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

[Ivanstone]

Pfft..."Bad Brains" might be a more appropriate analogue for libertarians.

Bad Brains is way too chill for libertarianism. Also most American libertarians are racist as fuck.

- - - Updated - - -

And JD is the biggest whiskey brand on the planet... many times larger than Benjamin Prichards... who was opposing the regulation.

So, feel free to keep supporting corporatism.

Surely you can show what deregulation Diageo was pushing which required even more stringent regulations... right? Instead of simply opposing this supposed deregulation, you support just adding more?

Benjamin Prichards. I was wondering if you were ever going to mention them.

They did in fact oppose the regulation. Guess what happened? They got a special exception that they and they alone get to enjoy. They in fact have an unfair advantage over everyone else. Every other distiller has to follow the rules. Even a small corporation can be fucking dickhead that hates the consumer.

Diageo probably put them up to it. It blew up in their face of course. I'm sure the $11B in revenue last year will dry their tears.

[Machismo]

Bad Brains is way too chill for libertarianism. Also most American libertarians are racist as fuck.

- - - Updated - - -



Benjamin Prichards. I was wondering if you were ever going to mention them.

They did in fact oppose the regulation. Guess what happened? They got a special exception that they and they alone get to enjoy. They in fact have an unfair advantage over everyone else. Every other distiller has to follow the rules. Even a small corporation can be fucking dickhead that hates the consumer.

Diageo probably put them up to it. It blew up in their face of course. I'm sure the $11B in revenue last year will dry their tears.

So, according to you... they must be selling Coloured Bathtub Gin.. right? Yeah, I knew what I was doing, and you walked into it. If that regulation was as important as you swear, then such an exception shouldn't be made.

You find that supposed deregulation you claimed?

Do you have evidence Diageo put them up to it? Or is that another baseless claim?

[Ivanstone]

So, according to you... they must be selling Coloured Bathtub Gin.. right? Yeah, I knew what I was doing, and you walked into it. If that regulation was as important as you swear, then such an exception shouldn't be made.

You find that supposed deregulation you claimed?

Do you have evidence Diageo put them up to it? Or is that another baseless claim?

I have no idea what they put in their bottles. None of their products use the Lincoln County Process so its definitely not Tennessee Whiskey despite what it says on the bottle. You loudly proclaimed that JD masterminded this regulation and yet the only brand that enjoys a special advantage from it is one of their competitors. So much for using the law to beat the competition.

Prichard should not have this exemption. Its a blight on an otherwise good piece of legislation. Fortunately, they are only one distiller and if you wish to enjoy their products you can compare them to other American Whiskey's but not Tennessee Whiskeys.

Diageo also opposed the regulation. This is a company known to use aggressive mergers and engage in illegal activity. And you support them like a good little corporatist drone.

[Machismo]

I have no idea what they put in their bottles. None of their products use the Lincoln County Process so its definitely not Tennessee Whiskey despite what it says on the bottle. You loudly proclaimed that JD masterminded this regulation and yet the only brand that enjoys a special advantage from it is one of their competitors. So much for using the law to beat the competition.

Prichard should not have this exemption. Its a blight on an otherwise good piece of legislation. Fortunately, they are only one distiller and if you wish to enjoy their products you can compare them to other American Whiskey's but not Tennessee Whiskeys.

Diageo also opposed the regulation. This is a company known to use aggressive mergers and engage in illegal activity. And you support them like a good little corporatist drone.

Well, Tennessee disagrees with you. They say it is Tennessee whiskey.

You made very specific claims about Diageo pushing deregulation, and this is why the more stringent regulations were pushed. Do you have evidence for that claim?

You also alleged that Diageo put Benjamin Prichards up to it, do you have evidence for that claim, as well?

[Ivanstone]

Well, Tennessee disagrees with you. They say it is Tennessee whiskey.

You made very specific claims about Diageo pushing deregulation, and this is why the more stringent regulations were pushed. Do you have evidence for that claim?

You also alleged that Diageo put Benjamin Prichards up to it, do you have evidence for that claim, as well?

Whoa, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Now you care what the regulation says? Make up your mind.

