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

[Ivanstone]

Nah, I'm good.

I was good too.

Until I slipped on the ice and shattered my elbow in 5 places. Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that I disrupted local healthcare with my clumsiness. Some people need it much more than I did. If I was American that injury would've been ruinous.

You're just one fuck up away from disaster. We'll see what shape it takes form in.

[Felya]

So... nothing.

Got it.

I have explained it multiple times. People should be free to do what they want, so long as they are not harming others.

Yes, your reply of more liberty, is nothing... it’s a fucking slogan. The only issue you have, is the inability to concede that’s exactly what your answer is. Because you obviously understand it means Jack shit, when I call it infinite more liberty... you should be able to understand why more liberty means nothing... but, you won’t... it’s why this thread is over a hundred pages...

Edit: Just in case I am wrong and you don’t get it... infinite more liberty and more liberty... is the same fucking thing.

[Machismo]

Thanks for getting there, if we privatize infrastructure who decides who gets to build it/own it?

I'm sure you and your state-granted monopolies will keep doing literally what they've been doing the entire time.

- - - Updated - - -

I was good too.

Until I slipped on the ice and shattered my elbow in 5 places. Quite frankly I'm embarrassed that I disrupted local healthcare with my clumsiness. Some people need it much more than I did. If I was American that injury would've been ruinous.

You're just one fuck up away from disaster. We'll see what shape it takes form in.

Not really, I made sure to buy health insurance, and save for a rainy day.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, your reply of more liberty, is nothing... it’s a fucking slogan. The only issue you have, is the inability to concede that’s exactly what your answer is. Because you obviously understand it means Jack shit, when I call it infinite more liberty... you should be able to understand why more liberty means nothing... but, you won’t... it’s why this thread is over a hundred pages...

Edit: Just in case I am wrong and you don’t get it... infinite more liberty and more liberty... is the same fucking thing.

I answered it. The burden is on the people wanting to push the legislation. If the action doesn't cause harm, then restricting that action is a net reduction in liberty. It's not really that complicated.

[Ivanstone]

Not really, I made sure to buy health insurance, and save for a rainy day.

My fuck up was a healthcare related issue. Yours may be entirely different.

Also don't forget to read the fine print on your insurance. Or your saving account convenience.

[Machismo]

My fuck up was a healthcare related issue. Yours may be entirely different.

Also don't forget to read the fine print on your insurance. Or your saving account convenience.

Mine may be entirely different. It may be a house fire, or a pipe beneath my slab bursting, and causing thousands of dollars in damage. It could be a car accident, identity theft, or even a family member dying. Hell, it could be fucking armageddon.

The key is to be prepared, and plan for shit.

[Ivanstone]

The key is to be prepared, and plan for shit.

And how much time do spend preparing and planning? Being a slave to minutiae doesn't sound like liberty.

[Machismo]

And how much time do spend preparing and planning? Being a slave to minutiae doesn't sound like liberty.

Considering I'm doing it willingly, then it's not an issue of liberty.

As for time, not really that much. It's not like I'm LARPing in the woods with militia members or anything. Proper budgeting becomes second nature after a while, and so does having a diversified portfolio. Firearms don't require much upkeep, so long as they are properly stored. I'd say I spend less time concerning myself with such things, than I do deciding what to make for dinner.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn’t about me, it’s about libertarians and their plans. Or did you forget the thread topic?

I suggest starting simple, like limiting spending.

[Felya]

I answered it. The burden is on the people wanting to push the legislation. If the action doesn't cause harm, then restricting that action is a net reduction in liberty. It's not really that complicated.

Dude... I am explaining why your “more liberty” answer is bullshit... why are you telling me you answered? Yeah, no shit... that post is about your answer... Jesus fucking Christ... you are not saying anything. This is a slogan at best... more like virtue signaling at this point...

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest starting simple, like limiting spending.

Oh shit... now you are coming for government ability to spend, in the name of liberty? My good sr, these sort of limits do not pass my litmus test of liberty...

