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

[Machismo]

No, you linked articles discussing libertarianism. Neither of which was a primer. Which is what you were supposed to be linking.

I literally linked the encyclopedia and Wiki entries. You are the one demanding I provide something that I'm saying I don't use. Do you think I sit around watching YouTube videos of libertarians all fucking day?

[tehdang]

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.

Gatekeeping anarchists is ... quite interesting

[jonnysensible]

If that's the case, then why do people only want some individuals to pay?

Or, if you're saying what's yours is mine... feel free to give up all your worldly possessions to society.

how did those individuals make that wealth, and how is it protected?

[Machismo]

how did those individuals make that wealth, and how is it protected?

That depends entirely on the individual.

Have you given up all your worldly possessions to society, yet?

[JohnBrown1917]

Gatekeeping anarchists is ... quite interesting

It turns out that Anarchism is actually an defined ideology. Should we also accept fascists calling themselves anarchists?

[jonnysensible]

That depends entirely on the individual.

Have you given up all your worldly possessions to society, yet?

lol i think ive pitched a bit above your head im sorry.

Think about how old you are and how much living in a society has benefited you, from roads to healthcare to water over your entire life. The only reason we are able to communicate with each other is because of the benefits of our societies.

[Machismo]

lol i think ive pitched a bit above your head im sorry.

Think about how old you are and how much living in a society has benefited you, from roads to healthcare to water over your entire life. The only reason we are able to communicate with each other is because of the benefits of our societies.

And?

Meanwhile, people want the wealthy to pay for it all.

[jonnysensible]

And?

Meanwhile, people want the wealthy to pay for it all.

because they couldnt create that wealth without the society.

[Machismo]

because they couldnt create that wealth without the society.

So effort, restraint, forethought, and moderation are meaningless to you?

Nah, fuck them all, make them pay.

Eat the rich!!!

[jonnysensible]

So effort, restraint, forethought, and moderation are meaningless to you?

Nah, fuck them all, make them pay.

Eat the rich!!!

youre melting down over a very basic concept.

[Machismo]

youre melting down over a very basic concept.

Not really, I'm seeing people line up to force others too pay for the shit that they happen to want.

How much more are you willing to pay?

[JohnBrown1917]

Eat the rich!!!

Hell yeah, now your talking.

[Endus]

So effort, restraint, forethought, and moderation are meaningless to you?

Not "meaningless".

Just "not how anyone on this Earth gets rich in the first place". All those factors are complete nonsequiturs.

You're trying to connect wealth to some higher value of character, and that's just flatly ridiculous on its face. You'd have us believe that Donald Trump is a more-virtuous and more-deserving human being than, say, the person running the local food bank and soup kitchen that serves the needy.

Nah, fuck them all, make them pay.

We can either create a just economic system from the outset and eliminate poverty thereby, or we can tax those who exploit the current system to make up the difference.

Or you can admit that you intentionally desire that the hardship and suffering tied to poverty continue, for its own sake.

And if you're willing to come to the table on that "just economic system", you're gonna have to recognize that it's going to vastly reduce how much money the top quintile can make compared to the bottom quintile, as a matter of necessity.

[Machismo]

Not "meaningless".

Just "not how anyone on this Earth gets rich in the first place". All those factors are complete nonsequiturs.

You're trying to connect wealth to some higher value of character, and that's just flatly ridiculous on its face. You'd have us believe that Donald Trump is a more-virtuous and more-deserving human being than, say, the person running the local food bank and soup kitchen that serves the needy.



We can either create a just economic system from the outset and eliminate poverty thereby, or we can tax those who exploit the current system to make up the difference.

Or you can admit that you intentionally desire that the hardship and suffering tied to poverty continue, for its own sake.

And if you're willing to come to the table on that "just economic system", you're gonna have to recognize that it's going to vastly reduce how much money the top quintile can make compared to the bottom quintile, as a matter of necessity.

No, I'm not trying to say they have higher levels of character, merely that they are indeed people. And therein lies the problem, not all wealthy people exploit the system. Not all wealthy people are evil assholes worthy of disdain.

As it stands, the wealthy already pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the other earnings groups. The problem is that so many people want to put further burden on those wealthy, and don't want to shoulder any more for themselves. That's what selfishness looks like.

[Endus]

No, I'm not trying to say they have higher levels of character, merely that they are indeed people. And therein lies the problem, not all wealthy people exploit the system. Not all wealthy people are evil assholes worthy of disdain.

Wealth is only created through exploitation of that system.

If it was not aggregated by the currently-wealthy, it was inherited from some ancestor who did so and passed it down to them.

Wealth is only ever aggregated by exploitation of others. The entire capitalist system is fundamentally and irrevocably exploitative in nature.

