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

[Bodakane]

And there is the "creep" or the slippery slope, government will continue to increase in size and scope. This is what I oppose.

Here's the kicker, we're not paying for it... future generations are. It would be one thing to argue in defense of big government, if you could balance a fucking budget. But, that's too difficult, so the only answer is to stick your grandchilden with the bill.

Lol, believing this, in this day and age, is like believing getting under their school desk will protect children in a nuclear attack.

Government debt doesn't work like that. Never has.

[Machismo]

Oh boy...

How big is too big? Let's define this, shall we? How much growth is too much growth? Should governments not grow to adapt to new challenges presented as society continues to progress? Let's get some numbers, since you seemed very interested in those.



This is the Republican argument 101, and it's not remotely accurate. I hate doing this but like, Jon Oliver just did a great piece debunking this claptrap last week and it's worth a watch -





Not at all. The problem with balancing the budget primarily comes from Republicans who want to consistently slash revenues while increasing spending on things like corporate subsidies or pointless shit like the failed F-35 program, and then complain about Democrats come in and try to use that money for more productive and beneficial purposes (both individually and societally) like improving education or roads or building a social safety net - all things that studies routinely show have huge value-add benefits over time.

That being said, budgets don't even really need to be balanced. There's no magical "you're fucked" threshold. Economists though that existed but apparently, surprisingly, there is no magical threshold where when you pass it you suddenly financially collapse.

It is accurate, we are literally going into debt to pay for it... and have been going deeper into debt for generations now.

The GOP are huge hypocrites on this issue, and it's why I stopped supporting them. But, the Democrats have zero desire to actually balance a budget. This isn't just about financial collapse, but about WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT ALL.

So, how much more are you willing to personally pay per year to have government do all the things it currently does?

The issue with government, is that it so rarely gets smaller. People want it to grow, but don't want to pay for it. They want it to do more, but want someone else to foot the fucking bill.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, believing this, in this day and age, is like believing getting under their school desk will protect children in a nuclear attack.

Government debt doesn't work like that. Never has.

At some point, that debt will come due. At some point, the United States will no longer be able to borrow against their own children and grandchildren's futures.

[Edge-]

At some point, that debt will come due. At some point, the United States will no longer be able to borrow against their own children and grandchildren's futures.

Do you honestly think this is some like...lump sum we'll be paying? A minority of US debt is foreign owned, and it can continue to be paid off over time. The debt is due, and being paid for as we accumulate more debt. That's how this works.

Why do folks talk about the debt as if some burly guy with a long beard and a really tacky Hummer is gonna role up to folks homes and start demanding money before he breaks your kids kneecaps?

[Machismo]

Do you honestly think this is some like...lump sum we'll be paying? A minority of US debt is foreign owned, and it can continue to be paid off over time.

Why do folks talk about the debt as if some burly guy with a long beard and a really tacky Hummer is gonna role up to folks homes and start demanding money before he breaks your kids kneecaps?

No, it's not going to be a lump sum... it will be payments on interest, and an increase in debt accrued over time. It will eventually mean entities will stop loaning that money.

Then what?

[Edge-]

No, it's not going to be a lump sum... it will be payments on interest, and an increase in debt accrued over time. It will eventually mean entities will stop loaning that money.

Then what?

We're already making interest payments now, and debt is extremely cheap right now given the insanely low interest rates. John Oliver covers this in a lot more detail, again I highly recommend you watch the video.

Who's gonna stop loaning the US money though? Most US debt isn't even foreign owned yo.

[Bodakane]

At some point, that debt will come due. At some point, the United States will no longer be able to borrow against their own children and grandchildren's futures.

You don't know what you're talking about. You hear the word "debt", search your brain for what it means to you, and then pass judgement on it. Its like when people think "theory" in science is the same as layman "theory".

[Machismo]

We're already making interest payments now, and debt is extremely cheap right now given the insanely low interest rates. John Oliver covers this in a lot more detail, again I highly recommend you watch the video.

Who's gonna stop loaning the US money though? Most US debt isn't even foreign owned yo.

Most of it is privately-owned debt. And yes, at some point, the United States will be too toxic to loan money to. At some point, those institutions will deem us unable to continue to pay that interest, and will simply walk away.

[Edge-]

Most of it is privately-owned debt. And yes, at some point, the United States will be too toxic to loan money to. At some point, those institutions will deem us unable to continue to pay that interest, and will simply walk away.

What point? You've been hammering us demanding specifics, so why not do the same? How much is "too much"? When will countries stop loaning to the US?

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...the republicans put everyone in debt to pay the wealthy for nothing, and democrats typically end up balancing the budget after fixing republican crap.
The shitty complaints about debt at this time is nothing but bullshit...

[Shadowferal]

What point? You've been hammering us demanding specifics, so why not do the same? How much is "too much"? When will countries stop loaning to the US?

Oh good luck with that! If I learned anything from from the futility from arguing with self-described libertarians is they have nothing of substance to what amounts to nothing more than a simpke belief system. One in which they lack any conviction in.

[Machismo]

You don't know what you're talking about. You hear the word "debt", search your brain for what it means to you, and then pass judgement on it. Its like when people think "theory" in science is the same as layman "theory".

Nope, I'm well aware of what government debt is.

- - - Updated - - -

So you have no health insurance... right?

Of course I do, as that is a voluntary action. Problem solved.

