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

[Machismo]

And if you'd change the regulations, the government would still run it but it'd be fair. Funny how that works.



I am talking about property tax. Not what they chose to pay. You can't as a poor person just pay more in property taxes to get a better education for your children. That's the systemic part of the whole education system I am talking about, just if you're still confused. Punishing the children of poor people for being poor, it's always the side you want to be on in a discussion.



Pinnacle of stupid argumentation reached.



And I have absolutely no problem with that, that's also not public education but private. It is subsidized by the government though, so double benefits for the rich, woop woop.



You ignore all of the evidence, that's not on me, that's on you.



Stop with the straw man.



Well, equal punishment would mean people are equally punished. Receiving a fine of 100$ has an equal impact on one that has a few million dollars sitting in his bank account compared to someone who has twenty dollars at all? You're defining being equally punished very favorably for the rich. Interesting that you think it's ok for them to break laws and don't fear punishment. It's telling. I mean, it's not surprising, considering your arguments so far, but to be so straightforward about it is interesting.

So far, you called it equal when they get more of a say in politics. You called it equal when the system provides them with overall better education. And now you're calling it equal when they receive the same fines despite not being impacted the same way.

Is this a game of semantics? Should I use the word equitable to get my point across?



I said it was about marketing and gave you the definition which prompted you to call religion marketing because you're reading comprehension sucks balls.



Fuck no, I am not going to help you bring the world down to its knees.

Once again, your definition of equal doesn't fit the dictionary. As for the rest, it's clear you aren't even close to showing it to be a fact.

[Glorious Leader]

Only the ignorant would see the state abolished and private property guaranteed by a private concern, and slide into some “but that’s a new state and thus not anarchism.” Sorry, if it’s not a vote, statute (law) and just contracts, then it’s not the state. See other schools of anarchism that hate capitalism and invent their own solutions to the abolition of private property. Properly put, anarchists try to force others to hate capitalism as much as most “trendy” anarchist movements do, and that’s the real breaking point. And while I don’t force you to believe market contracts are a sufficient remedy for the protection of private property (you don’t have to jump to their side to understand the categorization), I do expect you to have a basic understanding about why someone there would understand it would work after the end of the state. I don’t subscribe to the ideology and it’s a pretty basic point. Anarchism for people that don’t hate capitalism, and if you find one as passionate with you, would argue other anarchist philosophies are dumb when it comes to personal property and the maintenance thereof.

Who upholds contracts? who mediates and arbitrate disputes? who set the boundaries in which those contracts operate? when you figure this out you'll understand why you're just talking about the state albeit in a different name.

Anarchism for people that don't hate capitalism is not anarchism and even rothbard said as much. You are at this point basically wilfully ignorant of the entirety of anarchist and socialist though. Proudhon literally says property is theft but apparently we went from that to ancaps are anarchist...

[Mayhem]

Once again, your definition of equal doesn't fit the dictionary. As for the rest, it's clear you aren't even close to showing it to be a fact.

Ok, dropped everything else to just talk about the word equal.

Would you say someone is being equally punished if the punishment has the same impact on them as on someone else? And what do you think punishments are for? So people don't do it? Would you agree?

[Ivanstone]

It is a simple fact that is who runs the education system. The federal government controls the DOE, and let's the states largely cover the day-to-day operations, along with the counties and districts.

Charter schools are mostly for-profit and private. They are also mostly shit. At best they teach to the test and cherry pick the smart kids. When it comes to doing the hard part, teaching less-advantaged kids, they mostly fail. When it comes to paying teachers they mostly fail.

No child has control over their own circumstances. They are not even legally allowed to. Yet an unequal system punishes poor kids for nothing more than accident of birth.

Many of the wealthy get a better education, because they pay more for it. That's how it has long worked. Harvard is better than the local community college, as well.

Harvard has a 41 billion dollar endowment fund. It pretty much keeps them near the top. Furthermore, anyone good enough to go to Harvard doesn't pay for it.

