1. #2561
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-17 at 12:09 PM.

  2. #2562
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    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 - - -



    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.
    It’s a form of anarchism. There are many of them and they all disagree on major parts. It’s kinda like how there are many forms of democracy. They don’t all agree universally.

  3. #2563
    Merely a Setback JohnBrown1917's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Обединени социалистически щати на Америка
    Posts
    27,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    it’s mostly a syndicalist fantasy that “the workers” are going to rise up, which is disconnected from the fact that “the workers” are your racist uncle and jerk co-workers who you don’t like.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    The election has passed and 58 million working class Americans stood up and proved that they are in fact your racist uncle and jerk co-workers.
    They really can't help but show disdain for the working class.

  4. #2564
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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.
    "When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown

  5. #2565
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBrown1917 View Post
    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 - - -


    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)



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

  6. #2566
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  7. #2567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    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.

  8. #2568
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    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...
    That’s the weird part. He can’t point to anything that explains his “rigid ideology” while also claiming it’s something he came naturally to through life experience. It just seems like he’s not completely aware of what Libertarians actually want.

  9. #2569
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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?

  10. #2570
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Are you back on the anarchy train, again?
    Are you ready to provide some kind of primer for your actual ideology? You claim it’s incredibly rigid. Should be easy to do.

  11. #2571
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    22,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  12. #2572
    Seriously, one book, paper, youtube video... anything.

  13. #2573
    correct me if I'm wrong
    Literally this entire thread summed up.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bladeXcrasher View Post
    Wait, so he is an anarchist?
    Machismo is firmly conservative.

  14. #2574
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post

    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    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.

  15. #2575
    @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.

  16. #2576
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    @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.

  17. #2577
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You mean that I support government?

    I support government. It's right there.
    No, I asked for a primer on your ideology. Try to keep up.

  18. #2578
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No, I asked for a primer on your ideology. Try to keep up.
    I've explained it in great detail. As I also pointed out, I never really had named influences, and don't really read papers on the issue of libertarianism as a whole.

    I answered that question a hundred pages ago.

  19. #2579
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it in great detail. As I also pointed out, I never really had named influences, and don't really read papers on the issue of libertarianism as a whole.

    I answered that question a hundred pages ago.
    No, you haven't. You dodge questions constantly. If you could please provide a primer I'd appreciate it.

  20. #2580
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No, you haven't. If you could please provide a primer I'd appreciate it.
    Do i literally need to repeat what I just said?

    Very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I've explained it in great detail. As I also pointed out, I never really had named influences, and don't really read papers on the issue of libertarianism as a whole.

    I answered that question a hundred pages ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •