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

[Endus]

Nah, I'm not the guy using the government to force things, that's you.

the offer is more liberty, more freedom to spend your own money, and less government intervention.

You clearly despise those things.

Is that really all you've got?

I ask you to just explain why we should agree with what you want, in a concrete and objective manner, and you resort to empty slander and lies?

Keep digging that hole. Sorry you didn't want the ladder out I offered.

[Machismo]

Ok. You're willing to capitalize on the pain and suffering of others. Not really shocked by this. Did you buy some of that depressed Flint property? We know they're going to get fresh new plumbing.

Nah, just bought a couple houses. One was an older person who simply wanted to sell their rental home, and the other was someone selling property to cover the second mortgage on their primary residence.

capitalism is fucking awesome.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that really all you've got?

I ask you to just explain why we should agree with what you want, in a concrete and objective manner, and you resort to empty slander and lies?

Keep digging that hole. Sorry you didn't want the ladder out I offered.

Liberty and more money in your pocket... yep, that's it.

Why do you hate the idea of both?

[Felya]

Nah, I'm not the guy using the government to force things, that's you.

If more individuals, who fear mongered the national debt, put their money where their mouth is... the debt would be smaller. But... for some reason... ya’ll are unwilling to pay addition taxes, to match your portion of the deficit. You get to eat your cake, by enjoying lower taxes than our spending, while also having it, by complaining how you as an individual are oppressed by the debt that you don’t pay.

[Endus]

Liberty and more money in your pocket... yep, that's it.

Why do you hate the idea of both?

I don't.

I fundamentally disagree that what you propose would produce either. That's why I'm asking you to explain yourself.

Edit: Or, perhaps I should clarify; I'm not interested in my pocket. I'm interested in our collective pockets, as a nation. Making myself rich at the expense of my fellow citizens is not something I see as "pro-liberty".

[Machismo]

If more individuals, who fear mongered the national debt, put their money where their mouth is... the debt would be smaller. But... for some reason... ya’ll are unwilling to pay addition taxes, to match your portion of the deficit. You get to eat your cake, by enjoying lower taxes than our spending, while also having it, by complaining how you as an individual are oppressed by the debt that you don’t pay.

let me know when they can balance a budget first. Otherwise, you're just pissing more money away into the hands of authoritarian asshats who want to force their grandchildren to pay for everything.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't.

I fundamentally disagree that what you propose would produce either. That's why I'm asking you to explain yourself.

That's the offer, you turned it down.

Sorry, you had the choice, and chose against liberty and more money in your pocket.

[Endus]

That's the offer, you turned it down.

Sorry, you had the choice, and chose against liberty and more money in your pocket.

What part of asking you to explain how it would produce the outcomes you claim is me "turning it down"?

You seriously can't explain yourself, at all, can you?

[Felya]

let me know when they can balance a budget first. Otherwise, you're just pissing more money away into the hands of authoritarian asshats who want to force their grandchildren to pay for everything.

Really? You are going to play the victim of national debt, while benefiting from the deficit... until they force you to pay more taxes by balancing the budget? Are you serious? lol

[Machismo]

What part of asking you to explain how it would produce the outcomes you claim is me "turning it down"?

You seriously can't explain yourself, at all, can you?

Do I need to explain what lowering the tax burden means?

If so, then we have a real serious problem.

Well, let's do it the easy way.

1) The government lowers taxes, therefore requiring you to give less of your income in taxes.

2) You pay less in taxes, so have more of your own money to spend.

Holy shit, that's all the steps.

[Felya]

You seriously can't explain yourself, at all, can you?

It’s all slogans...

[Machismo]

Really? You are going to play the victim of national debt, while benefiting from the deficit... until they force you to pay more taxes by balancing the budget? Are you serious? lol

Let's lower spending, as I've been saying.

Welcome to the conversation.

[Felya]

Do I need to explain what lowering the tax burden means?

Yes, because you are also arguing that your taxes being too low, is a burden on future generations.

Well, let's do it the easy way.

1) The government lowers taxes, therefore requiring you to give less of your income in taxes.

2) You pay less in taxes, so have more of your own money to spend.

Holy shit, that's all the steps.

No, you forgot one and the conclusion...

3) ???
—————-
Victory!!!

[Bodakane]

Nah, I'm not the guy using the government to force things, that's you.

the offer is more liberty, more freedom to spend your own money, and less government intervention.

You clearly despise those things.

Where is the government crippling you? I mean we all get that you'll never fully recover from the Tennessee whiskey regulation, but you're arguing as if there's 1000's and 1000's of unneeded regulations that are crushing businesses to death.

What are they?