[Machismo]

Dude... I am explaining why your “more liberty” answer is bullshit... why are you telling me you answered? Yeah, no shit... that post is about your answer... Jesus fucking Christ... you are not saying anything. This is a slogan at best... more like virtue signaling at this point...

- - - Updated - - -



Oh shit... now you are coming for government ability to spend, in the name of liberty? My good sr, these sort of limits do not pass my litmus test of liberty...

Yes, I've long talked about government spending, welcome to the conversation. This shouldn't come as any surprise to you that a fiscal conservative wants to limit spending, and balance a budget.

[Endus]

Yes, I've long talked about government spending, welcome to the conversation. This shouldn't come as any surprise to you that a fiscal conservative wants to limit spending, and balance a budget.

It's hard to take you seriously when you say you want to "balance the budget" when you simultaneously oppose increasing tax rates on those able to contribute significantly more revenue (corporations and the top 1%).

Also that, inevitably, what spending you want to limit is always pretty darned telling.

[Machismo]

It's hard to take you seriously when you say you want to "balance the budget" when you simultaneously oppose increasing tax rates on those able to contribute significantly more revenue (corporations and the top 1%).

Also that, inevitably, what spending you want to limit is always pretty darned telling.

You know... spending cuts are a thing, right?

I pointed to simply ceasing spending increases for 5 years, so start with that.

Considering how gigantic our deficit is, anything short of major cuts isn't going to do much. Our deficit is literally bigger than our entire defense budget, so trimming a bit from there isn't going to cut it.

So, just stop spending increases for 5 years, and see where we are at then.

[Machismo]

So still moving goalposts?

Not at all.

[Edge-]

I pointed to simply ceasing spending increases for 5 years, so start with that.

How? Do we just stop all increases and freeze spending, and additional costs be damned? Do we cut spending further in some areas to keep up with spending obligations in others? If so, what are we cutting further? What's the priority in maintaining or increasing necessary levels of spending, what are the priority areas to cut?

Such a blanket, unspecific statement is pretty meaningless on its own.

Our deficit is literally bigger than our entire defense budget, so trimming a bit from there isn't going to cut it.

They only need to cut spending/raise revenues to have a budget surplus, tackling the debt is a longterm project and not something remotely feasible to do quickly. As pointed out much earlier, we're already paying down our interest rates, in part because the debt we're taking on now is massively cheaper than older debt loaned at higher interest rates. Not too dissimilar from companies loading up on cheap debt while interest rates are low.

So, just stop spending increases for 5 years, and see where we are at then.

What are the practical effects of freezing the entire budget? Are there harmful effects on people in the immediate? Will it harm companies and corporations?

[Felya]

Yes, I've long talked about government spending, welcome to the conversation. This shouldn't come as any surprise to you that a fiscal conservative wants to limit spending, and balance a budget.

I support the liberty of government to spend... you don’t... It’s obvious which one of us has... more liberty... as a solution and who is a phony...

[Endus]

You know... spending cuts are a thing, right?

I pointed to simply ceasing spending increases for 5 years, so start with that.

And that's an empty argument. It's completely absent any understanding or respect for what that spending is for.

It's like telling a family to just stop buying stuff with their credit cards, when they need groceries to feed their kids for the next week until the paychecks come in.

Debt isn't magically "bad", all by itself.

Considering how gigantic our deficit is, anything short of major cuts isn't going to do much. Our deficit is literally bigger than our entire defense budget, so trimming a bit from there isn't going to cut it.

And the other big way to address deficits is revenue increase.

Which you reject wholesale without consideration, because you're not actually interested in an open and frank discussion, you're just demanding we concede to do things your way.

So, just stop spending increases for 5 years, and see where we are at then.

Or increase taxation of the wealthy and corporations for the same period. Why not that option?

