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

[Machismo]

No, I asked for a primer on your ideology. Try to keep up.

I've explained it in great detail. As I also pointed out, I never really had named influences, and don't really read papers on the issue of libertarianism as a whole.

I answered that question a hundred pages ago.

[Machismo]

No, you haven't. If you could please provide a primer I'd appreciate it.

Do i literally need to repeat what I just said?

Very well.

I've explained it in great detail. As I also pointed out, I never really had named influences, and don't really read papers on the issue of libertarianism as a whole.

I answered that question a hundred pages ago.

[Machismo]

You also said Libertarianism is a rigid ideology. As such you must be able to point to ONE piece that could serve as a primer for someone when you refuse to answer their basic questions. Like who pays taxes to fund the government you support?

It is, by the tenets of what libertarianism is, as per the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/lib...anism-politics

[Machismo]

OK, that says there's multiple definitions depending on the libertarian. Which version do you subscribe to?

Well, I gladly provided you with the definition. There's not really much more that I can do for you.

Are you happily satisfied that my declaration that I support the existence of government, means that I'm not n anarchist?

[Machismo]

OK, that says there's multiple definitions depending on the libertarian. Which version do you subscribe to?

It's weird how you asked for sources, then when provided with two, you responded in less than a minute...

Enjoy!!!

- - - Updated - - -

I'll go with something based on that though, since you said it's what you subscribe to. Here's a libertarian debating his ideas:



- - - Updated - - -



Great, I gladly provided a PRIMER since you were unable to do so. Feel free to let me know if you disagree with the foremost expert, as per your source, on the subject.

You want me to watch a 54 minute video to see if I agree with it?

Nah, I think I'm good.

[Mayhem]

I'm not ultra-wealthy, that's the point.

Then you most likely will not be impacted.

You people keep searing it as a fact that the wealthy gain more from the government and society, but I have yet to see the hard numbers or methodology on it. The article you offered is about wealth inequality, not about the wealthy receiving more from the government. Do I need to remind you what you said?

Here, I've edited in the bolded part since you are unable to read past your own perception.

If you are willing to pay more, then you should have no problem taxing the people who make the same as you a higher rate in my country. But, you didn't do that, you called for the wealthy to cover the cost.

Dudemeister, our wealthy are also taxed higher than yours. I mean, what part of "overall higher tax rates" didn't you get? Of course, I'm starting where it has less impact on the person's life because that means also less impact on society and the market.

As for the numbers "I pulled out of my ass" those are the deficit numbers that were already presented in this thread. I pulled them out of the ass of the United States Government.

I thought we were talking about 2-3% to pay down the debt? No? Did you just move the goalpost midargument to score imaginary points?

As for me, I've proposed the government becoming more efficient, and maintaining the exact same spending levels for 5 straight years. That is a far smaller impact than raising taxes (some mystery amount) on the wealthy (who that is, you still haven't said). It's not just about paying off debt, it's about stopping the accrual of new debt, first. We haven't even gotten to the part about paying it off, because we're adding way ore debt than we're paying off.

No, you have proposed to halt spending increases and hope that the government becomes more efficient. Don't be mad at me because your numbers don't add up.

[Machismo]

Then you most likely will not be impacted.



Here, I've edited in the bolded part since you are unable to read past your own perception.



Dudemeister, our wealthy are also taxed higher than yours. I mean, what part of "overall higher tax rates" didn't you get? Of course, I'm starting where it has less impact on the person's life because that means also less impact on society and the market.



I thought we were talking about 2-3% to pay down the debt? No? Did you just move the goalpost midargument to score imaginary points?



No, you have proposed to halt spending increases and hope that the government becomes more efficient. Don't be mad at me because your numbers don't add up.

That's the thing, it's not just about my liberties, it's about theirs as well. You may not give a shit about them, but I do.

As for your claim, I copied you word for word, so don't blame me, because you cannot back up your bullshit.

