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

[Machismo]

Except that’s a blatant lie. Where did I ever say I want to ban EVERYTHING I oppose? Just certain things. Like you.

I'm pointing to your decision to oppose freedom of speech by banning donations.

Why do you hate freedom of speech so fucking much?

- - - Updated - - -

@Machismo do you vote?

Yep.

/10char

[PC2]

Thanks for admitting you're claim is utterly baseless.

If my claim is baseless then you're screwed as a libertarian because there's no way other people will want to increase liberty unless everyone has more trust that everyone else will only use their liberty in ethical and desirable ways.

[Machismo]

First, I don’t support banning donations stop lying. I support banning the ways the wealthy unduly influence politics. I’m all for an individuals freedom of speech in politics. You are the one who opposes that. And if you vote you’e a hypocrite. You oppose people influencing politics, the fuck do you think your vote does?

You called for corporations and PACs to not be able to donate.

So, you want freedom of speech for some... but not others.

Are you really so desperate to say that me voting makes me a hypocrite? Man, you really are desperate. By all means, keep going.

- - - Updated - - -

If my claim is baseless then you're screwed as a libertarian because there's no way other people will want to increase liberty unless everyone has more trust that everyone else will only use their liberty in ethical and desirable ways.

It's baseless by the definition of the word.

Don't blame me, this is your argument.

[Machismo]

Corporations and pacs aren’t people. Why do you think they are?

They still have freedom of speech, or did you forget?

[Machismo]

They will continue to enjoy that without an unlimited ability to buy politicians. See, they can still put out ads and the like.

And you want to stifle their freedom of speech.

[PC2]

It's baseless by the definition of the word.

Don't blame me, this is your argument.

Well then your ideology is doomed if my claim is baseless. You've kind of put yourself in a self-defeating situation because if people and society don't make progress then authoritarianism is the only alternative.

[Machismo]

Well then your ideology is screwed if my claim is baseless. You've kind of put yourself in a self-defeating situation because if people and society don't make progress then authoritarianism is the only alternative.

Nah, I'm good. Lucky for me, I actually understand how science and such things work.

[Machismo]

Nope. I want their ability to influence politics brought in line. Why do you support the JD legislation and Texas abortion laws?

So, you also want to limit people from doing the exact same thing, right?

I don't support those laws, stop lying.

[Machismo]

They already have those limitations. I want them applied universally. PACs are gone forever, since the people they rep already have their individual donations, corporations can each make donations the same as any other individual, if you insist on being a corporatist and treating them as people who deserve to rule us.

That's not equality, that's an outright ban.

[Machismo]

No it isn’t. Which person affected is prevented from donating to a campaign? Name one.

You just said PACs are gone forever.

[Machismo]

Right. All they do is allow individuals to exceed personal donation limits and push shit like the Tx abortion law you wish to prevent from ever happening. I’m talking solutions. And, remember, PACs aren’t people. I asked which people are prevented from making political donations?

So... a ban.

The Supreme Court would like to have a chat with you.

Of course, you could always oppose the laws, instead of all the corporatists in this thread who are defending them, and saying it's marketing.

[Machismo]

And with you. More so since you want to ban individuals from having their freedom of speech. You know, the ones actually protected by freedom of speech.

Wait, but you don't want to shit on liberty... How, contradictory. Weird.

Whose freedom of speech am I trying to ban?

[Machismo]

People. You said you want to stop them from shitting on liberty in that post. You know, the one where you said you want to stop them all? Which means no more voting I guess... IDK how that aligns, but that's your position. Do I need to link the post again?

So, you have nothing. Man, sucks to be you.

You can guess whatever the fuck you want, you've been wrong so many times, you've lost count.

I want to stop them, by opposing the shitty laws they are pushing. Man, get some sleep.

[PC2]

Nah, I'm good. Lucky for me, I actually understand how science and such things work.

I'm good too but I wasn't talking about you or me I was talking about the future of the libertarian and anarchist ideologies in general. Their success depends on various forms of improvement in society such as lower levels of violence and conflict and higher levels of education and economic prosperity. If you don't have a positive outlook on those things then I don't see how you could have a positive outlook on libertarianism. If things are getting worse people generally want security and not freedom.

[Machismo]

I'm good too but I wasn't talking about you or me I was talking about the future of the libertarian and anarchist ideologies in general. Their success depends on various forms of improvement in society such as lower levels of violence and conflict and higher levels of education and economic prosperity. If you don't have a positive outlook on those things then I don't see how you could have a positive outlook on libertarianism. If things are getting worse people generally want security and not freedom.

Nah, I'm good. I'll stick with science.

- - - Updated - - -

We were talking about ending influence in politics. I said I wanted to ban PACs and corp donations. You threw in the rest. Did you forget? Maybe the one who needs sleep isn't me...

You claim I oppose their freedom of speech, you came up empty. Meanwhile, you literally called for a ban, or "end forever."

I have no desire to stifle freedom of speech like you do.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd think he would get that considering he himself says his ideas aren't viable for over a century so his political goals differ from progressives and regressives.

And yet, I pointed to a single piece of legislation, and people couldn't even accept ending that.

Weird.

[Machismo]

You literally said you want to stop people from influencing politics through donations. You also say when I want to do that to not people it's opposing their freedom of speech. Seriously, go get some sleep.

By. Opposing. Their. Shitty. Laws.

No, I did not literally say what you claimed I said.

[Machismo]

You said they had to be stopped on top of what I wanted to be stopped. All of them. Your words. You're coming up empty.

Evidence for these claims, please.

[PC2]

Nah, I'm good. I'll stick with science.

Okay and what does science say about this topic?

[Machismo]

Okay and what does science say about this topic?

Science says to not listen to people who don't believe in science.

It also implies I shouldn't take advice from people who said they'd vote for Hitler.

[Machismo]

Already linked it. You added that we need to oppose the shitty laws they'd push absent that influence. I agree there. You even added a paragraph break to ensure it the separation was distinct. If that's not what you meant then I apologize, but how do you expect to oppose their shitty laws when PACs and Corps can afford to fund entire campaigns and you can't? You want to stop grass roots influencing AND people, so how are you going to both not exert influence AND oppose their shitty laws/regulations? Still no answer for this, last time asked before you admit you have nothing.

No you didn't. Jesus, I'm not opposing their fucking freedom of speech.

By. Opposing. Their. Shitty. Fucking. Laws.