Being against a regulation is deregulation. Diageo opposed the regulation. They failed and now everyone's better for it.

Nah, that was just speculation. Kind like how you keep on claiming people are corporatists (like you). The reality is that any given issue can have multiple interpretations. I don't particularly care about JD's part in the regulation. I just happen to agree with most of the regulation itself because I prefer that food and drink have accurate labels.

Does Diageo pay you for your advocacy?

[Machismo]

Whoa, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Now you care what the regulation says? Make up your mind.

Being against a regulation is deregulation. Diageo opposed the regulation. They failed and now everyone's better for it.

Nah, that was just speculation. Kind like how you keep on claiming people are corporatists (like you). The reality is that any given issue can have multiple interpretations. I don't particularly care about JD's part in the regulation. I just happen to agree with most of the regulation itself because I prefer that food and drink have accurate labels.

Does Diageo pay you for your advocacy?

I see you're drawing a blank with your claims... fair enough.

No, being against a new regulations is not deregulation. It means REMOVING regulations. So, we'll chalk that up as a loss for you.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deregulation

How do you remove a regulation that didn't even exist. You claimed they pushed the regulation, because Diageo was pushing deregulation. According to you, JD are time travelers.

Holy shit, your argument now rests on JD being altruistic time travelers or mind readers.

The people pushing abortion restrictions clearly just care that women are properly protected.

[Ivanstone]

How do you remove a regulation that didn't even exist. You claimed they pushed the regulation, because Diageo was pushing deregulation. According to you, JD are time travelers.

No I didn't. The regulation was proposed. The much larger Diageo opposed it. They lost because they were wrong. Diageo also engages in illegal activity so fuck em. Maybe they were cutting corners in their distilling anyways. Once a cheat, always a cheat.

I just find it curious that you've spent a lot of time decrying the tactics of one corporate entity and yet your opinion neatly matches up with their largest (and much bigger) competitor.

[Machismo]

No I didn't. The regulation was proposed. The much larger Diageo opposed it. They lost because they were wrong. Diageo also engages in illegal activity so fuck em. Maybe they were cutting corners in their distilling anyways. Once a cheat, always a cheat.

I just find it curious that you've spent a lot of time decrying the tactics of one corporate entity and yet your opinion neatly matches up with their largest (and much bigger) competitor.

So... not deregulation at all. Glad we covered that you don't know what the word means.

You sure keep making a lot of baseless claims. You have any evidence for this newest narrative you're selling?

My stance hasn't changed. I've been opposing a corporation using the government to push legislation that gives them a competitive advantage.

As for the size issue, you besmirched Benjamin Prichards to shill for their much larger competitor...so it appears you are projecting.

To be clear, if a option restrictions are pushed, and the survive the courts, then your opposition to them means you were wrong... because you lost? Well, then you should have nothing toworry about, and let all those restrictions make their way through the courts.

Man, this must be getting very awkward for you.

[Ivanstone]

So... not deregulation at all. Glad we covered that you don't know what the word means.

You sure keep making a lot of baseless claims. You have any evidence for this newest narrative you're selling?

My stance hasn't changed. I've been opposing a corporation using the government to push legislation that gives them a competitive advantage.

As for the size issue, you bewitched Benjamin Prichards to shill for their much larger competitor...so it appears you are projecting.

You've yet to provide any proof at all for your claims. So put up or shut up. Next post must contain an appropriate link or admit you're wrong. Just borrowing one of your strategies.

And what if a corporation is opposing a regulation to give itself a competitive advantage? Like Diageo did. Whom you support.

Benjamin Prichards opposed the regulation because they wanted to engage in false advertising. They claim to make Tennessee Whiskey but that's not whats in their bottles. They ended up getting a special exception. For some reason you think that its ok for them to have this competitive advantage.

[Machismo]

You've yet to provide any proof at all for your claims. So put up or shut up. Next post must contain an appropriate link or admit you're wrong. Just borrowing one of your strategies.

And what if a corporation is opposing a regulation to give itself a competitive advantage? Like Diageo did. Whom you support.

Benjamin Prichards opposed the regulation because they wanted to engage in false advertising. They claim to make Tennessee Whiskey but that's not whats in their bottles. They ended up getting a special exception. For some reason you think that its ok for them to have this competitive advantage.