That 2-3% per year was just to get closer to a balanced budget, and doesn't even get us to the point of paying down chunks of the +$20 trillion debt. That's how big of a fucking hole we're in. I'm not moving goalposts, this has been what i said all along.

My numbers do add up, and they were provided. You want the wealthy to just pay more... while not being willing to pay more yourself. I asked you how much more you'd be willing to pay, and you directed me back to your comment that the wealthy would pay for it.

So, if you care to tell me what country you live in, and what percentage of your total income goes into federal income tax (the comparison may be tough, because the United States also has SS taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. Surely, if it's more, then you should have no problem with those earning the same as you in this country paying more to meet that... right?

- - - Updated - - -

I read the first source, immediately ran into it talking about there being multiple forms that disagree with each other. Sorry that that is disturbing. The encyclopedia doesn't discuss the modern theory all that much and even says that Libertarians don't support politicians who are ostensibly libertarian. It's OK though, you can get to the walter block being demolished video at your convenience. It caused you lot to disown him because he made an ass of himself when he actually nutted up and answered the questions. You know, the ones you keep dodging.

You read 11k words, and also responded with your own comment in a minute?

Interesting.

I never claimed Block as an influence, so I have no reason to disown the dude. I barely know who he is.

Is this like the hour long videos of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson totes DESTROYING some progressive? I'll pass.

[Glorious Leader]

You’re misunderstanding. He’s saying it’s a new unique form of anarchism and was distinguishing it from other forms. The man was a proponent of anarchism his entire life. Hell, it’s why he and Ayn Rand were constantly at odds.

He was not a proponent of anarchism. Rothbard was actually in favor of a huge state mechanism to enforce property rights he just wanted it done privately.

- - - Updated - - -

All anarchism is fanciful. I’m not going to keep arguing this point after this, but claiming it’s not a form of anarchism is incorrect. The only other thing I have to add is it feels like Machismo may not be classifying his ideology correctly.

it is not anarchism. it is as far removed from anarchy as neo liberalism is. In fact its probably closer to neo liberalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really, and communism is even one of the early anarchists movements if anything. Ancaps are just a fancy name for extreme liberalism/libertarian that only exists on the internet.

Meanwhile Anarcho-communism dates back all the way to Marx and other anarchist movement to Anarchist philosophers of Marx's time(I.E Rosa)

- - - Updated - - -


They oppose the main principles on anarchism, its just a shitty attempt at internet libertarians to rebrand themselves.
Ancaps should try getting involved in european or even middle-eastern anarchist movements, we'll see how that'll go(Spoiler, really bad)



They are as far apart as ideologies can be. A corporate dystopia is very far removed from a society without an hierarchical structure.

The movement goes back to proudhon who is the father of all socialist and ultimately anarchist thought. Anarchism is rightly viewed as a part of the wider socialist movement. Indeed proudhon famously stated that all property was theft. How you can go from that to ancaps and still call them anarchist is orwellian levels of double think.

[Mayhem]

That's the thing, it's not just about my liberties, it's about theirs as well. You may not give a shit about them, but I do.

As for your claim, I copied you word for word, so don't blame me, because you cannot back up your bullshit.

No, you didn't. Stop lying. I mean, everyone but you can read.

That 2-3% per year was just to get closer to a balanced budget, and doesn't even get us to the point of paying down chunks of the +$20 trillion debt. That's how big of a fucking hole we're in. I'm not moving goalposts, this has been what i said all along.

Ok, so I am more ambitious than you are.

My numbers do add up, and they were provided. You want the wealthy to just pay more... while not being willing to pay more yourself. I asked you how much more you'd be willing to pay, and you directed me back to your comment that the wealthy would pay for it.

You never provided numbers for how many people would lose their job, how companies would be impacted. You presented a simple solution without ever talking about the consequences. Don't be mad if I do something you're doing all the fucking time. My solution just makes more sense despite being simple, because people wouldn't lose their job.