As it stands, the wealthy already pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the other earnings groups. The problem is that so many people want to put further burden on those wealthy, and don't want to shoulder any more for themselves. That's what selfishness looks like.

As many times as you repeat this lie, it's never going to become true. You're just engaging in baseless slander.

[zealo]

Gatekeeping anarchists is ... quite interesting

Ancaps are just dressing up plutocracy in a skirt.

That's the end result of wanting minimal government with capitalism as the dominant economic system at the same time.

[Machismo]

Wealth is only created through exploitation of that system.

If it was not aggregated by the currently-wealthy, it was inherited from some ancestor who did so and passed it down to them.

Wealth is only ever aggregated by exploitation of others. The entire capitalist system is fundamentally and irrevocably exploitative in nature.



As many times as you repeat this lie, it's never going to become true. You're just engaging in baseless slander.

That's not true. Wealth can be achieved as a result of that system. Some people do work harder, save more, and simply make better decisions. And yes, this can become a multiplicative increase, or even an exponential increase over time.

As for my claim about taxation, the numbers were already provided. Calling it a lie doesn't refute the numbers that were provided. They come from the United States Government. This is little more than you throwing a temper tantrum, steeped in willful ignorance.

To put it simply, in order to balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy (the top 1%), you'd need to triple their tax burden. Now, I know you don't really give a shit, and you'd be fine with that. But, that is about as fucking selfish as you can get. And no... that's not including all the extra trillions from the Covid bailout.

[tehdang]

Ancaps are just dressing up plutocracy in a skirt.

That's the end result of wanting minimal government with capitalism as the dominant economic system at the same time.

Gatekeeping anarchists in this context is just simple restatement of why you aren't that particular variety of ancap. It's like every political movement ever. I'm not <x> kind of <y> because <x> isn't even truly <y>.

It turns out that Anarchism is actually an defined ideology. Should we also accept fascists calling themselves anarchists?

Same response. Any useful definition of anarchist includes various "after the elimination of the state ..." It's a very narcissistic idea that because you particularly think some other flavor leads to bad stuff, that it can't be considered a choice on the spectrum.

The same goes with libertarians, for that matter.

[JohnBrown1917]

Gatekeeping anarchists in this context is just simple restatement of why you aren't that particular variety of ancap. It's like every political movement ever. I'm not <x> kind of <y> because <x> isn't even truly <y>.


Same response. Any useful definition of anarchist includes various "after the elimination of the state ..." It's a very narcissistic idea that because you particularly think some other flavor leads to bad stuff, that it can't be considered a choice on the spectrum.

The same goes with libertarians, for that matter.

Thats great for you, still does not change that AnCaps are not anarchists.

It's a very narcissistic idea that because you particularly think some other flavor leads to bad stuff

And yeah, that is how every political idealogy works. Welcome to politics.

[Mayhem]

So, you have no evidence that they benefit more from government? That's good enough for me, I'll take that retraction. If you cannot argue that they benefit more, then trying to argue they should be the ones to pay for it... falls on its face.

Once again, this is your claim, so the burden of evidence falls to you.

Yes, I do want less government... this has been something I have argued for a very long time. This shouldn't surprise you in any way.

To be clear, you think Americans earning the same should be paying more, so as to pay the same as you? I just want to be clear on that. Or, if they are paying the same, then, I go back to the question I asked you earlier, and that would be... how much more would you be willing to pay out of that very, very large sum? In the end, this either means you think people earning what you earn (I have no idea what that is) should pay more, or you get to answer my question. Either way, I'm happy!!!

Edit: I want to note that the top section of the comparison site did show up for me when I closed it 0out, and re-opened.

Well, the education system and basic logic failed you. I hope you didn't have to pay too much for that because it was wasted money.

It has been explained to you but for some reason, you suddenly need very specific numbers to be convinced that an educated populace benefits the wealthy more than the individual.

We're on a level of how-does-shit-work right now. Page 130 and you come along with trickle-down economics. You are so deep in GOP arguments you might as well tattoo MAGA on your forehead.

But apart from that, the link showed you more than just taxes, it showed you expenses per capita, especially healthcare and education, where the US is lagging despite paying more. So there's where you can save a good amount of money if you'd introduce better regulations. For some weird shit reason, you also seem to have no problem with public school funding being tied to property tax. You know, another thing where the wealthy benefit more than the poor.

No, I don't think Americans earning the same should be paying more because your system does not provide for the stuff our system provides. Your government subsidies wealthy people way more than the poor, while they are paying less in taxes than in most other western countries, so unless you want to introduce the stuff we have, probably not since you want less government, then for fairness sake the ones gaining the most should pay considerably more than they do now.

So are you hitting me with trickle-down economics again or do you understand that you're in I-am-so-fucking-wrong-land-it-is-embarrassing?