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

[Ursus]

The problem is... he's not even close to being a libertarian. In his own bio, he goes out of his way to oppose the First Amendment.

Wow, that guy's bio is something else. After reading it, I'm almost certain now that it's a parody account. Or at least I hope it is.

[Machismo]

Wow, that guy's bio is something else. After reading it, I'm almost certain now that it's a parody account. Or at least I hope it is.

I agree. I hope he's just fucking around.

[Endus]

Of course it is, because individual liberties often conflict with each other. That's why I have long said people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming others.

That is the balance.

And once you acknowledge the harm principle, you've opened the doors to welfare programs, hate speech laws, regulating companies for safety concerns, traffic laws, and pretty much everything else expected in a modern developed society.

That's the problem; your position inherently allows some harms to occur, some people to victimize others, but you act as if it's a universal principle for you.

And it really isn't.

[Shadowferal]

Great, what about him?
You mean the ardent Trumpster fuckstick who has no problems stomping on the liberties of others?
people often sacrifice morals and ethics in the name of power.

The same guy who calls himself a libertarian, as Greenspan called himself...and neither of them would accept the other..and I'd surmise that both of which would insist you weren't a libertarian either.

[Machismo]

So you support states rights. Something libertarians don’t do. What are you again?

- - - Updated - - -



Nope. It’s the usual libertarian ideology crafted for the individual.

Where did I say that?

You really should stop trying to build straw men.

- - - Updated - - -

And once you acknowledge the harm principle, you've opened the doors to welfare programs, hate speech laws, regulating companies for safety concerns, traffic laws, and pretty much everything else expected in a modern developed society.

That's the problem; your position inherently allows some harms to occur, some people to victimize others, but you act as if it's a universal principle for you.

And it really isn't.

Nope, not really. That's simply your interpretation of what you want harm to be.

This is you still trying to tell me what I believe. We've been down this road before, and the only answer is that you are fucking lying.

- - - Updated - - -

The same guy who calls himself a libertarian, as Greenspan called himself...and neither of them would accept the other..and I'd surmise that both of which would insist you weren't a libertarian either.

Once again, people can call themselves what they like. Alt-righters often call themselves classic liberals... that doesn't make it so.

I don't give a shit what Greenspan or Paul would think about me.

[Endus]

Nope, not really. That's simply your interpretation of what you want harm to be.

This is you still trying to tell me what I believe. We've been down this road before, and the only answer is that you are fucking lying.

No, the answer is that you refuse to actually define your terms, and shift those goalposts willy-nilly when challenged.

You introduced the concept of harm, I pointed out the extent, and now you're claiming that you are the one who gets to define "harm" and you're not going to actually explain what you mean by it, so you can keep pretending, as you are here, that you're dunking on someone. When the reality is that you're just using words that you are secretly and improperly redefining, to sow deliberate confusion and ensure no one can actually ascertain what you actually believe.

You're just piling No True Scotsman arguments on top of each other. "Oh, that's not REAL harm, even if plenty of governments clearly define it as legal harm and any cursory understanding of the English meaning would apply".

If you're going to use words in super-secret-special ways completely unlike how everyone else does, define your terms. That's the step you consistently refuse to engage in.

[Machismo]

No, the answer is that you refuse to actually define your terms, and shift those goalposts willy-nilly when challenged.

You introduced the concept of harm, I pointed out the extent, and now you're claiming that you are the one who gets to define "harm" and you're not going to actually explain what you mean by it, so you can keep pretending, as you are here, that you're dunking on someone. When the reality is that you're just using words that you are secretly and improperly redefining, to sow deliberate confusion and ensure no one can actually ascertain what you actually believe.

You're just piling No True Scotsman arguments on top of each other. "Oh, that's not REAL harm, even if plenty of governments clearly define it as legal harm and any cursory understanding of the English meaning would apply".

If you're going to use words in super-secret-special ways completely unlike how everyone else does, define your terms. That's the step you consistently refuse to engage in.

I have shifted nothing. I'm simply not ascribing to the arguments you have spent years trying to make for me. Just because you feel compelled to try and say what I mean, it doesn't mean I am obligated to go along with it.