I support liberty... as was always the case. I don't think Benjamin Prichards deserves a competitive advantage, which is why I would get rid of legislation.

Do you have evidence they were falsely advertising? Maybe you should take it up with the state of Tennessee.

So, we've covered that your narrative is baseless, and you cannot find the deregulation in question.

We've also covered that you believe they lost, because they were wrong. That means if pro-choice advocates lose court cases against the New abortion restrictions, that you believe they will have lost, because they were wrong.

I love watching corporatist shills desperately trying to blame someone else.

[Shadowferal]

Bad Brains is way too chill for libertarianism. Also most American libertarians are racist as fuck.

Why corporate special interests created modern libertarianism

How is it that corporate special interest groups are able to push legislation through Congress that rewards them at the expense of everyone else in our country?

One of the answers is that they need to create a justification. They need to create some kind of ideology that says, “We’re all going to benefit if we do _____________.”

Why do they have to do this? Because if they told us that they were going to cut our pay and benefits so that a few people could get really wealthy, we’d never buy it.

This justification is what most people know today as libertarianism. This isn’t the libertarianism of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Hodgskin. It’s the libertarianism of Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, and Rand and it originated from corporate think tanks of the 1940s such as the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE) and the Rockefeller Foundation.

FEE was founded by longtime U.S. Chamber of Commerce executive Leonard Read and its top contributors were a who’s who of the largest corporations of the day including: General Motors, Chrysler, Consolidated Edison, Du Pont, Gulf Oil, US Steel, Montgomery Ward, Armour, and B.F. Goodrich.

FEE fought against President Truman’s fair deal, rent controls, labor bargaining, taxes, and other progressive legislation of the day. FEE also fought for the Taft-Hartley Act to limit the strength of unions.

In 1946, Herbert Nelson, one of the highest paid lobbyists in Washington and the executive vice president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards was fighting to get rid of rent controls. Nelson went to Read and FEE and commissioned a study to attack rent controls and influence Congress.

Instead of a concern for people and making people’s lives better, the new purpose, as defined by Friedman and Stigler, was to serve the market (in this case the real estate industry). Of course what isn’t mentioned in the pamphlet is that Friedman and Stigler are working for the real estate industry that stood to profit immensely from the elimination of rent controls.

Mark Ames sums up the purpose of Friedman libertarianism nicely:

The purpose of the FEE — and libertarianism, as it was originally created — was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations.

These attacks on democracy repeat in David Koch’s Libertarian Platform of 1980:

[*] We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.
[*] We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
[*] We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.
[*]We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service.
[*] We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.
[*]We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.
[*] We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.
[*] We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.
[*] We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.
[*] We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.
[*] We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.
[*] We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
[*] We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
[*] We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The goal is to undermine democracy in favor of wealthy private owners and big business. The goal is to flip everything on its head so that government is run by and for the largest corporations and special interests.

Libertarians advocate for eliminating rules because they know that without any rules, the big eat the small, and, just like in the game of Monopoly, there will be a winner and lots of losers.

What corporate special interests want is the complete elimination of American democracy in favor of private ownership where “owners” create the rules and laws, not people.

The propaganda known today as libertarianism was created because if they told you they were going to eliminate democracy, cut your pay, and sell off the entire country to a few people, you’d never buy it.

[Ivanstone]

I support liberty... as was always the case. I don't think Benjamin Prichards deserves a competitive advantage, which is why I would get rid of legislation.

Do you have evidence they were falsely advertising? Maybe you should take it up with the state of Tennessee.

So, we've covered that your narrative is baseless, and you cannot find the deregulation in question.

We've also covered that you believe they lost, because they were wrong.

I love watching corporatist shills desperately trying to blame someone else.

No, their special exemption should be removed. Equality is great!

They are allowed to label their Whiskeys as Tennessee Whiskeys even though they don't make Tennessee Whiskeys. That's false advertising.

Diageo was wrong and they deserved to lose this particular regulatory battle. Other regulations may have opponents that are right and yet lost anyways. Or were right and won. Or even were wrong and won anyways. Life is complicated. Every regulation should be judged individually on its own merits.

