AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Who would you vote for?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Bernie Sanders

  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok so I can see that my particular political stance is unwelcome. Apparently it's trolling to simply state it. I'm going to remove myself from this discussion now.

I may or may not agree with your particular political views but I will defend to my last breath your right to have those views. If you truly believe in something then good for you, there's no reason you should feel compelled to keep quiet; all I'll ask from you is reasonable, well-thought debate vis a vis political discourse. I see no reason you should remove yourself from this discussion.
 
I may or may not agree with your particular political views but I will defend to my last breath your right to have those views. If you truly believe in something then good for you, there's no reason you should feel compelled to keep quiet; all I'll ask from you is reasonable, well-thought debate vis a vis political discourse. I see no reason you should remove yourself from this discussion.

Ok, here is what you seem to not quite understand. I say this because, I mean, you seem sincere and all, but you have to understand that whenever folks like Espi or I step up to question the basis for voting, or the system, this isn't the response we get. Namely, the entire premise that what is sought is 'reasonable, well-thought debate' really goes out the window, particularly when folks seem to be really opposed to questioning the system at all.

Because, as is, most political discourse is a person on the right and a person on the left playing tug of war. When someone comes along and points out that the rope is tied into nooses around peoples necks, and they're just strangling folks as they struggle, they're not entirely inclined to listen, because that means they have to both realize they're hurting folks, and also they get caught up in the idea that if they let go, they 'lose.'

For a lot of folks, this gets tedious to point things out and get hostile reactions constantly, despite the words of how open folks claim to be for discourse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osmia
So. Anybody not to busy in the left/right argument to help me look for flaws in this?

Sure can!

The very first point is inherently contradictory. They state folks should have 'a say' in things that effect them AND that they "should not be subject to the will of another." These are inherently contradictory to their support for democracy. Either folks should not be subject to the will of another, in which case democracy is no better than any other form of justification to impose upon folks, or democracy is totally good and folks having 'a say' apparently allows their will to be subverted if they don't win a vote. This is the fundamental flaw of democracy on a conceptual level. This will also be a running trend of their ten things being basically buzzwords with no substance and plenty of contradiction.

They then move on to Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, which are also contradictory buzzwords. For one, social justice is a non-term, it is nonsense. To quote F.A. Hayek, the term is as valid as 'a moral stone.' More fully, "There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'." Further, this does not at all speak about 'equal opportunity' as generally conceived, but rather that folks have a right to certain allotments of resources, which are "afforded us by society and the environment." Of course, this is nonsense. Resources are not 'afforded' by 'society' (which does not exist,) nor 'the environment' which has no will and affords no one anything they don't put effort into obtaining. In short, point two is nonsense.

This point also builds on the first in showing the collectivization inherent in the platform, rather than a focus on individuals. Even when lip service is paid to the individual (ie: should not be subject to the will of another,) it is nothing more than a cover for the much longer talk on how great democracy is, how society is what matters, and how we must recognize injustice in terms of groups, rather than individuals being subject to injustices.

Then we get into Ecological Wisdom, which again enters into contradictions. It starts off talking about how we must recognize we are 'part of nature,' not separate, and then turns around and talks about 'ecological balance' and living 'within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet.' Many questions come from this. First off, species do not seek to live in ecological balance. Species seek to exploit as much as they can, and balance is an emergent phenomenon, not even truly real. If we are part of nature and not separate, than anything we do is inherently 'natural' by its, well, nature. The irony is this entire argument premises that we are NOT part of nature and must instead BECOME part of nature. There is nothing wrong with sustainability, yet the contradictions rise so quickly when they say we must "live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems," which implies our actions are outside natural systems, which implies we are not part of nature. It also seems to think nature is somehow in stasis, rather than a constantly fluctuating system.

I also suspect that their support for an 'energy efficient economy' doesn't actually mean high-tech energy sources, but rather support for highly inefficient energy methods. IE: they're likely implying wind farms and solar, rather than nuclear and other methods which are significantly more 'efficient.'

