do know that the simple act of supporting government means I'm not an anarchist, right?

- - - Updated - - -

You don't seem to have a problem with selfishness if you're the one profiting. Hypocrite.

I'm coming from a country that has an overall higher tax rate than the US, and you don't see me leaving because of taxes. So, evidently, I am willing to pay more than you are. Maybe don't assume everyone is as selfish as you are.

Oh cool, you just pulled a number out of your ass. Without any reference, I have absolutely no fucking clue what that's supposed to tell me. $3 trillion of what?

There would be no job losses, what are you talking about? Why would the wealthy on top of paying a bit more in taxes, also reduce their income? That makes zero sense. You on the other hand propose job losses as a means to pay off debt. Dude, we're talking about paying off debt, nothing else, not increasing debt, not using these tax dollars for special things, just to pay off debt.

Reading, fucking try it for once.

Oh and to your last point, here have a read: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...-and-the-rest/

Next, you're somehow going to try to explain how the wealthy aren't part of society. Right?

I'm not ultra-wealthy, that's the point.

You people keep searing it as a fact that the wealthy gain more from the government, but I have yet to see the hard numbers or methodology on it. The article you offered is about wealth inequality, not about the wealthy receiving more from the government. Do I need to remind you what you said?

It is a fact that wealthy people benefit more from society and government spending, asking them to pay more than now, not even their fair share, just a bit more, to balance the budget is in no way selfish.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are willing to pay more, then you should have no problem taxing the people who make the same as you a higher rate in my country. But, you didn't do that, you called for the wealthy to cover the cost.

As for the numbers "I pulled out of my ass" those are the deficit numbers that were already presented in this thread. I pulled them out of the ass of the United States Government.

As for me, I've proposed the government becoming more efficient, and maintaining the exact same spending levels for 5 straight years. That is a far smaller impact than raising taxes (some mystery amount) on the wealthy (who that is, you still haven't said). It's not just about paying off debt, it's about stopping the accrual of new debt, first. We haven't even gotten to the part about paying it off, because we're adding way ore debt than we're paying off.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally this entire thread summed up.

- - - Updated - - -


Machismo is firmly conservative.

I'm a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal... at least in the American sense. Both largely tend towards more liberty, and less government.

[Machismo]

@Machismo you do know that you haven't right? If you have I missed it and you've refused to link to it in any way when asked. Care to link it again to help out? It's certainly not in response to any of my requests for one.

You mean that I support government?

I support government. It's right there.