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

[Machismo]

You guys agree that cheaters are bad and your solution is to get rid of the rule book.

No.

Cheaters are bad, and they use the government to cheat. They change the rules in order to win, so stop letting them do it.

[Mayhem]

What makes you assume I'm pro-corporations?

Because in my opinion a workplace would probably be several times more productive and successful if it was managed by the people working there on the ground-level, where the actual work needs to be done, instead of all the money flowing to the top management jobs to people who only know how to create nice organigrams and powerpoint presentations.

Ok cool, so you're just some random stuff poster, got it.

[Machismo]

I'm not assigning a label, I am just going by your posts. You could always just say why I am wrong and present some evidence for your arguments, but as soon as you run out of answers you resort to this labeling nonsense as if it would change what you wrote.

Luckily, I still want government to exist, so your argument was pointless.

I provided links.

[Mayhem]

No.

Cheaters are bad, and they use the government to cheat. They change the rules in order to win, so stop letting them do it.

That is not a solution, that is a demand, you know that? Right now, you're on the Trump level of argumentation: "Do something!".

[Machismo]

Because it’s really easy to step on a lot of ants with one big boot.

Government is the boot.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not a solution, that is a demand, you know that? Right now, you're on the Trump level of argumentation: "Do something!".

I'm pointing to the failed logic in the argument you tried to attribute to me.

I don't want to get rid of the rulebook, this is a straw man I cannot break you from making.

[Mayhem]

Luckily, I still want government to exist, so your argument was pointless.

Yeah, as always ambiguous as can be. What power would that government have? How would it be funded? Could they still implement regulations? What would be the difference to right now?

I provided links.

Ok, considering you want fewer regulations and the consumers to decide (just guessing, maybe you don't want consumers to decide) how is giving consumers more information about products a bad thing?

Waiting for the whiskey link.

I'm pointing to the failed logic in the argument you tried to attribute to me.

I don't want to get rid of the rulebook, this is a straw man I cannot break you from making.

That's because you never explain stuff so everyone just has to go by your arguments. You want to get rid of regulations, well, regulations are the rules. At least you agree that corporations are the cheaters.

Yeah, let's live in a world with cheaters and no rules, that sounds fun. Government just provides the server.

[Bodakane]

Government is the boot..

Maybe. But if so, corporations are the foot in the boot.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yeah, they certainly wouldn't. I'd imagine in his world, "less government" would basically mean "no government". As in, there is fuck-all to prevent monopolies from forming.

Watch, as he argues that the solution would be for the people to take the responsibility, and boycott the abusive monopolies, so it's not a problem.

Can always hope he'll understand it when he gets older, but we'll never know.

[Felya]

Maybe. But if so, corporations are the foot in the boot.

In a democracy, that’s supposed to be your foot inside the boot. If it were always true in US... No Bush... No Trump...

[Glorious Leader]

Can always hope he'll understand it when he gets older, but we'll never know.

Age doesn't necessarily eliminate privilege.

[JohnBrown1917]

Age doesn't necessarily eliminate privilege.

True, but once he actually gets older(23+) he might have to deal with the sort of problems a lot of people have to deal with.

Not that we'll ever know.

[Glorious Leader]

True, but once he actually gets older(23+) he might have to deal with the sort of problems a lot of people have to deal with.

Not that we'll ever know.

That does seem to be how it works with many of these people. Empathy is not natural to them so they actually have to experience suffering before they can understand.

[PC2]

That does seem to be how it works with many of these people. Empathy is not natural to them so they actually have to experience suffering before they can understand.

Nonsense. Even if a libertarian experienced hardship that still doesn't mean they would become envious and blame rich people for their failures and use that as a justification for using state force to redistribute wealth.

[Edge-]

Even if a libertarian experienced hardship

They'd likely no longer be a libertarian. Libertarianism is largely an "ideology" for folks that are already in a good place, there's no room for folks financially struggling.

[Endus]

Nonsense. Even if a libertarian experienced hardship that still doesn't mean they would become envious

"Envy" isn't an emotion that applies to these discussions.

Envy is an emotion where you want what someone else has. The opposition to the wealthy is that no one should have such wealth.

It's like opposing being hit in the face repeatedly. It doesn't mean you're "envious" of the puncher and want to punch people in the face yourself. You just don't want to be punched in the face any more.

Bringing "envy" into these debates is willful dishonesty.

[Glorious Leader]

"Envy" isn't an emotion that applies to these discussions.

Envy is an emotion where you want what someone else has. The opposition to the wealthy is that no one should have such wealth.

It's like opposing being hit in the face repeatedly. It doesn't mean you're "envious" of the puncher and want to punch people in the face yourself. You just don't want to be punched in the face any more.

Bringing "envy" into these debates is willful dishonesty.

More broadly and this is despite their narrative nobody actually hates rich people or at least hates them for their wealth. Its rather a simple recognition such disparity in distribution is very bad for society and is the root cause of many great social ills.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. Even if a libertarian experienced hardship that still doesn't mean they would become envious and blame rich people for their failures and use that as a justification for using state force to redistribute wealth.

I imagine the really truly stupid ones whove drunk the kool aid would not abandon their commitment to maintaining the enormous privilege of the wealthy. Not sure how many that would be.

[Endus]

More broadly and this is despite their narrative nobody actually hates rich people or at least hates them for their wealth. Its rather a simple recognition such disparity in distribution is very bad for society and is the root cause of many great social ills.

Like, I've talked about liberal market socialism a fair bit here, and the idea of limiting CEO salaries and the like. If we lived in a world where the Jeff Bezos types could make $10,000,000 a year, I'd be fine with that. Instead, he makes like thirty times that. per day.

$10 mill a year is still "rich". But scaling the model around that much lower peak means a much better spread of wealth throughout every socioeconomic class.

[Machismo]

Maybe. But if so, corporations are the foot in the boot.

So, why make the boot as big and dangerous as possible?

[Elegiac]

So, why make the boot as big and dangerous as possible?

Lemme know when corporations are accountable to the general public in the same way as a democratically elected government, sweaty.

Rofl.

[Machismo]

Yeah, as always ambiguous as can be. What power would that government have? How would it be funded? Could they still implement regulations? What would be the difference to right now?



Ok, considering you want fewer regulations and the consumers to decide (just guessing, maybe you don't want consumers to decide) how is giving consumers more information about products a bad thing?

Waiting for the whiskey link.





That's because you never explain stuff so everyone just has to go by your arguments. You want to get rid of regulations, well, regulations are the rules. At least you agree that corporations are the cheaters.

Yeah, let's live in a world with cheaters and no rules, that sounds fun. Government just provides the server.

You sound d just like the GOP members who want to push voting restrictions. They claim to want to do itntomprevent fraud, when its really just to tip things in their favor. I pointed to a great analogy, and you chose to support what they are doing.

The irony is real.

I can only say I'm not ananarchist so many times. I can't comprehend that for you... that's on you.

https://www.gq.com/story/jack-daniels-state-law-whiskey