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

[Machismo]

And then comes our counter argument.
Where do you draw the line on the rules and laws to get rid of?
Because it looks the way it does because Capitalists try to get around laws and rules (if any exist) and get people killed.
See, the regulations around fire extingishers.

Well, where I personally draw the line, is that we get rid of any rules/laws that restrict an action that doesn't cause harm.

I pointed to a few in this thread that would be a good start. Nobody seems to want to get rid of them, or they want to just plain ignore them.

[Shadowferal]

Again you acknowledge we need rules (I think)

He has no choice but to agree. Most regulations have dead bodies to show such regs were needed.

[Machismo]

I mean of course the next question is who decides whats harmful but I'm not particularly keen to discuss that because your definition of is dont tax me bro. You are still ignoring the relevant question though.

We need rules
Corporations or people doesn't matter (although corporations have far more power to do so) will abuse existing rules or rule making power.
How do we square the fact that we need rules with the fact that entities will abuse them? WHO decides which rules should be and shouldn't be?

If you have a bad law, get rid of the law. The laws banning gay marriage were bad laws, so get rid of them. The laws legalizing forced enslavement were bad laws, so getting rid of them was the right call.

I provided tow shining examples, as well as a half dozen others in this very thread. The first half dozen were completely ignored, and the other two were defended as marketing.

- - - Updated - - -

He has no choice but to agree. Most regulations have dead bodies to show such regs were needed.

Where are the dead bodies from requiring that Tennessee whiskey be aged in unused, charred-oak barrels, and not other barrels?

I'll wait.

[Muzjhath]

Well, where I personally draw the line, is that we get rid of any rules/laws that restrict an action that doesn't cause harm.

I pointed to a few in this thread that would be a good start. Nobody seems to want to get rid of them, or they want to just plain ignore them.

Generally you've given examples that, from what i've read in replies, weren't very good or stupidly small. Or you've given answers that are so vague it's hardly a thing. Since I'm from Europe you could be bringing up how we protect names of regional produce. And one of the biggest stickers between FTA between the US and the EU are just those. Yet you haven't. Same when I mentioned I'd be fine with having a full list of handlers and locations of a product you brushed it off.
In the past you've also argued about how you want roads to be private things in a millenium. Except that maybe you don't want them to be private. You maybe just want them to be co-operatively owned.
Since you think that the robber baron next door will let anyone use his road and be nice and build good roads everywhere. Or you imagine that there will be no robber barons and everything that is an infrastructure service will be a co-op.

This is why people tend to dogpile you. You seem unaware of what you're preaching would bring about. Or you explicitly want what you're preaching would bring about as you imagine you'd be among the privileged few.

[Glorious Leader]

If you have a bad law, get rid of the law. The laws banning gay marriage were bad laws, so get rid of them. The laws legalizing forced enslavement were bad laws, so getting rid of them was the right call.

I provided tow shining examples, as well as a half dozen others in this very thread. The first half dozen were completely ignored, and the other two were defended as marketing.

- - - Updated - - -



Where are the dead bodies from requiring that Tennessee whiskey be aged in charred oak barrels, and not other barrels?

I'll wait.

Right you ignored the question again. WHO DECIDES? because the laws against slavery for example weren't fucking rescinded because it was "the right call" but because one group used force to win out over the others. Your okay with that force? but not taxation?

[Machismo]

Generally you've given examples that, from what i've read in replies, weren't very good or stupidly small. Or you've given answers that are so vague it's hardly a thing. Since I'm from Europe you could be bringing up how we protect names of regional produce. And one of the biggest stickers between FTA between the US and the EU are just those. Yet you haven't. Same when I mentioned I'd be fine with having a full list of handlers and locations of a product you brushed it off.
In the past you've also argued about how you want roads to be private things in a millenium. Except that maybe you don't want them to be private. You maybe just want them to be co-operatively owned.
Since you think that the robber baron next door will let anyone use his road and be nice and build good roads everywhere. Or you imagine that there will be no robber barons and everything that is an infrastructure service will be a co-op.