That's what you're never able to address. You're fine with whatever harms may befall the poor as spending on social programs is clawed back, but completely unwilling to consider perhaps asking the wealthy to contribute a little more of the billions they have lying around.

I'm not even against spending cuts. Let's claw back the military spending by 3/4 of its current value, remove all corporate subsidies to any company that's A> profitable without subsidy and/or B> has greater than $10 mill in gross revenue (an allowance to allow new companies to grow into profitability and shelter small businesses).

But I'll target those spending cuts on specific spending I see as undesirable. Not on programs I see as necessary. Because I'm unwilling to consider these questions without understanding the full context, whereas you steadfastly refuse to engage in specifics for some reason.

[Felya]

It's hard to take you seriously...

Then don’t...

[Machismo]

How? Do we just stop all increases and freeze spending, and additional costs be damned? Do we cut spending further in some areas to keep up with spending obligations in others? If so, what are we cutting further? What's the priority in maintaining or increasing necessary levels of spending, what are the priority areas to cut?

Such a blanket, unspecific statement is pretty meaningless on its own.



They only need to cut spending/raise revenues to have a budget surplus, tackling the debt is a longterm project and not something remotely feasible to do quickly. As pointed out much earlier, we're already paying down our interest rates, in part because the debt we're taking on now is massively cheaper than older debt loaned at higher interest rates. Not too dissimilar from companies loading up on cheap debt while interest rates are low.



What are the practical effects of freezing the entire budget? Are there harmful effects on people in the immediate? Will it harm companies and corporations?

This could literally just be a spending freeze, departments get the exact same amount for 5 years. The reason for balancing a budget, is to avoid pushing more and more debt on future generations. freezing spending increases wouldn't solve the problem quickly, it would still take 15+ years to balance it that way. As for harm, we've been harming future generations the entire time. It's time we actually paid our own way for a change.

I'm more than fine with making cuts that are more targeted, and I'm fine with that solution, as well.

- - - Updated - - -

I support the liberty of government to spend... you don’t... It’s obvious which one of us has... more liberty... as a solution and who is a phony...

Of course you are, because you don't give a shit about individual liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's an empty argument. It's completely absent any understanding or respect for what that spending is for.

It's like telling a family to just stop buying stuff with their credit cards, when they need groceries to feed their kids for the next week until the paychecks come in.

Debt isn't magically "bad", all by itself.



And the other big way to address deficits is revenue increase.

Which you reject wholesale without consideration, because you're not actually interested in an open and frank discussion, you're just demanding we concede to do things your way.



Or increase taxation of the wealthy and corporations for the same period. Why not that option?

That's what you're never able to address. You're fine with whatever harms may befall the poor as spending on social programs is clawed back, but completely unwilling to consider perhaps asking the wealthy to contribute a little more of the billions they have lying around.

I'm not even against spending cuts. Let's claw back the military spending by 3/4 of its current value, remove all corporate subsidies to any company that's A> profitable without subsidy and/or B> has greater than $10 mill in gross revenue (an allowance to allow new companies to grow into profitability and shelter small businesses).

But I'll target those spending cuts on specific spending I see as undesirable. Not on programs I see as necessary. Because I'm unwilling to consider these questions without understanding the full context, whereas you steadfastly refuse to engage in specifics for some reason.

We've had revenue increases, almost every single year, in fact. That didn't balance the budgets. What we haven't had, are spending cuts.

It's easy to want to tax other people, because the money isn't coming out of your pocket. Now, you're not an American, but pretend you are. How much more are you personally willing to spend, in order to increase that revenue and more to a balanced budget? Would you give $10k or more a year, just for you?

[Felya]

I'm more than fine with making cuts that are more targeted, and I'm fine with that solution, as well.

What are the targets for these cuts, when for 5 years, there has been no spending by the government... to improve things for future generations. I need you to explain how 5 years of not spending, resulting in deteriorating infrastructure and inability to react to natural disasters, would make it better for future generations... than the boogie man of debt.

Of course you are, because you don't give a shit about individual liberty.

