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

[Machismo]

Wow. Let's recap your argument...

- You don't know what authoritarian means.
- You don't know what socialism means.
- You don't understand what "the people" means in the Constitution.
- And you literally just argued that all forms of government are bullshit.
- You don't realize you just argued that all forms of government are bullshit.
- Continue to struggle with analogies.

Nope, I simply oppose authoritarianism. I don't support any laws/regulations that restrict actions that don't cause harm. So, there goes another attempt to paint me as an anarchist.

Enjoy that boot!!!

[Bodakane]

Nope, I simply oppose authoritarianism. I don't support any laws/regulations that restrict actions that don't cause harm. So, there goes another attempt to paint me as an anarchist.

Enjoy that boot!!!

I didn't;t paint you in any light. You did that and as I also predicted, you don't understand you did that.

When you say, "Should we simply support something, just because "the people" want it?" means you are literally arguing against democracy or even a democratic republic.

[Machismo]

I didn't;t paint you in any light. You did that and as I also predicted, you don't understand you did that.

When you say, "Should we simply support something, just because "the people" want it?" means you are literally arguing against democracy or even a democratic republic.

No, it means I'm not going to support a law, based on the existence of a law.

For me, a law should need to be justified before it becomes one.

[Glorious Leader]

Am I also "people?"

Given your total apparent lack of empathy im going to go with replicant

[Machismo]

Given your total apparent lack of empathy im going to go with replicant

I'm not the one who wants to eat the rich.

[Glorious Leader]

I'm not the one who wants to eat the rich.

No you're the one who advocates damn the poor i got mine.

[Machismo]

No you're the one who advocates damn the poor i got mine.

Nah, I just want you to be able to keep what's yours.

How do the rich taste?

[Glorious Leader]

Nah, I just want you to be able to keep what's yours.

How do the rich taste?

no clue toots but I'm gonna guess you know what boot tastes like

[Machismo]

no clue toots but I'm gonna guess you know what boot tastes like

Well, there are a lot of authoritarians running around.

[Felya]

How do the rich taste?

According to Aerosmith:

Their attitudes may taste like shit
But go real good with wine

According to Motörhead:

Hash browns and bacon strips

[Machismo]

According to Aerosmith:


According to Motörhead:

Well done.

[Sole-Warrior]

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.

Almost no one gets 10 million salary, they usually invested in stocks and the value explodes. This is how billionaires are made. Less super rich will only lead to less job creation. There has been NO society that has taxed itself into prosperity. The 1950s saw economic boom NOT because of taxes, but because of private enterprise. If they had instead relied on mass taxation, there would had been an economic depression after WWII, not an economic boom.

[Endus]

Almost no one gets 10 million salary, they usually invested in stocks and the value explodes.

I'm not talking about salary alone.

I'm talking total compensation. Stock (direct or options), benefits, the whole shebang.

Frankly, scaling tax rates to where they approach 100% as you pass $10m seems just fine to me.

This is how billionaires are made. Less super rich will only lead to less job creation.

That's trickle-down economics theory, which has been so discredited that it's basically just mocked by economists these days.

It's absolute steaming fuckdongle nonsense, and doesn't make sense at any level whatsoever. It never did.

There has been NO society that has taxed itself into prosperity. The 1950s saw economic boom NOT because of taxes, but because of private enterprise. If they had instead relied on mass taxation, there would had been an economic depression after WWII, not an economic boom.

This is just false. The Western world as a whole has collectively done exactly that. Where the hell are you getting this nonsense?

Tax rates peaked after WWII, in the USA and in many other countries. You literally do not have any idea what you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...tes#Income_tax

It's not even that your reasoning is flawed. Your set of "facts" are false.

[Mayhem]

Hahahahahaha, I'm facist because I want the people in power? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That brings my total to 7 MIPs. I'm whoppin' you @Mayhem......

Ah shit, make it 8 right away he doesn't know what socialist means either.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, still sounding like the GOP when pushing their election restrictions and abortion mandates. No surprise there... Do we need to have the first and last names of everyone who participated in creating the product? How about their medical histories? Maybe their race and gender? After all, you want to be informed... right? if one is not healthier than the other in any way, then why exactly support forcing such a distinction?

Information about the product and its ingredients, how stupid can one be to equate that with race, gender and names? So you also don't want to know if other stuff is in it if it doesn't make the product healthier than the other?

Why do you hate information?

See, you moron can't even understand what you're saying. The GOP is pushing restrictions, actual restrictions so people can't vote. This regulation is including information so people can decide whether to buy or not to buy BE food. You want to rob them of that ability? You want to tell people what to eat? How very authoritarian of you, gosh golly.