I love watching corporate puppets obey their masters.

[Machismo]

No, their special exemption should be removed. Equality is great!

They are allowed to label their Whiskeys as Tennessee Whiskeys even though they don't make Tennessee Whiskeys. That's false advertising.

Diageo was wrong and they deserved to lose this particular regulatory battle. Other regulations may have opponents that are right and yet lost anyways. Or were right and won. Or even were wrong and won anyways. Life is complicated. Every regulation should be judged individually on its own merits.

I love watching corporate puppets obey their masters.

The regulation should have never happened.

Thats not false advertising, according to the state of Tennessee. You lost, because you're wrong... remember?

If abortion restriction opponents lose their lawsuits, its because they were wrong.

This is your argument.

What corporation am I a puppet for? Are you trying to day its the corporation I never mentioned, until you brought it up, and who I know almost nothing about?

[Ivanstone]

The regulation should have never happened.

Thats not false advertising, according to the state of Tennessee. You lost, because you're wrong... remember?


This is your argument.

What corporation am I a puppet for? Are you trying to day its the corporation I never mentioned, until you brought it up, and who I know almost nothing about?

Its a good regulation. Food and drink labelling is great.

Now you believe the regulation. Make up your mind.

My argument is each individual regulation should be judged on its merits. In this particular example, Diageo wrongly opposed it and lost.

Diageo. Although your definition of "liberty" always seems to match what the corporations want. Its real convenient.

[Mayhem]

I love diversity.

Then you maybe shouldn't be arguing against it. Just saying.

I'm literally the only guy opposing the corporation-backed legislation designed to give them a competitive advantage.

You are literally not opposing shit because as has been established you don't understand the words you're using, can't see past one regulation and what removing it would cause, all regulations are the same to you regardless of impact or profiteer. You don't care for protective regulations because you can always spin it so that someone loses because of it and therefore the regulation is harmful. You can't bring proper examples because everything contradicts your own arguments all the time.

You're constantly arguing in absolutes which at this point in the discussion is just insane and makes you wrong about everything and a pretty despicable human. You also weasel out of arguments as soon as you lose them, just to bring them up with another poster as if people could only read the posts where you've quoted them.

I don't know why you're playing this or what you're gaining from it but considering you are unable to stay consistent it gets tiring to repeat myself over and over just for you to nit pick parts of a post while on the next page condemning people for nit picking parts of your post.

You're the dictionary definition of hypocrite.

btw. you have more in common with anarchocapitalism than libertarianism, might want to change your label

bye

[Machismo]

Then you maybe shouldn't be arguing against it. Just saying.



You are literally not opposing shit because as has been established you don't understand the words you're using, can't see past one regulation and what removing it would cause, all regulations are the same to you regardless of impact or profiteer. You don't care for protective regulations because you can always spin it so that someone loses because of it and therefore the regulation is harmful. You can't bring proper examples because everything contradicts your own arguments all the time.

You're constantly arguing in absolutes which at this point in the discussion is just insane and makes you wrong about everything and a pretty despicable human. You also weasel out of arguments as soon as you lose them, just to bring them up with another poster as if people could only read the posts where you've quoted them.

I don't know why you're playing this or what you're gaining from it but considering you are unable to stay consistent it gets tiring to repeat myself over and over just for you to nit pick parts of a post while on the next page condemning people for nit picking parts of your post.

You're the dictionary definition of hypocrite.

btw. you have more in common with anarchocapitalism than libertarianism, might want to change your label

bye

You do realize this regulation limits diversity... right?

This entire thing was started as a way to show that compromise could be made, with a tiny little regulation that could have easily been done away with, and show that people are willing to compromise, and accept that some ideas like deregulation are not the evil that you think it is. Whiskey and bourbon in Tennessee prior to 2013 were just fine. This law was entirely unnecessary, and was just a means for JD to strengthen their position.

But, you guys had to do everything you could to stand by your fanatical crusade to hate any attempts to reduce government. Well, this is going to come back and bite you guys in the asses now that the GOP and conservatives have 6 seats on the Supreme Court. Abortion laws are going to get passed, and they will get to that Court. You and I both know the chances of major hits to Roe v. Wade are likely to happen. Sure, it may not be a complete undoing, but heavy regulations and limitations are on the horizon.

