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

[Edge-]

Do we now oppose private property,

Wouldn't you imagine a vast concentration of wealth and property ownership, say someone owning the entirety of the continental United States, would be like...harmful as shit to a lot of folks on many, many levels? Nobody opposes private property, but like, too much of something can be bad, yaknow?

This is a failure of imagination and an inability to take things to their logical conclusions.

[JohnBrown1917]

Why and how?

By using his magical fairy dust called the free market.

[Machismo]

Your interpretation is off. It’s people like you harming the poor by demanding that they do without basic healthcare. Catch up Libertarian.

- - - Updated - - -



I guess? In the same way that I can refuse to obey every other law...

But, the poor are often not paying 6he taxes that. Would fund healthcare for others.

Remember what we learned about not paying fornsomeone else's treatment?

[Mayhem]

Do we now oppose private property

No.

But of course, in corporate-fun-land there would be no private property because there would be no government because there would be no taxes that fund a government. There would just be property. And if you'd want to cross it, you'd have to pay.

[Machismo]

Wouldn't you imagine a vast concentration of wealth and property ownership, say someone owning the entirety of the continental United States, would be like...harmful as shit to a lot of folks on many, many levels? Nobody opposes private property, but like, too much of something can be bad, yaknow?

This is a failure of imagination and an inability to take things to their logical conclusions.

The issue is that.. would never really happen. It would require millions of people willingly sell their property to one entity.

[Mayhem]

I was addressing you. Hence the quote. You claimed taxes don’t pay for healthcare. They do, just not for everyone.

Please read the entire quote.

[Machismo]

So? They’re paying what they’re required to pay. They’re not refusing to pay. And it’s not like the rich who SHOULD be paying but pay nothing. See Amazon. You know, the company you want to own all the roads...

But, if they are paying nothing, then that is a clear act of harm being perpetrated... according to those who argue that not paying for someone else's healthcare is a harmful act.

Take it up with them.

[Machismo]

Which has happened over time. Offer enough money and the richest can own whatever they want. Over time the recoup the investment and buy more. See all of human history for evidence.

- - - Updated - - -



No it isn’t. It’s only a clear act of harm if they CAN contribute and don’t. Why is this so hard for you?

Well... that's a very subjective interpretation of what harm is.

I believe I was chided for such things.

As for complete ownership of land... the examples that come to mind are a result of government force.

[PC2]

Why and how?

In my world everyone rejects the use of force, coercion, and violence starting in the cave man days 200k years ago and only engages in mutually consensual problem solving between people and groups who disagree. That would've sped up the rate of progress and humanity probably would've eradicated everything similar to polio and smallpox by the year 10,000 BC. By the time 2021 came around in my world humanity would already be colonizing space.

[Endus]

I didn't say any of that. A lot of taxes are good and fine because most of us consent to paying for basic stuff like roads, military, food stamps, etc.

Yeah. You did.

It's not about cost it's about living in an ethical society where people voluntarily pay for other people's medical costs instead of being forced to do so against their will.

[Machismo]

You advocate for privatizing infrastructure and think MY definition is subjective?

Yep.

"If you dont pay for my healthcare, you're harming me!"

[Mayhem]

I did. You started by saying, literally, that no tax pays for healthcare of others. It does and we do. Just not everybody.

Ok, maybe read more than just my answer. Machismo argued that there are tens of millions of Americans not paying the tax that pays for healthcare. That tax that tens of millions of Americans don't pay doesn't exist. There also is no healthcare that provides for everyone so his argument makes even less sense.

[Edge-]

In my world everyone rejects the use of force, coercion, and violence starting in the cave man days 200k years ago and only engages in mutually consensual problem solving between people and groups who disagree. That would've sped up the rate of progress and humanity probably would've eradicated everything similar to polio and smallpox by the year 10,000 BC. By the time 2021 came around in my world humanity would already be colonizing space.

So a pointless utopia, gotcha.

[Mayhem]

Well... that's a very subjective interpretation of what harm is.

Yeah, it's your interpretation, remember this thing here:

That's why I have long said people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming others.

The bolded word here, that's the crucial part if you maybe don't understand the correlation. It's the same as saying it's an act of harm if people can contribute but don't want to.

There is no difference between people choosing to do something that harms others or choosing to harm others by not doing something.

[Glorious Leader]

Well... that's a very subjective interpretation of what harm is.

I believe I was chided for such things.

As for complete ownership of land... the examples that come to mind are a result of government force.

Irony of ironies you're the one who insists on defining harm according to your interpretation which is incredible narrow..