- - - Updated - - -

What point? You've been hammering us demanding specifics, so why not do the same? How much is "too much"? When will countries stop loaning to the US?

For me, any is too much... because that debt slides to the next group in line. I feel no need to saddle future generations with my debt.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmf...the republicans put everyone in debt to pay the wealthy for nothing, and democrats typically end up balancing the budget after fixing republican crap.
The shitty complaints about debt at this time is nothing but bullshit...

Republicans are also terrible with debt, which is why I'm not a Republican.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, the mythical “some point”. You deserve an award for this economic thesis.

- - - Updated - - -



When we embrace a libertarian president.

Are you under the belief that we can simply continue expanding the debt at this exponential rate forever?

[Machismo]

It’s only semi-voluntary. You don’t get any say in who they pay for when you pay into that pool. And it’s far more expensive than socializing medicine. Why are you so invested in paying more for basic needs?

It is voluntary, because I san simply pick a different insurance company.

Hey, if you want socialized medicine, be my guest. I hope you and your fellow buddies all do it, and enjoy the shit out of it. I simply oppose you trying to force anyone to do it, against their will.

[Machismo]

All insurance companies operate the same way, you get no say in how they spend the money you’re paying to cover other people’s costs. It’s weird how you keep doing this “force against their will” thing yet do support doing that to at least some degree. Not surprising, just weird that you don’t see the hypocrisy.

Nope, one is a voluntary transaction, the other involves government force. I'm fine with shared risk as a financial decision. I'm not fine with it as a forced edict.

That's like saying setting money aside in a mutual fund is the same as Social Security.

Here's a hint... it's not.

[Endus]

Nope, one is a voluntary transaction, the other involves government force.

So, you're against rule of law in all things, then?

Because law cannot be enforced outside of the use of "government force".

If you do agree that rule of law should exist, then you acknowledge the government has a mandate to use force on the behalf of the citizenry, and your entire house of cards on this point collapses.

Or you don't, in which case you're agreeing that anyone should be able to just walk into your house, kill you and your family, and take up residence, and that's cool, no worries brah.

Edit: For clarity, what you are doing is stating a universal maxim ("Government force is bad"), and decrying taxation solely on the basis that it violates that principle.

If that argument works for taxation, it works for rule of law, all of it, even down to the simple ones like rape, murder, and robbery. You'd have to oppose such laws, because they require the use of government force, and, as above, "government force is bad".

The moment you acknowledge that some government force is acceptable, you can't keep trying to make use of the "government force is bad" maxim; you've admitted that maxim is wrong, in your own views. You would have to specify why any particular use of force is "bad", on its own merits and within context, and without trying to fall back on a maxim you don't actually believe to be true, because doing so would be blatant dishonesty.

[Machismo]

So, you're against rule of law in all things, then?

Because law cannot be enforced outside of the use of "government force".

If you do agree that rule of law should exist, then you acknowledge the government has a mandate to use force on the behalf of the citizenry, and your entire house of cards on this point collapses.

Or you don't, in which case you're agreeing that anyone should be able to just walk into your house, kill you and your family, and take up residence, and that's cool, no worries brah.

Edit: For clarity, what you are doing is stating a universal maxim ("Government force is bad"), and decrying taxation solely on the basis that it violates that principle.

If that argument works for taxation, it works for rule of law, all of it, even down to the simple ones like rape, murder, and robbery. You'd have to oppose such laws, because they require the use of government force, and, as above, "government force is bad".

The moment you acknowledge that some government force is acceptable, you can't keep trying to make use of the "government force is bad" maxim; you've admitted that maxim is wrong, in your own views. You would have to specify why any particular use of force is "bad", on its own merits and within context, and without trying to fall back on a maxim you don't actually believe to be true, because doing so would be blatant dishonesty.

Nope, this is just you lying... again.

[Machismo]

You support governmental force though. You’ve said so explicitly.

Yes, I do support the existence of government, and the use of governmental force. I simply support far less use than you do.

As has been stated numerous times, it should only be used to restrict and punish actions that harm others.

[Machismo]

Right, I support using it to maximize the benefit to society and you support maximizing the benefit to those who are wealthy.

Nope... this is you also lying.

I support the maximizing of individual liberty .

Or, do I get to say you support using it to punish the wealthy people you despise so much?

[Endus]

Nope, this is just you lying... again.

You keep saying this, and you're never able to explain what's incorrect or dishonest. Never.

[Machismo]

No, you support the rich having access to basic services while the poor are left to die. Want a basic example? See Texas for infrastructure. See Covid for healthcare. See a burning house for public services.

You support theft and punishing people, just because they have something you don't. You want to stifle individual liberty in favor of the Motherland.

See Stalinist USSR for an example.

Are you done with this idiotic charade?

- - - Updated - - -

You keep saying this, and you're never able to explain what's incorrect or dishonest. Never.

It's your lie, and it's your straw man. I stated many, many times that I'm not going to entertain your bullshit.

Your leading question wss an attempt to push the lie, so I stopped reading right there.

[Machismo]

See every other first world nation to counter everything you just claimed. Weird how they all do better at things like healthcare and education with public funding than we do with your preferred system.

- - - Updated - - -



No, you keep claiming words don’t mean what they mean. There’s a difference. And when it’s proven you’e gaslighting you just ignore it and move on.

Nope, In not the one claiming that refusing to pay for all the shit you want is me harming you.