They then go into 'non-violence,' which sounds nice, yet they seem to speak nothing but platitudes "we need to demilitarize, but we can't forget other countries are not going to buy into our system, and we promote 'non-violent methods' and want to work towards 'lasting global peace' but ignore that if you have nothing to back up your points with, everyone is just going to run roughshod over you.

Then it gets into decentralization, and it's not TOTALLY wrong that centralization of power and money causes issues, but seems to want to place the blame anywhere but the very things they are espousing. They say they want a 'more democratic' society, yet 'less bureaucratic.' Well, that simply isn't possible in any sort of scale. They claim that they want decision making to be at the individual and local level, yet the rest of their platform necessitates a strong, centralized power to dictate these things.

And then they just go full socialist/communist and I completely check out of their retrograde economic and social policies, where they explicitly talk about wanting to redefine the meaning of words like "work" and "job" and "income," and then go into even more full contradictory mode in talking about restricting economic activities and redefining what work actually means while somehow also not restricting innovation, and yet somehow respecting individual rights still too, mind you. To say nothing of the massive contradiction of talking about wanting to "restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy," which makes no sense. The use of the terms income, wealth, and monetary make it clear they're talking about one thing, yet they imply wealth created 'outside' this must be recognized... yet that doesn't make sense, by its nature, it's not recognized in an income or monetary way because it actually isn't creating the wealth you think it is, in the way you think it is. What this basically amounts to is socialism and redistribution, and is full of even more contradictions and at this point I'm basically just done.

I'll touch on that they invoke feminism without at all recognizing how vague as fuck that is, and contradict themselves by talking about replacing cultural ethics here yet in the NEXT ITEM talk about respecting and valuing cultural ethics and the like. Of course, they also imply that there is a cultural ethic of domination and control at play which is entirely missing the point, to say nothing of how inherently dangerous this idea that you can just 'replace' culture that way, and still not recognizing the contradiction in saying they want to value diversity and preserve cultures yet then turn around and talk about reshaping culture too. Also, I feel is hopelessly reductive when they start by saying we have 'inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics,' yet women are both the majority of voters, considered a political bloc on par with an ethnic group, and also have a majority control of spending power in the west as well, meaning this apparently is very odd in defining what 'male domination' actually means. It's almost as if this is an extremely complex system far removed from something so simple as a broken Marxist "oppressed/oppressor" dynamic.

Honestly, this entire thing is just rife with contradictions, platitudes, and a mix of reductionist and regressive silliness.
 
Honestly, this entire thing is just rife with contradictions, platitudes, and a mix of reductionist and regressive silliness.
Excellent! So if Bernie doesn't get back in it, the Green Party it is!
Had my fill of Libertarians.
 
Hardly surprised, you're an avowed authoritarian. You being opposed to liberty is pretty much expected.
I am not opposed to liberty. I want all of it that I can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JickyJuly
Ok so I can see that my particular political stance is unwelcome. Apparently it's trolling to simply state it. I'm going to remove myself from this discussion now.

Don't let face palms get you down. Being an Anarchist is tough. I say this with zero sarcasm. I don't call myself that, but I like a lot of the ideas. I think if people weren't so quick to judge, there's a lot that could be learned from thinking about those ideas.

http://www.gp.org/four_pillars_10_kv

So. Anybody not to busy in the left/right argument to help me look for flaws in this?

This looks like it has come straight out of a social worker's hand book, except replace "Ecological Wisdom" with Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Model. I totally like all these "values" and they align with my personal values in many ways but the cynic in me is like, never gonna happen! But that hasn't stopped me from voting NDP and Green in Canada.

The Community Based Economics idea is really cool, I think. I've been reading about cooperative business models and some coops have been around for years and years. Seems like a sustainable model for individual businesses but I am really surprised to see it on a national platform.

I guess that's my 2 cents.
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
Ok, here is what you seem to not quite understand. I say this because, I mean, you seem sincere and all, but you have to understand that whenever folks like Espi or I step up to question the basis for voting, or the system, this isn't the response we get. Namely, the entire premise that what is sought is 'reasonable, well-thought debate' really goes out the window, particularly when folks seem to be really opposed to questioning the system at all.