This is why people tend to dogpile you. You seem unaware of what you're preaching would bring about. Or you explicitly want what you're preaching would bring about as you imagine you'd be among the privileged few.

I provided examples, and I keep giving them.

Instead of saying... yeah, those are shitty rules, they were dismissed. That proves my point, this is about supporting government, just for the sake of supporting it. It's not about the region, it was literally about the specific types of barrels that Jack Daniels' Distillery used, so they decided to use the government to make a regulation saying that is the requirement for "Tennessee Whiskey."

I purposefully chose small ones, because it could have been easily pointed to as entirely unnecessary. But, people couldn't fucking do it. One guy just called that regulation... "marketing."

Sometimes bad laws and regulations exist. Sometimes, we should simply get rid of them. But, instead of trying to find any fucking common ground, which is what the goal was, you guys are doing your damndest to pull away. The JD thing should be a fucking no-brainer, but people would rather shit all over themselves, in order to avoid recognizing that someone may actually have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

Right you ignored the question again. WHO DECIDES? because the laws against slavery for example weren't fucking rescinded because it was "the right call" but because one group used force to win out over the others. Your okay with that force? but not taxation?

The government decided.

And sometimes, in the case of JD, a company lobbied for them to decide, all to gain a competitive advantage. And, I can't get you guys to condemn it.

We're talking about the short term, where I offered reasonable solutions... that were entirely fucking ignored. Here's a start, get rid of regulations like the one JD pushed.

Let's start with that one. Can you agree that such a regulation is unnecessary, and should be removed?

[Glorious Leader]

He has no choice but to agree. Most regulations have dead bodies to show such regs were needed.

Beyond that they value private property above all and that would completely fall apart without the strictest of rules and the application and implication of violence.

- - - Updated - - -

The government decided.

Perfect. That's all I needed to hear. You disgusting statist.

[Machismo]

Beyond that they value private property above all and that would completely fall apart without the strictest of rules and the application and implication of violence.

- - - Updated - - -



Perfect. That's all I needed to hear. You disgusting statist.

Thanks for ignoring everything, and proving me right about you guys.

Oh, and because you chose to edit out everything you wanted to ignore, in order to continue your shitposting crusade, I'll post it here:

"And sometimes, in the case of JD, a company lobbied for them to decide, all to gain a competitive advantage. And, I can't get you guys to condemn it.

We're talking about the short term, where I offered reasonable solutions... that were entirely fucking ignored. Here's a start, get rid of regulations like the one JD pushed.

Let's start with that one. Can you agree that such a regulation is unnecessary, and should be removed?"

Man, talk about arguing in bad faith.

[Mayhem]

Once again, why is that information relevant, and why should it be forced?

Wait, are you now deciding what information about ingredients used is relevant for consumers and what isn't? how very authoritarian of you

For a supposed libertarian you really hate when people are given information about a product. What's next? Want to get rid of recycling labels because they give information about stuff that isn't harmful to consumers?

Libertarians:
let the market decide what products are good

also Libertarians:
give the market just the information we deem relevant for their decision making

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.

Yeah, the company that benefits from all of this is a non-profit organization. Or are you saying the companies that use non-GMO food?

Well, according to a bunch of articles this was again just about marketing and getting a foothold in the market. So this actually helped diversify. Again, a thing I thought libertarians would be in favor of.

Come on, these two can't be your best examples. I am sure there have to be better ones out there.

You are supporting corporations pushing unnecessary regulations to place them at an advantage over their competition... just as I've been saying all along.

Unnecessary by your authoritarian standards, apparently consumers use it to decide what to buy. So if we go by your logic everything should be packaged the same, no colors, no nothing, grey standard sizes boxes and cans because all of that fancy design shit just makes people decide between products and gives no relevant information.

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.

Well, first of, no I didn't, I merely explained this shit to you because you are rather incompetent.