Nah bra, you don’t give a shit about individual liberty, which is why you oppose individuals who earn their place as politicians, to express their individuality, through their legislation. Obviously, I am far more in support of individual liberty, than you are... to infinity...

[Edge-]

This could literally just be a spending freeze, departments get the exact same amount for 5 years.

I don't think you have the foggiest idea of how absolutely chaotic, disruptive, and damaging this would be. Like, it sounds great when you say it but that's it.

The reason for balancing a budget, is to avoid pushing more and more debt on future generations.

I'd hazard to guess if you poll younger folks, they'll largely tell you, "Debt be damned, I'd rather go into debt now and still have a functional government when I'm older, especially one actively working on tackling expensive longterm problems that will be more expensive and destructive if we don't address them now, a la climate change." Let's maybe ask the younger generations for their opinion rather than speak for them, because this has long been a dishonest and empty Republican talking point on the debt.

As for harm, we've been harming future generations the entire time. It's time we actually paid our own way for a change.

Now there's an interesting topic: Let's analyze the harms caused by both and try to figure out which is the less harmful, both in the short and longterm! Now we're cookin with gas, this is the kind of more meaningful discussion that should be had on these topics, not empty platitudes and pointless slogans.

I'm more than fine with making cuts that are more targeted, and I'm fine with that solution, as well.

Share some ideas, then! The mic is yours.

- - - Updated - - -

We've had revenue increases, almost every single year, in fact.

Not driven by actual increases in revenue generation - a la taxes, which he's specifically discussing. Those increases generally come from increased GDP, netting in higher tax-revenue by default given the greater overall GDP.

This is a failure of understanding of revenue growth vs. revenue generation.

[Machismo]

I don't think you have the foggiest idea of how absolutely chaotic, disruptive, and damaging this would be. Like, it sounds great when you say it but that's it.



I'd hazard to guess if you poll younger folks, they'll largely tell you, "Debt be damned, I'd rather go into debt now and still have a functional government when I'm older, especially one actively working on tackling expensive longterm problems that will be more expensive and destructive if we don't address them now, a la climate change." Let's maybe ask the younger generations for their opinion rather than speak for them, because this has long been a dishonest and empty Republican talking point on the debt.



Now there's an interesting topic: Let's analyze the harms caused by both and try to figure out which is the less harmful, both in the short and longterm! Now we're cookin with gas, this is the kind of more meaningful discussion that should be had on these topics, not empty platitudes and pointless slogans.



Share some ideas, then! The mic is yours.

- - - Updated - - -



Not driven by actual increases in revenue generation - a la taxes, which he's specifically discussing. Those increases generally come from increased GDP, netting in higher tax-revenue by default given the greater overall GDP.

This is a failure of understanding of revenue growth vs. revenue generation.

I've shared ideas, on multiple occasions. My suggestion wasn't radical, and was small to start.

From the polling I've seen, most younger people want to tax the shit out of the rich.

Its always s easier when its someone else's money.

- - - Updated - - -

Twice linked where you started with taxes. Now it’s lower spending. They aren’t the same thing, if they were you’d have explained whether or not you support taxation.

I've called for lower taxes and decreased spending.

- - - Updated - - -

What are the targets for these cuts, when for 5 years, there has been no spending by the government... to improve things for future generations. I need you to explain how 5 years of not spending, resulting in deteriorating infrastructure and inability to react to natural disasters, would make it better for future generations... than the boogie man of debt.



Nah bra, you don’t give a shit about individual liberty, which is why you oppose individuals who earn their place as politicians, to express their individuality, through their legislation. Obviously, I am far more in support of individual liberty, than you are... to infinity...

I didn't say no spending, it was about no spending increases.

Thanks for solidifying your stance as completely opposed to individual liberty. Are you next going to whine that Hitler's liberty was stymied by people not liking that he was killing Jews?

But go ahead and keep pushing the authoritarianism that is state liberty.