So, if you care to tell me what country you live in, and what percentage of your total income goes into federal income tax (the comparison may be tough, because the United States also has SS taxes, Medicare taxes, and others. Surely, if it's more, then you should have no problem with those earning the same as you in this country paying more to meet that... right?

Lol, we have universal healthcare and a bunch of other things you've probably never heard of.

Here are our countries compared to each other, go crazy:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries...ia/usa?sc=XE74

Do you want to know how good we are doing? People pay us to lend us money. We're reducing debt by borrowing money.

[Machismo]

No, you didn't. Stop lying. I mean, everyone but you can read.



Ok, so I am more ambitious than you are.



You never provided numbers for how many people would lose their job, how companies would be impacted. You presented a simple solution without ever talking about the consequences. Don't be mad if I do something you're doing all the fucking time. My solution just makes more sense despite being simple, because people wouldn't lose their job.



Lol, we have universal healthcare and a bunch of other things you've probably never heard of.

Here are our countries compared to each other, go crazy:
https://countryeconomy.com/countries...ia/usa?sc=XE74

Do you want to know how good we are doing? People pay us to lend us money. We're reducing debt by borrowing money.

You said:

The selfish argument is nonsense.

It is a fact that wealthy people benefit more from society and government spending, asking them to pay more than now, not even their fair share, just a bit more, to balance the budget is in no way selfish.

What's selfish is if you want others who can't provide more to pay the price for your gains.

You are fine with people losing their jobs and/or getting paid less just so you don't have to pay more in taxes and then have the guts to call those who think that's wrong, selfish.

And to argue, they'd fight it because they have the means to do so, is just giving up, not trying to make meaningful or lasting change.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't see a difference between what you're saying and what I am saying. I mean, they are in major parts polar opposite to each other.

I have asked for evidence how this is the case, and I cannot seem to find it. I have searched for quantifiable evidence that they do.

If you are "more ambitious" then you are impacting far more jobs than those you claim would be lost by simply freezing spending. The basis for jobs being lost... is your fucking argument, so the burden is on you. Feel free to provide it at your nearest convenience.

As for the national comparison, I love some of the start differences. But, that doesn't actually cover taxation and tax rates... which was the point of comparison. The section titled "Personal income tax for employees Austria vs United States comparison" is blank. Do you see anything in that section?

- - - Updated - - -

Your source did. Sorry you didn’t read your own sources first. Good luck!

I provided the definitions of the words, so that's not really my problem. I never cited that due as an influence, and have stated I barely know who he is.

[Mayhem]

You said:

Yeah, see how I wrote "society and government"? I then proceeded with how the wealthy profit more from society. I mean, if you can't connect the dots I am sorry, but why the fuck do I know more about how the funding of public shit and stuff works in your country than you do?

I have asked for evidence how this is the case, and I cannot seem to find it. I have searched for quantifiable evidence that they do.

Bullshit, if you'd have you'd find how public schools are funded and from that alone would've had your answer.

If you are "more ambitious" then you are impacting far more jobs than those you claim would be lost by simply freezing spending. The basis for jobs being lost... is your fucking argument, so the burden is on you. Feel free to provide it at your nearest convenience.

Yeah, because if people have to pay more taxes they also want to reduce their income on top of that. Right now you are in trickle-down bullshit territory, please don't tell me you believe that.

You want to reduce money spent by the government because apart from halting inflation and stopping births, freezing spending will lead to reduced spending, which in turn means people and companies get less. You know, less demand usually leads to job losses.

As for the national comparison, I love some of the start differences. But, that doesn't actually cover taxation and tax rates... which was the point of comparison. The section titled "Personal income tax for employees Austria vs United States comparison" is blank. Do you see anything in that section?

Do I have to click on links for you? Scroll down to taxes.

[Machismo]

Yeah, see how I wrote "society and government"? I then proceeded with how the wealthy profit more from society. I mean, if you can't connect the dots I am sorry, but why the fuck do I know more about how the funding of public shit and stuff works in your country than you do?