Second of, well duh what do you think brand names are? I never thought you really were against brand names too. That was merely a joke.

Third of, apparently you didn't read the regulation. It is not so only Jack Daniels can use it but only a specific process must be used. If another company uses the same technique they too can name their whiskey "Tennesse Whiskey".

I fucking love watching you be a hypocrite.

Yay 8 MIP, thanks! @Bodakane I am coming for you.

Yes, you fucking did say that.

Did say what?

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

I said it's about marketing, not that it literally was marketing with no regulations involved. Come on, I can't do you reading for you.

So what I've learned from you about libertarians so far is, they want to decide what is relevant information for consumers and are against diversifying the market.

[Machismo]

Wait, are you now deciding what information about ingredients used is relevant for consumers and what isn't? how very authoritarian of you

For a supposed libertarian you really hate when people are given information about a product. What's next? Want to get rid of recycling labels because they give information about stuff that isn't harmful to consumers?

Libertarians:
let the market decide what products are good

also Libertarians:
give the market just the information we deem relevant for their decision making




Yeah, the company that benefits from all of this is a non-profit organization. Or are you saying the companies that use non-GMO food?

Well, according to a bunch of articles this was again just about marketing and getting a foothold in the market. So this actually helped diversify. Again, a thing I thought libertarians would be in favor of.

Come on, these two can't be your best examples. I am sure there have to be better ones out there.



Unnecessary by your authoritarian standards, apparently consumers use it to decide what to buy. So if we go by your logic everything should be packaged the same, no colors, no nothing, grey standard sizes boxes and cans because all of that fancy design shit just makes people decide between products and gives no relevant information.

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.

Well, first of, no I didn't, I merely explained this shit to you because you are rather incompetent.

Second of, well duh what do you think brand names are? I never thought you really were against brand names too. That was merely a joke.

Third of, apparently you didn't read the regulation. It is not so only Jack Daniels can use it but only a specific process must be used. If another company uses the same technique they too can name their whiskey "Tennesse Whiskey".



Yay 8 MIP, thanks! @Bodakane I am coming for you.



Did say what?



I said it's about marketing, not that it literally was marketing with no regulations involved. Come on, I can't do you reading for you.

So what I've learned from you about libertarians so far is, they want to decide what is relevant information for consumers and are against diversifying the market.

You called it marketing, and said I didn't know the difference between .marketing and regulations.

Here's a pro tip, if you are getting the government involved to restrict your competitors... it's not marketing.

As for that specific regulation, this was JD pushing those very specific requirements, because that is what their distillery was doing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...FWb93NI82N66SG

This was literally so their competitors who had a different process couldn't call it Tennessee whiskey.

You support this.

[Ivanstone]

We're talking about the short term, where I offered reasonable solutions... that were entirely fucking ignored. Here's a start, get rid of regulations like the one JD pushed.

Alternatively, you have a bunch of snake oil salesmen who want to hide their inferior whisky under the label of Tennessee Whisky. Fuckers are probably making gin in their bathtubs and adding brown food dye to it.

Two sides to every story.

[Machismo]

Alternatively, you have a bunch of snake oil salesmen who want to hide their inferior whisky under the label of Tennessee Whisky. Fuckers are probably making gin in their bathtubs and adding brown food dye to it.

Two sides to every story.

How is inferior if it is made in used barrels, barrels that are not charred, or barrels made of a different type of wood?

https://trackbill.com/bill/tennessee...ca-tit/474194/

[Ivanstone]

How is inferior if it is made in used barrels, barrels that are not charred, or barrels made of a different type of wood?

The interaction of the distilled alcohol and the kind of wood barrels during the aging process changes the characteristics of the liquor produced. I learned that between my previous post and this post.

Most whiskeys are heavily regulated. Everywhere.

Would you want to drink Coloured Bathtub Gin that was labelled as Tennessee Whiskey? If I want to drink Canadian Whisky, I damn well expect it to be Canadian Whisky and nothing else. I am glad the Canadian government was stringent regulations on what is allowed to be called Canadian Whisky.