I did bring up harm, and you tried to link it to actions based o. Your beliefs and interpretations... not mine. And that's fine, but that makes it what you believe in, not what you get to say I believe.

As for governments and what they may, or may not define... that's simple. I also disagree with many of them. Some claimed the state was harmed when gay people try to get married. Shit, some governments still argue that. I sure disagree with them, don't you?

I've made what I actually believe quite clear, and I don't back down from it. What I don’t do, is entertain people when they try and tell me I don't actually mean what I state I mean. If you want to construct straw men, be my guest. But, those are yours, and yours alone.

Now, if you'd like to discuss specific social and political issues, I'd be happy to do so. If you want to discuss my overarching philosophy, I'm also willing to do so... and I've explained it many times in the past. I simply gave the briefest of versions with my one-sentence statement on what I believe in.

[Endus]

I have shifted nothing. I'm simply not ascribing to the arguments you have spent years trying to make for me. Just because you feel compelled to try and say what I mean, it doesn't mean I am obligated to go along with it.

We're speaking of your comments in this thread. Stop trying to distract with irrelevancies.

I did bring up harm, and you tried to link it to actions based o. Your beliefs and interpretations... not mine. And that's fine, but that makes it what you believe in, not what you get to say I believe.

No, I linked it to circumstances based on a common understanding of the word, both legally and in casual English parlance.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/harm

You're the one insisting on a unique meaning that you won't provide. It's both unreasonable to redefine the term in this context, as it has known meanings, and it's even more unreasonably to refuse to define it for the rest of us, and instead dancing around it and pretending our inability to psychically divine your true meaning is somehow the same thing as your argument having strength and validity.

[Mayhem]

Of course it is, because individual liberties often conflict with each other. That's why I have long said people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming others.

That is the balance.

That makes you in favor of big government.

I sometimes wonder how that works out in your mind but considering you are most of the time unable or unwilling to answer any questions I doubt there's much going on in there.

[Shadowferal]

Once again, people can call themselves what they like. Alt-righters often call themselves classic liberals... that doesn't make it so.
I don't give a shit what Greenspan or Paul would think about me.

*shrugs*
You prove the point that libertarians are contradictory, divided, and inconsistent and will always have to play 2nd fiddle to other parties because of this lack of unification, and worst of all, Rand Paul, who puts libertarians ( and big business loving policies) in the spotlight.

[Machismo]

We're speaking of your comments in this thread. Stop trying to distract with irrelevancies.



No, I linked it to circumstances based on a common understanding of the word, both legally and in casual English parlance.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/harm

You're the one insisting on a unique meaning that you won't provide. It's both unreasonable to redefine the term in this context, as it has known meanings, and it's even more unreasonably to refuse to define it for the rest of us, and instead dancing around it and pretending our inability to psychically divine your true meaning is somehow the same thing as your argument having strength and validity.

Where have I strayed from such definitions in this thread?

I don't know about you, but I sure as shit do not feel an7yone, including the state, is harmed by the act of gay marriage. Alas, millions of Americans would disagree with me. Who is correct?

- - - Updated - - -

That makes you in favor of big government.

I sometimes wonder how that works out in your mind but considering you are most of the time unable or unwilling to answer any questions I doubt there's much going on in there.

No, it makes me accept that government should exist. The size and scope of that government is where I disagree with most people.

- - - Updated - - -

*shrugs*
You prove the point that libertarians are contradictory, divided, and inconsistent and will always have to play 2nd fiddle to other parties because of this lack of unification, and worst of all, Rand Paul, who puts libertarians ( and big business loving policies) in the spotlight.

You made my point for me. Libertarians are never going to hold power, at least not in the next few hundred years. Therefore, trying to become a big-tent group is pointless. The objective for libertarians (as a whole) is not the same as the objective for Democrats, Republicans, progressives, or conservatives. You guys have somewhat realistic hopes of being in power, so your motives are driven by that. I have no such expectations.

[Mayhem]

No, it makes me accept that government should exist. The size and scope of that government is where I disagree with most people.