Now, what cause to complain ill you have? Will you whine about burdensome government? Will you whine about how this is just a power play, and will be a direct attack on liberty? I'm sure you will, and you'll be right. You'll also be giant fucking hypocrites, and will probably lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a good regulation. Food and drink labelling is great.

Now you believe the regulation. Make up your mind.

My argument is each individual regulation should be judged on its merits. In this particular example, Diageo wrongly opposed it and lost.

Diageo. Although your definition of "liberty" always seems to match what the corporations want. Its real convenient.

And the GOP and conservatives will argue that those abortion restrictions are good, and patient protections are great. You'll probably lose those court cases, because you were wrong (your argument). You will wrongly oppose it, and you will lose. The GOP and conservatives will walk away, happy as shit.

When I talk abut less government, most of the time I'm referring to limiting shit like this, because it is unnecessary. The whiskey and bourbon in Tennessee were just fine before 2013, but JD wanted to strengthen their position, so they pushed this. This is one of the ten thousand examples of power creep. Libertarianism isn't just about privatizing the fucking roads, it's about preventing the overall power creep of government. Well, government is going to get a whole lot bigger in the next few years, when it comes to abortion restrictions... and you guys are going to be about as powerless as us libertarians to stop it. You'll have nobody to blame but yourselves. Now, you probably don't care too much, since you're British (or European). But, American progressives are really going to feel this in the next 5-10 years.

[Ivanstone]

When I talk abut less government, most of the time I'm referring to limiting shit like this, because it is unnecessary. The whiskey and bourbon in Tennessee were just fine before 2013, but JD wanted to strengthen their position, so they pushed this. This is one of the ten thousand examples of power creep. Libertarianism isn't just about privatizing the fucking roads, it's about preventing the overall power creep of government. You'll have nobody to blame but yourselves. Now, you probably don't care too much, since you're British (or European). But, American progressives are really going to feel this in the next 5-10 years.

When you talk about less government you advocate for the powerful against the powerless. We've already tried your ideal world. It didn't work.

A regulation can be abused. A lack of regulation can also be abused. A malevolent entity will try to abuse either. The good amongst us will create positive legislation to help people and get rid of poor regulation if it arises. The opinions of an anarchist will be disregarded in any case.

Your opinion of this regulation exactly matched the opinion of a huge corporation. Loudly proclaiming your ignorance of their motivations is irrelevant. No one knows who the fuck your are in reality. For all we know you're one of their employees.

[Shadowferal]

When you talk about less government you advocate for the powerful against the powerless. We've already tried your ideal world. It didn't work. .

But Big business and political disinformation is protected speech... More money = more speech. Vaccines only make things worse and cause autism and shit. You're against free speech if you disagree. (To repeat my sarcasm..)

[Santti]

I thought this regulation was an example of corporate power creep? Why do you claim it's making the government more powerful? And your desire to privatize roads and the like is simply a desire to remove power from the government and turn it over to corporations. So, remind me who's the corporatist again?

Privatized roads... Good grief. I can already imagine the joy of going through a dozen toll booths, just to buy some food. Oh well, maybe someone will make a more accessible and cheaper road to the store? Except, nobody will, because the land is not only finite, it's also full of houses and other roads. And in this imaginary Libertarian dystopia, the owners of the roads could just set their own rules, on who can even access them. Because... freedom, apparently?

Even privatized police and fire departments wouldn't be as catastrophically bad as privatized roads.

[Glorious Leader]

Privatized roads... Good grief. I can already imagine the joy of going through a dozen toll booths, just to buy some food. Oh well, maybe someone will make a more accessible and cheaper road to the store? Except, nobody will, because the land is not only finite, it's also full of houses and other roads. And in this imaginary Libertarian dystopia, the owners of the roads could just set their own rules, on who can even access them. Because... freedom, apparently?

Even privatized police and fire departments wouldn't be as catastrophically bad as privatized roads.

Its a toll both economy. Your entire pay cheque gets swallowed up by economic rent.