- - - Updated - - -

Well... that's a very subjective interpretation of what harm is.

I believe I was chided for such things.

As for complete ownership of land... the examples that come to mind are a result of government force.

Irony of ironies you're the one who insists on defining harm according to your interpretation which is incredible narrow.. remember Bill gates that example you kept hammering at...

[Machismo]

Yeah, it's your interpretation, remember this thing here:



The bolded word here, that's the crucial part if you maybe don't understand the correlation. It's the same as saying it's an act of harm if people can contribute but don't want to.

There is no difference between people choosing to do something that harms others or choosing to harm others by not doing something.

No, it's not, because that is base on your interpretation of harm...

Otherwise, I'd be harming Nazis by choosing to not serve them in my restaurant, or kicking them off my website.

The next step is people saying that I am harming others, because I'm not contributing MORE to pay for the shit they want.

You are free to do what you want to, that doesn't mean others have to pay for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Irony of ironies you're the one who insists on defining harm according to your interpretation which is incredible narrow..

- - - Updated - - -



Irony of ironies you're the one who insists on defining harm according to your interpretation which is incredible narrow.. remember Bill gates that example you kept hammering at...

I'm fine with the dictionary definition.

I was chided... wrongly. They swore that not paying for someone else's healthcare is a harmful act.

I don't find the act of gay marriage to be harming others, but tens of millions of Americans swear it is.

[Endus]

The next step is people saying that I am harming others, because I'm not contributing MORE to pay for the shit they want.

You keep making this about the individual, rather than the systemic, to avoid the actual point.

You support the systemic harming of others, through the denial of medical care on the basis of profit, rather than accepting the societal duty of contributing to that common good.

I know it's awkward for your position to admit that we're talking about societies, not individuals, here. But we are.

[Machismo]

You keep making this about the individual, rather than the systemic, to avoid the actual point.

You support the systemic harming of others, through the denial of medical care on the basis of profit, rather than accepting the societal duty of contributing to that common good.

I know it's awkward for your position to admit that we're talking about societies, not individuals, here. But we are.

Did you not get the part about individual liberty?

You support the systemic harming of others through increased taxation on the basis of socialism, rather than accepting the beliefs of liberty.

I know it's awkward for your position to admit we're talking about individual liberties, but I am.

Welcome to the conversation.

[Glorious Leader]

Did you not get the part about individual liberty?

.

Everybody did like a million times at this point because its literally the only argument you can turn to and it rests almost entirely on semantics. Liberty and freedom are punch lines to a bad joke you're telling. What about freedom from misery and starvation and poverty?

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not, because that is base on your interpretation of harm...

Otherwise, I'd be harming Nazis by choosing to not serve them in my restaurant, or kicking them off my website.

The next step is people saying that I am harming others, because I'm not contributing MORE to pay for the shit they want.

You are free to do what you want to, that doesn't mean others have to pay for it.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm fine with the dictionary definition.

I was chided... wrongly. They swore that not paying for someone else's healthcare is a harmful act.

I don't find the act of gay marriage to be harming others, but tens of millions of Americans swear it is.

Because they're ignorant but I'm not sure thats something you wish to share with them.

Again you aren't actually fine with the dictionary definition of any of these words because they'd imply alot more than you accept. Freedom for you is basically the freedom of the wealthy to do what they like simple because you refuse to discuss class or your analysis ignores those distinctions. Poor people or billionaires doesn't matter their is no distinction.

[Machismo]

Everybody did like a million times at this point because its literally the only argument you can turn to and it rests almost entirely on semantics. Liberty and freedom are punch lines to a bad joke you're telling. What about freedom from misery and starvation and poverty?

Not really, considering people are outraged at the idea of supporting it.

If those "freedoms" are at the expense of someone else's individual liberty, then I have a huge problem with it. Of course, if you genuinely care, then feel free to donate more to such causes.

- - - Updated - - -

Everybody did like a million times at this point because its literally the only argument you can turn to and it rests almost entirely on semantics. Liberty and freedom are punch lines to a bad joke you're telling. What about freedom from misery and starvation and poverty?

- - - Updated - - -



Because they're ignorant but I'm not sure thats something you wish to share with them.

Again you aren't actually fine with the dictionary definition of any of these words because they'd imply alot more than you accept. Freedom for you is basically the freedom of the wealthy to do what they like.

If it's about implications and inferences, then it is subjective.

Freedom for me is freedom for everyone to do what they like, so long as they are not harming others.

Considering you literally just called on nationalizing private businesses in another thread, my guess is you couldn't give two shits about individual liberty.