Right, so how large must a government be to check on everything people do so it can find out if the actions are harmful to others? Or do you just want to punish people if they did something that harmed others?

[Machismo]

Right, so how large must a government be to check on everything people do so it can find out if the actions are harmful to others? Or do you just want to punish people if they did something that harmed others?

I'm not even sure I follow your last question, it seems rather leading.

As for the first question, it must be large enough to actually be able to carry out the threat of force to limit those harmful actions. No, that does not mean it needs to provide healthcare.

[Glorious Leader]

And to be on topic and answer the question more:

Anarchism, the modern day version of it, is more all about social-justice and communism as the core of it's virtues and ideals.
Libertarianism seems to be more about freedom, less about social-justice being forced down people's throats ad absurdum.

These are both completely inaccurate caricatures. In so far as Libertarians exist in the US, the movement as a whole is little more than crankery funded by the incredible wealthy to advocate for policy that favors even more wealth redistributed then.

[Machismo]

By not providing healthcare you’re harming the most vulnerable.

Who is causing the harm?

What exactly is the harm being caused?

[Mayhem]

I'm not even sure I follow your last question, it seems rather leading.

As for the first question, it must be large enough to actually be able to carry out the threat of force to limit those harmful actions. No, that does not mean it needs to provide healthcare.

You see, the problem is not in carrying out the force, the problem is with finding out what actually harms people. Apparently, not being able to get treatment when needed does not harm people, so I am pretty sure we are not on the same page about what harm means.

[Glorious Leader]

And once you acknowledge the harm principle, you've opened the doors to welfare programs, hate speech laws, regulating companies for safety concerns, traffic laws, and pretty much everything else expected in a modern developed society.

That's the problem; your position inherently allows some harms to occur, some people to victimize others, but you act as if it's a universal principle for you.

And it really isn't.

Like everything else they argue for, the non aggression principle is entirely selective and arbitrary. They profess to love freedom but would never imagine to extend that freedom to the work place. The profess to love non aggression but seems to be blind to capitalist private property as the ultimate aggression. Of course it just so happens that every principle they do seem to support aligns with the interest of wealthy cranks who support the movement.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is causing the harm?

What exactly is the harm being caused?

Again see entirely selective reasoning.

Some freedoms (like freedom from illness) is negotiable. But they love liberty folks.

[Machismo]

You see, the problem is not in carrying out the force, the problem is with finding out what actually harms people. Apparently, not being able to get treatment when needed does not harm people, so I am pretty sure we are not on the same page about what harm means.

I agree, we do not agree on such things. That has been my thesis all along.

If one wants to argue that me not paying for your Healthcare is a harmful act, I will simply counter that forcibly taking my earnings to pay for your healthcare is harmful.

I'll go further, I see no harm in not paying for Bill Gates' healthcare.. do you agree?

- - - Updated - - -

Like everything else they argue for, the non aggression principle is entirely selective and arbitrary. They profess to love freedom but would never imagine to extend that freedom to the work place. The profess to love non aggression but seems to be blind to capitalist private property as the ultimate aggression. Of course it just so happens that every principle they do seem to support aligns with the interest of wealthy cranks who support the movement.

- - - Updated - - -



Again see entirely selective reasoning.

Some freedoms (like freedom from illness) is negotiable. But they love liberty folks.

What the fuck is freedom from illness? Are we going to ban cancer?

[Glorious Leader]

You see, the problem is not in carrying out the force, the problem is with finding out what actually harms people. Apparently, not being able to get treatment when needed does not harm people, so I am pretty sure we are not on the same page about what harm means.

The entire movement rests on semantics. Whenever you pin them down on a particular point they simple redefine words to (usually) have a much more narrow meaning.

[Mayhem]

I agree, we do not agree on such things. That has been my thesis all along.

If one wants to argue that me not paying for your Healthcare is a harmful act, I will simply counter that forcibly taking my earnings to pay for your healthcare is harmful.

So you are not against harm then, got it. You just are against certain harm. Might want to revise your "people should be free to do whatever they want, so long as they are not harming others"-mantra because you are not consistent.

You not paying for universal healthcare is you willfully harming others, therefore the government forcing you would be well within their right by your own argument.