Bullshit, if you'd have you'd find how public schools are funded and from that alone would've had your answer.



Yeah, because if people have to pay more taxes they also want to reduce their income on top of that. Right now you are in trickle-down bullshit territory, please don't tell me you believe that.

You want to reduce money spent by the government because apart from halting inflation and stopping births, freezing spending will lead to reduced spending, which in turn means people and companies get less. You know, less demand usually leads to job losses.



Do I have to click on links for you? Scroll down to taxes.

So, you have no evidence that they benefit more from government? That's good enough for me, I'll take that retraction. If you cannot argue that they benefit more, then trying to argue they should be the ones to pay for it... falls on its face.

Once again, this is your claim, so the burden of evidence falls to you.

Yes, I do want less government... this has been something I have argued for a very long time. This shouldn't surprise you in any way.

To be clear, you think Americans earning the same should be paying more, so as to pay the same as you? I just want to be clear on that. Or, if they are paying the same, then, I go back to the question I asked you earlier, and that would be... how much more would you be willing to pay out of that very, very large sum? In the end, this either means you think people earning what you earn (I have no idea what that is) should pay more, or you get to answer my question. Either way, I'm happy!!!

Edit: I want to note that the top section of the comparison site did show up for me when I closed it 0out, and re-opened.

[Muzjhath]

You people keep searing it as a fact that the wealthy gain more from the government, but I have yet to see the hard numbers or methodology on it. The article you offered is about wealth inequality, not about the wealthy receiving more from the government. Do I need to remind you what you said?

So, no hard sources but some examples. Affluent people generally use roads and infrastructure more. This is a thing where they gain value.
If you run any form of business you benefit from infrastructure that brings you customers. Yes, the customers benefit as well, but you get compounded benefits.
Free primary education gives you a better educated work force, which is cheaper for you since you'll have a higher baseline of employees to employ. Instead of having to pay to train simple litteracy and counting. (Can be scaled up to include university and trade schooling). The induvidual gain, but so does absolutely someone running a business.

This is the nature of things where the wealthy and affluent gain more from the government than those down on their luck.
Food Stamps? Yes, lets poor people buy food at market prices. But it also inflates market prices and lets the wealthy set higher prices and make more money by being subsidised by the government.
And yes, here you could say "just remove them and the market will fix itself!" However history has shown that before any such fix would happen violence would happen. It's only possible to remove this kind of aid if you at the same time implement and enforce price controls or higher wages.

[Machismo]

So, no hard sources but some examples. Affluent people generally use roads and infrastructure more. This is a thing where they gain value.
If you run any form of business you benefit from infrastructure that brings you customers. Yes, the customers benefit as well, but you get compounded benefits.
Free primary education gives you a better educated work force, which is cheaper for you since you'll have a higher baseline of employees to employ. Instead of having to pay to train simple litteracy and counting. (Can be scaled up to include university and trade schooling). The induvidual gain, but so does absolutely someone running a business.

This is the nature of things where the wealthy and affluent gain more from the government than those down on their luck.
Food Stamps? Yes, lets poor people buy food at market prices. But it also inflates market prices and lets the wealthy set higher prices and make more money by being subsidised by the government.
And yes, here you could say "just remove them and the market will fix itself!" However history has shown that before any such fix would happen violence would happen. It's only possible to remove this kind of aid if you at the same time implement and enforce price controls or higher wages.

That's the problem, this is a claim that is littered with nothing more that guess work.

Shall we look at tax dollars being spent at the federal level? Since the biggest shares go to Social Security and Medicare, that doesn't seem like something that is heavily in favor of the wealthy. This is especially true, since business owners pay for half of all of that, the employees the other half.

The other big share is the Defense Budget. That's where some wealthy definitely benefit, mainly through huge government contracts. But, they pay corporate taxes, as well as income taxes.