This is the same for all the top universities. Now imagine what things would be like if all the schools had reasonable endowment funds?

[tehdang]

Who upholds contracts? who mediates and arbitrate disputes? who set the boundaries in which those contracts operate? when you figure this out you'll understand why you're just talking about the state albeit in a different name.

Anarchism for people that don't hate capitalism is not anarchism and even rothbard said as much. You are at this point basically wilfully ignorant of the entirety of anarchist and socialist though. Proudhon literally says property is theft but apparently we went from that to ancaps are anarchist...

Seems like you see problems with anarcho-caps. Fine, don't join their political movement.

I see problems with all kinds of anarchist thought. That's mostly why I don't subscribe to any of them. It's just a stupid, ideological position to declare something both unworkable and also therefore not an example of a category. That's a critique of the movement, not the hare-brained denial of membership.

Seriously, set some ground rules you can live by in political ideologies. Huge majorities of human beings will think your particular solution ends in misery and totalitarianism. So afford yourself and others the position to debate it before doing nonsensical dismissal.

[Glorious Leader]

Seems like you see problems with anarcho-caps. Fine, don't join their political movement.

I see problems with all kinds of anarchist thought. That's mostly why I don't subscribe to any of them. It's just a stupid, ideological position to declare something both unworkable and also therefore not an example of a category. That's a critique of the movement, not the hare-brained denial of membership.

Seriously, set some ground rules you can live by in political ideologies. Huge majorities of human beings will think your particular solution ends in misery and totalitarianism. So afford yourself and others the position to debate it before doing nonsensical dismissal.

I frankly don't give a shit when it comes to your feeling about anarchy. You don't actually understand what anarchy represents and that's why you feel comfortable lumping in ancaps with the wider anarchist tradition. I wasn't really making a case for anarchy anyway. It is not nonsensical to dismiss people who claim to represent an ideology while having not the foggiest clue what that idiocy represents. In the same sense that the 3rd Reich wasn't socialist

You can't really answer any of the arguments I made for dismissing the claims of so called ancaps and instead you'd rather derail the discussion. Its fine, you're ignorant of socialist and anarchist thought but please don't pretend to understand things you haven't a clue about.

[Machismo]

Ok, dropped everything else to just talk about the word equal.

Would you say someone is being equally punished if the punishment has the same impact on them as on someone else? And what do you think punishments are for? So people don't do it? Would you agree?

That's the problem, trying to make something equitable, like a prison sentence for guy like Bernie Madoff. Should he have received less of a punishment for his theft, since he was older?

The same for rape, murder, or any other crime. I get that you want to just talk about financial impacts, but if this is about being fair, and not equal, then at least be consistent in the application.

- - - Updated - - -

Charter schools are mostly for-profit and private. They are also mostly shit. At best they teach to the test and cherry pick the smart kids. When it comes to doing the hard part, teaching less-advantaged kids, they mostly fail. When it comes to paying teachers they mostly fail.

No child has control over their own circumstances. They are not even legally allowed to. Yet an unequal system punishes poor kids for nothing more than accident of birth.



Harvard has a 41 billion dollar endowment fund. It pretty much keeps them near the top. Furthermore, anyone good enough to go to Harvard doesn't pay for it.

This is the same for all the top universities. Now imagine what things would be like if all the schools had reasonable endowment funds?

Great, good for them. I fully support a private alternative. But, this all started when the other poster declared it as a fact that the wealthy receive more from the government. I simply questioned it, and he has yet to show how it's actually anywhere close to a factual statement.

Wealth begets more wealth, and the government isn't needed to make this happen. It's about planning for generations, and sticking with it. Harvard is older than the United States, by a fair amount. There's a reason it's managed to accrue such an endowment.

[PC2]

I frankly don't give a shit when it comes to your feeling about anarchy. You don't actually understand what anarchy represents and that's why you feel comfortable lumping in ancaps with the wider anarchist tradition. I wasn't really making a case for anarchy anyway. It is not nonsensical to dismiss people who claim to represent an ideology while having not the foggiest clue what that idiocy represents. In the same sense that the 3rd Reich wasn't socialist

You can't really answer any of the arguments I made for dismissing the claims of so called ancaps and instead you'd rather derail the discussion. Its fine, you're ignorant of socialist and anarchist thought but please don't pretend to understand things you haven't a clue about.