[Ivanstone]

Nah, just bought a couple houses. One was an older person who simply wanted to sell their rental home, and the other was someone selling property to cover the second mortgage on their primary residence.

capitalism is fucking awesome.

All I see is someone complaining about the problem and then tries to make money off the same problem. Again, no one is shocked.

[Machismo]

He can, but if you go all the way to his conclusion you discover he doesn’t actually want any government. And he hates what that actually makes him.

Are you back to calling me an anarchist?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, because you are also arguing that your taxes being too low, is a burden on future generations.



No, you forgot one and the conclusion...

3) ???
—————-
Victory!!!

Nope, cut spending.

- - - Updated - - -

Where is the government crippling you? I mean we all get that you'll never fully recover from the Tennessee whiskey regulation, but you're arguing as if there's 1000's and 1000's of unneeded regulations that are crushing businesses to death.

What are they?

That has been explained. This is about more individual liberty.

[Endus]

Do I need to explain what lowering the tax burden means?

If so, then we have a real serious problem.

I know what it means.

I'm asking you to defend why you'd think it's better for everyone that we do so. So far, when I do, you just start insulting me for daring to ask.

Well, let's do it the easy way.

1) The government lowers taxes, therefore requiring you to give less of your income in taxes.

2) You pay less in taxes, so have more of your own money to spend.

Holy shit, that's all the steps.

Except now I have to consider all the programs I'm no longer benefiting from, or which are doing less to protect other citizens, as a result of your choice to reduce spending. Most of which are more cost-effective than any private alternative, to boot.

So I'm really not seeing the advantage, here. "More money in my wallet" is not a freebie. It comes at an identifiable cost, both directly and indirectly.

I know, silly me, actually giving a shit about my fellow citizens and their welfare.

[Machismo]

All I see is someone complaining about the problem and then tries to make money off the same problem. Again, no one is shocked.

If people are going to make stupid choices, I have no problem using it to my advantage. This is especially the case when they were warned for years about those stupid choices.

- - - Updated - - -

Corporatist. Please keep up. You want corporations to own our lives with zero government oversight.

So, do I, or do I not want government?

- - - Updated - - -

I know what it means.

I'm asking you to defend why you'd think it's better for everyone that we do so. So far, when I do, you just start insulting me for daring to ask.



Except now I have to consider all the programs I'm no longer benefiting from, or which are doing less to protect other citizens, as a result of your choice to reduce spending. Most of which are more cost-effective than any private alternative, to boot.

So I'm really not seeing the advantage, here. "More money in my wallet" is not a freebie. It comes at an identifiable cost, both directly and indirectly.

I know, silly me, actually giving a shit about my fellow citizens and their welfare.

I literally already explained it... more money, and more personal liberty.

Your hatred of those things is noted.

[Mayhem]

It's really not that complicated, just go by what I said, and not what you wished I had said. Nope. They get the same amount of money to spend for 5 straight years. The exact same dollar amount.

So that's a decrease then. The exact same amount will not buy the exact same stuff after even one year.

All of the revenue corporations will lose thanks to your brilliant idea will be very happy they have to take up the tab. How are you factoring in increased or decreased tax revenue? I mean an increase would probably go to paying off the debt, what happens when tax revenue decreases?

[Endus]

I literally already explained it... more money, and more personal liberty.

Your hatred of those things is noted.

You stated it by fiat.

I dispute that reducing the tax burden even produces those outcomes at all. You consistently ignore what that tax burden actually pays for.

This is why I asked earlier about what particular programs you felt should get cut down, specifically. A question you found so offensive of me to ask you resorted to similar insults in response. You really don't want to explain any of the details at all, do you? I'm not sure why you find that such a threat.

I was even willing to agree that some spending cuts, in certain areas, could absolutely make sense. But apparently, no, you just want to avoid any kind of detail or nuance, and insult anyone who tries to get into that with you.

[Machismo]

So that's a decrease then. The exact same amount will not buy the exact same stuff after even one year.

All of the revenue corporations will lose thanks to your brilliant idea will be very happy they have to take up the tab. How are you factoring in increased or decreased tax revenue? I mean an increase would probably go to paying off the debt, what happens when tax revenue decreases?

No, it's a decrease in purchasing power, not a decrease in actual spending.

f tax levels remain the same, then the only real reason for revenue to decrease, would be in a recession. And, over time, you see that GDP and revenues increase.

[Ivanstone]

If people are going to make stupid choices, I have no problem using it to my advantage. This is especially the case when they were warned for years about those stupid choices.

I wouldn't. Because I'm not an immoral sack of shit.

Then again I'm the guy who imports products from another country but refuses to use the fluctuating exchange rate as a means to make more money. I'm not out to bleed everyone dry.