All those other things are not going to the wealthy, but to everyone. Education being free at the primary level, is for everyone who receives that education. That's not some gift to the wealthy. The more education you include, the more that helps the people who are not wealthy, and goes against the narrative. The same goes for unemployment, welfare, and most of the rest, as far as I can tell.

That's the problem that I see, the claim just really doesn't hold water, when you look into it.

Edit: I want to specifically thank you for posing a reasonable argument that wasn't dripping with vitriol. Even though I disagree with the point you made, it is a valid argument.

[Muzjhath]

That's the problem, this is a claim that is littered with nothing more that guess work.

Shall we look at tax dollars being spent at the federal level? Since the biggest shares go to Social Security and Medicare, that doesn't seem like something that is heavily in favor of the wealthy. This is especially true, since business owners pay for half of all of that, the employees the other half.

The other big share is the Defense Budget. That's where some wealthy definitely benefit, mainly through huge government contracts. But, they pay corporate taxes, as well as income taxes.

All those other things are not going to the wealthy, but to everyone. Education being free at the primary level, is for everyone who receives that education. That's not some gift to the wealthy. The more education you include, the more that helps the people who are not wealthy, and goes against the narrative. The same goes for unemployment, welfare, and most of the rest, as far as I can tell.

That's the problem that I see, the claim just really doesn't hold water, when you look into it.

Edit: I want to specifically thank you for posing a reasonable argument that wasn't dripping with vitriol. Even though I disagree with the point you made, it is a valid argument.

I'll just counter the bold bit, since it's so outrageously wrong.
Employers having access to educated potential employes benefit them to crazy levels.
Imagine having only access to 5-10% of the US population with any advanced level of literacy. Imagine having to pay to educate anyone you want to employ unless they are from a rich enough background.

How doesn't public education benefit employers?

[Machismo]

I'll just counter the bold bit, since it's so outrageously wrong.
Employers having access to educated potential employes benefit them to crazy levels.
Imagine having only access to 5-10% of the US population with any advanced level of literacy. Imagine having to pay to educate anyone you want to employ unless they are from a rich enough background.

How doesn't public education benefit employers?

You are hitting on a major point, how difficult it is to quantify who benefits the most. That's why I questioned the statement that the wealthy benefitting more being a fact, as it is extremely difficult to prove.

I think the United States government has done a terrible disservice to the young people in this country, by not focusing on vocational training. I also think that life skills aren't really addressed. Of course, thats another conversation for a different day.

Circling back, I absolutely get the push to simply tax the wealthy to solve the problem. But, what that doesn't do, is give people an appreciation for how much things cost, and what "community" actually means. I don't begrudge the wealthy for having more. Not all wealthy people wear a top had and monocle, and hideously cackle at the idea of screwing over poor people.

The three wealthiest people I have personally known (that come to mind) are/were decent people. One was a rancher who worked his ass off until the week he died. He was worth over 50 million, and if you'd have met him, you'd think he was just another shit-kicking cowboy. Another was a small-town realtor, who didn't even know how wealthy he was. His wife gets to take credit for all of it. She scrimped and saved, and invested their money for years. One day, in their 60's she dropped the bomb on him, that they were richer than shit. The last was a girl whose family made her work at the restaurant that they owned, because they wanted to make sure she had work ethic. I had known her for 3 years (very loosely, knew the mom more), before I found out how much they were worth.

The bottom line, the wealthy are people, too.

[Alex Moriati]

libertarians are a danger to any society and should be classified as extremists and be locked up because their twisted ideology would lead to the deaths of millions, if not billions.

[Machismo]

Got it, you both don’t know what a primer is nor what you linked.

I simply linked the definitions.

[jonnysensible]

hey machismo all wealth belongs to society not individuals and all wealth is made by society not individuals.

[Machismo]

hey machismo all wealth belongs to society not individuals and all wealth is made by society not individuals.

If that's the case, then why do people only want some individuals to pay?

Or, if you're saying what's yours is mine... feel free to give up all your worldly possessions to society.