An anarchist society can be capitalistic or non-capitalistic. There's more than one way to interpret anarchy. I'd say it's more compatible with capitalism than socialism because how do you redistribute resources for social purposes if there is no form of authority like the IRS and the police?

Anarchy only works if people don't want to coerce other people into involuntary action which doesn't work for most socialists because most of their plans require the use of force against rich people.

[JohnBrown1917]

An anarchist society can be capitalistic or non-capitalistic. There's more than one way to interpret anarchy. I'd say it's more compatible with capitalism than socialism because how do you redistribute resources for social purposes if there is no form of authority like the IRS and the police?

Anarchy only works if people don't want to coerce other people into involuntary action which doesn't work for most socialists because most of their plans require the use of force against rich people.

Yes, and all of them are anti-capitalist.


I could go further, but as seen before in this thread, its a waste of time to even discuss anarchism with any sort of conservative.

[Mayhem]

That's the problem, trying to make something equitable, like a prison sentence for guy like Bernie Madoff. Should he have received less of a punishment for his theft, since he was older?

You know we weren't talking about that, because all your examples talk about prison when I was talking about fines.

The same for rape, murder, or any other crime. I get that you want to just talk about financial impacts, but if this is about being fair, and not equal, then at least be consistent in the application.

Why do I have to pretend rape, murder, or any other crime is comparable to crimes with just a financial impact?

I see you haven't answered even one question. Does that mean you disagree and want wealthy people to ignore the laws because they have virtually no impact on their situation?

[Machismo]

You know we weren't talking about that, because all your examples talk about prison when I was talking about fines.



Why do I have to pretend rape, murder, or any other crime is comparable to crimes with just a financial impact?

I see you haven't answered even one question. Does that mean you disagree and want wealthy people to ignore the laws because they have virtually no impact on their situation?

You want to talk about equitable punishments, so you better want it for everything.

It's not about ignoring the laws, it's about having equality under the law.

[Ivanstone]

Great, good for them. I fully support a private alternative. But, this all started when the other poster declared it as a fact that the wealthy receive more from the government. I simply questioned it, and he has yet to show how it's actually anywhere close to a factual statement.

Wealth begets more wealth, and the government isn't needed to make this happen. It's about planning for generations, and sticking with it. Harvard is older than the United States, by a fair amount. There's a reason it's managed to accrue such an endowment.

The alternative is personified by Betsy DeVos. She was wealthy before the government from shady business dealings, she now uses her superior financial position to extract more money from everyone via the government. Some people said she was an incompetent head for the Department of Education. This is incorrect. She used her immense political contacts (which include a Vice President) to get what she wanted and to enable her to gain more wealth for her cronies. The presence or absence of government is not really relevant because the dishonest will cheerfully fuck over other people to get what they want in either case.

Rich people gain more benefit from the world. If you order something from Amazon, they need a well maintained infrastructure to get you that item. You need a well maintained infrastructure to get that item. The difference is they use that same well-maintained infrastructure how many times per day?

Yeah but every other university also needs a quality endowment. Hell, regular schools need appropriate funding. Life is easy for Harvard because they don't have to put in the hard work of dealing with difficult problems.

[PC2]

Yes, and all of them are anti-capitalist.

No that depends on whether the anarchists we're talking about support capitalism or not.

Anarchist is just a label though so the debate should be about any disagreement with the underlying ideas and not a debate about what a word means.

[Mayhem]

You want to talk about equitable punishments, so you better want it for everything.

I was talking about the difference between rich and poor and the different impacts punishments have on them. You, having no objection or argument against that, now move the goalpost to something entirely different.

I don't have to be consistent, because those things are not comparable.

It's not about ignoring the laws, it's about having equality under the law.