[Machismo]

The interaction of the distilled alcohol and the kind of wood barrels during the aging process changes the characteristics of the liquor produced. I learned that between my previous post and this post.

Most whiskeys are heavily regulated. Everywhere.

Would you want to drink Coloured Bathtub Gin that was labelled as Tennessee Whiskey? If I want to drink Canadian Whisky, I damn well expect it to be Canadian Whisky and nothing else. I am glad the Canadian government was stringent regulations on what is allowed to be called Canadian Whisky.

Thats the thing, its not just about location, as you can see.

As for taste... that is almost entirely subjective... and people want to legislate that subjectivity.

[PC2]

The only thing I want to know about this thread, because it is yet another epic shit show, what the fuck is an "MIP"?

It means "Machismo Intellectual Points" or "Machismo Ignorance Points" depending on who you ask.

[Mayhem]

You called it marketing, and said I didn't know the difference between .marketing and regulations.

I didn't say that. I can't do your reading for you.

Here's a pro tip, if you are getting the government involved to restrict your competitors... it's not marketing.

So you are against brand names then. You could've just said that from the beginning.

As for that specific regulation, this was JD pushing those very specific requirements, because that is what their distillery was doing.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...FWb93NI82N66SG

This was literally so their competitors who had a different process couldn't call it Tennessee whiskey.

You support this.

Yeah, they branded the process. Just like Bourbon. By your weird standards, Bourbon is bad for competitors who don't produce Bourbon.

[Ivanstone]

Thats the thing, its not just about location, as you can see.

As for taste... that is almost entirely subjective... and people want to legislate that subjectivity.

It isn’t about location at all. It’s a process. Tennessee Whiskey uses one process. Scotch uses a different process. Canadian Whisky uses a different process. They are all Whiskey but they're all different.

You're advocating for a bunch of whiskey producers who don’t want to make Tennessee Whiskey but want to call it Tennessee Whiskey. They’re whiskey might be better, worse or not even Whiskey at all.

[Machismo]

I didn't say that. I can't do your reading for you.



So you are against brand names then. You could've just said that from the beginning.



Yeah, they branded the process. Just like Bourbon. By your weird standards, Bourbon is bad for competitors who don't produce Bourbon.

This isn't brand names, these are generic names... like Tennessee and whiskey.

This is like saying you cannot say you serve "quality fast food," unless your burgers are served on sesame seed buns, with a secret sauce made up of exactly X, two patties, lettuce, tomato, and onion...and the milkshake machine must be broken at least 137 days a year.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn’t about location at all. It’s a process. Tennessee Whiskey uses one process. Scotch uses a different process. Canadian Whisky uses a different process. They are all Whiskey but they're all different.

You're advocating for a bunch of whiskey producers who don’t want to make Tennessee Whiskey but want to call it Tennessee Whiskey. They’re whiskey might be better, worse or not even Whiskey at all.

That process was determined by Jack Daniels Distillery. They literally legislated their process as what constitutes Tennessee whiskey.

Thats the point.

It would be the same as if Crown Royal pushed legislation that their specific process was what determined it to be Canadian whiskey.

[Ivanstone]

That process was determined by Jack Daniels Distillery. They literally legislated their process as what constitutes Tennessee whiskey.

Thats the point.

So? It’s a recipe. Use it or don’t. No one is stopping anyone from making Tennessee Whiskey and there’s nothing wrong with making bourbon. JD is not the only producer of Tennessee Whiskey.

What windmill are you going to tilt at next? Those assholes in Parma are blocking everyone else from making Parmesan Cheese with their filthy regulations. Are you gonna go after them too?

[Bodakane]

That process was determined by Jack Daniels Distillery. They literally legislated their process as what constitutes Tennessee whiskey.

Thats the point.

It would be the same as if Crown Royal pushed legislation that their specific process was what determined it to be Canadian whiskey.

Then why do you support corporate control of the government so much?