I don't see how the consumers benefit from only one company being allowed to say they make Tennessee whiskey, perhaps you can show me how.

I never said that the consumers benefit from it. Man, I can't do your reading for you.

You defended that, and supported it... calling it marketing.

I didn't you liar. I called it marketing because it is about a label nothing else.

Not even Jack Daniels can call all of their whiskeys Tennesse Whiskey and Popcorn Suttons Tennesse White Whiskey is still on the shelves.

I do love watching corporatists at work.

I almost feel sorry that your best examples blew up in your face, not really.

- - - Updated - - -

I take a commanding lead at 9 MIPs.

Oh god, I hope he says some new words to me too. I think I am at 4 now though.

[Shadowferal]

Less super rich will only lead to less job creation. .

Proof? Show historical context.

[Glorious Leader]

Almost no one gets 10 million salary, they usually invested in stocks and the value explodes. This is how billionaires are made.

So not on labor value (work) but purely as a function of capital gains. Fantastic. Thanks for the admission that its entirely a function of unearned income. We can dismiss this purile fantasy that their wealth is earned and deserved.

[Machismo]

Ah shit, make it 8 right away he doesn't know what socialist means either.

- - - Updated - - -



Information about the product and its ingredients, how stupid can one be to equate that with race, gender and names? So you also don't want to know if other stuff is in it if it doesn't make the product healthier than the other?

Why do you hate information?

See, you moron can't even understand what you're saying. The GOP is pushing restrictions, actual restrictions so people can't vote. This regulation is including information so people can decide whether to buy or not to buy BE food. You want to rob them of that ability? You want to tell people what to eat? How very authoritarian of you, gosh golly.



I never said that the consumers benefit from it. Man, I can't do your reading for you.



I didn't you liar. I called it marketing because it is about a label nothing else.

Not even Jack Daniels can call all of their whiskeys Tennesse Whiskey and Popcorn Suttons Tennesse White Whiskey is still on the shelves.



I almost feel sorry that your best examples blew up in your face, not really.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh god, I hope he says some new words to me too. I think I am at 4 now though.

Once again, why is that information relevant, and why should it be forced? If consumers don't benefit from it, then that means that the company pushing those things is set to benefit from it... or they'd have no reason to do it. You are supporting corporations pushing unnecessary regulations to place them at an advantage over their competition... just as I've been saying all along.

You did defend it, and you fucking called it marketing. According to you, using the government to make it so only you can use words is called marketing.

I fucking love watching you be a hypocrite.

What is it? This can't be too hard for you to answer, it should be no more than one word.



So you have a problem with marketing? They are not restricting anything, consumers can buy whatever they want. Do you understand what the word restriction means? Should we consult a dictionary because you are using it very loosely?



Have you read the link? It makes virtually no difference for opponents except for them not being mistaken for a poorer whiskey that uses a technique no one else uses. I'd say it's again a problem you have with marketing.

We might be on to something here. You mistake regulations for marketing campaigns, suddenly a bunch of things make sense.

Yes, you fucking did say that.

Those are literally government regulations that I pointed out, and you called them marketing.

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1771

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/regulation

[Muzjhath]

Once again, why is that information relevant, and why should it be forced? If consumers don't benefit from it, then that means that the company pushing those things is set to benefit from it... or they'd have no reason to do it. You are supporting corporations pushing unnecessary regulations to place them at an advantage over their competition... just as I've been saying all along.

You did defend it, and you fucking called it marketing. According to you, using the government to make it so only you can use words is called marketing.

I fucking love watching you be a hypocrite.

The information on the label is important so that someone allergic to say. Peanuts. Can avoid stuff with traces of said ingredient may be present.
Without regulations that limit what a company can do, that information would absolutely not be on a label for something produced in the same factory where peanuts are handled but doesn't have peanuts itself.

[Glorious Leader]

The information on the label is important so that someone allergic to say. Peanuts. Can avoid stuff with traces of said ingredient may be present.
Without regulations that limit what a company can do, that information would absolutely not be on a label for something produced in the same factory where peanuts are handled but doesn't have peanuts itself.

I mean at a minimum this but I have to question why someone who is so in favor of markets and consumers would be against informing them.

[Machismo]

The information on the label is important so that someone allergic to say. Peanuts. Can avoid stuff with traces of said ingredient may be present.
Without regulations that limit what a company can do, that information would absolutely not be on a label for something produced in the same factory where peanuts are handled but doesn't have peanuts itself.

Are people allergic to GMO products?

This was specifically about the organic food industry trying to require GMO labeling.

The other one was about jack Daniels pushing regulations that created a very specific definition of "Tennessee Whiskey" so that their competitors couldn't say it.