So that's a yes then, thanks for confirming.

You want everyone to be fined equally.

I want everyone to be affected by fines equally.

Keep up fighting for the wealthy, everyone knows they're really at a disadvantage in the US.

[JohnBrown1917]

No that depends on whether the anarchists we're talking about support capitalism or not.

Every single anarchist on earth disagrees on that.

Anarchist is just a label though so the debate should be about any disagreement with the underlying ideas and not a debate about what a word means.

Anarchism is an ideology, its more than just an label.


You're pretty much the polar opposite of what an anarchist is, why do you think your now some sort of authority on what the ideology stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Even Wikipedia explains it properly in just the first sentence.

[Glorious Leader]

Every single anarchist on earth disagrees on that.


Anarchism is an ideology, its more than just an label.


You're pretty much the polar opposite of what an anarchist is, why do you think your now some sort of authority on what the ideology stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Even Wikipedia explains it properly in just the first sentence.

Why bother? These people want an anarchist society of rich and poor and don't see the fucking contradiction. They're obviously ignorant and or uneducated.

[JohnBrown1917]

Why bother? These people want an anarchist society of rich and poor and don't see the fucking contradiction. They're obviously ignorant and or uneducated.

Hard right Conservatives have always trouble with thinking about what any left-wing idealogy is about, same goes for how many think that the nazis where socialist.

[Glorious Leader]

Hard right Conservatives have always trouble with thinking about what any left-wing idealogy is about, same goes for how many think that the nazis where socialist.

"Its difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary is dependent on not understanding it."

[PC2]

Every single anarchist on earth disagrees on that.

No that's not true. Also it wouldn't matter even if 100% of people agreed because popularity never determines whether an argument is correct.

Anarchism is an ideology, its more than just an label.

You're pretty much the polar opposite of what an anarchist is, why do you think your now some sort of authority on what the ideology stands for?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Even Wikipedia explains it properly in just the first sentence.

There's multiple branches of anarchism and you can't control how other people adopt the ideas so I'm not even sure why you're wasting your time.

You're pretty much the polar opposite of what an anarchist is,

Most socialist/leftist anarchists I've seen support policies that make the government bigger and don't support policies that decrease the size and scope of the state. That's the polar opposite of anarchy. Real progress is *incremental* so it doesn't make sense that "anarchists" would support more government instead of less.

[Machismo]

The alternative is personified by Betsy DeVos. She was wealthy before the government from shady business dealings, she now uses her superior financial position to extract more money from everyone via the government. Some people said she was an incompetent head for the Department of Education. This is incorrect. She used her immense political contacts (which include a Vice President) to get what she wanted and to enable her to gain more wealth for her cronies. The presence or absence of government is not really relevant because the dishonest will cheerfully fuck over other people to get what they want in either case.

Rich people gain more benefit from the world. If you order something from Amazon, they need a well maintained infrastructure to get you that item. You need a well maintained infrastructure to get that item. The difference is they use that same well-maintained infrastructure how many times per day?

Yeah but every other university also needs a quality endowment. Hell, regular schools need appropriate funding. Life is easy for Harvard because they don't have to put in the hard work of dealing with difficult problems.

Betsy DeVos is an evil cuntbag, like her brother.

The issue is that the lion's share of government spending isn't going to the wealthy, it's going to the lower income levels.

- - - Updated - - -

I was talking about the difference between rich and poor and the different impacts punishments have on them. You, having no objection or argument against that, now move the goalpost to something entirely different.

I don't have to be consistent, because those things are not comparable.



So that's a yes then, thanks for confirming.

You want everyone to be fined equally.

I want everyone to be affected by fines equally.

Keep up fighting for the wealthy, everyone knows they're really at a disadvantage in the US.

Once again, if you are talking about the impact punishments have on them, then how many years should Bernie Madoff have been sentenced to?

Equality under the law means same protections regardless of who it is, and same punishments, regardless of who it is.

But, at least we're past your attempt to say the wealthy get more from government.