Because, as is, most political discourse is a person on the right and a person on the left playing tug of war. When someone comes along and points out that the rope is tied into nooses around peoples necks, and they're just strangling folks as they struggle, they're not entirely inclined to listen, because that means they have to both realize they're hurting folks, and also they get caught up in the idea that if they let go, they 'lose.'

For a lot of folks, this gets tedious to point things out and get hostile reactions constantly, despite the words of how open folks claim to be for discourse.

Honorable people can have an honest discussion without ever agreeing on points. The problems exists when people either don't or won't enter into such discussions with an open mind and automatically go into attack mode, it happens on all sides of the spectrum. How can you talk to someone who won't so much as listen? You can't, the only thing you can do is walk away less one thinks you're an idiot and to stand there arguing as such, well, one may very well be an idiot. But it also can come back to honorable people being civil to each other and just not being able to reach an agreement; I'd rather be in the party of the latter than the former.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mila_ and SoTxBob
Has anyone seen the recently released 'documentary' called "Clinton Cash"?
All I will say is I had no idea.... I find myself in disbelief they aren't both in jail long ago.

I've gotten to watch it in pieces here and there. I haven't taken the time to sit through the whole thing yet, it makes a lot of sense.
Does anyone believe they remain married because their love is so strong and has stood the test of time? I believe they remain married, not only for political purposes, but because they both know where too many bodies are and won't have to testify against each other in court lol.

I'll never understand how people who won't leave their doors unlocked blindly trust politicians. Most of them strike me to be the biggest sociopaths there are.

Dear high speed internet and clinton soldiers, please don't crash me when I post this. K Thanks.
 
.......remain married because their love is so strong and has stood the test of time?

LMFAO... Thanks I needed a good laugh today. I'd guess they have a mutual arrangement to stay together for the $$$ and in her case, the hunger for power. I'd also be completely surprised if they slept in the same bed. [She doesn't seem like the type of person that even likes sex.]
 
I am not opposed to liberty. I want all of it that I can get.

Of course, but you seem intent on limiting it when others get it.

Honorable people can have an honest discussion without ever agreeing on points. The problems exists when people either don't or won't enter into such discussions with an open mind and automatically go into attack mode, it happens on all sides of the spectrum. How can you talk to someone who won't so much as listen? You can't, the only thing you can do is walk away less one thinks you're an idiot and to stand there arguing as such, well, one may very well be an idiot. But it also can come back to honorable people being civil to each other and just not being able to reach an agreement; I'd rather be in the party of the latter than the former.

This implies there are plenty of honorable people to go around. And sort of my point is that, frankly, most folks aren't entering into it with an open mind, hence why the debate seems always left-right, rather than in the liberty/authority axis.
 
Hardly surprised, you're an avowed authoritarian. You being opposed to liberty is pretty much expected.
Not a fair assessment. Plenty of people believe in freedom and do not agree with the Libertarians. I could NEVER vote Libertarian based on the fact that they want to eliminate social programs for EVERYONE and business regulations. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if OSHA, minimum wage, public schools etc. are taken away and the disabled folks are left to fend for themselves, we'll be a country filled with more poverty and misery than ever.
 
Not a fair assessment. Plenty of people believe in freedom and do not agree with the Libertarians. I could NEVER vote Libertarian based on the fact that they want to eliminate social programs for EVERYONE and business regulations. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if OSHA, minimum wage, public schools etc. are taken away and the disabled folks are left to fend for themselves, we'll be a country filled with more poverty and misery than ever.

It's an entirely fair assessment from not just this thread, but others I've been in with him.

Incidentally, I'm not libertarian in the party sense, but in the sense I am a person who values liberty. Further, your premise that they (ie: the party) 'want to eliminate social programs and business regulations' clashes with your idea that you 'believe in freedom,' which apparently means you believe in freedom but not freedom of association, freedom from coercive theft of property, etc.

You seem to think that the idea that because folks don't want the state to do something, that means they don't want it done. When in reality, the entire argument is that the state is horrible at this and can only do them via violence and theft, and private entities do them better. Your claim it 'doesn't take a genius' is an implicit statement that if someone disagrees, they must be an idiot. Which is nice.

But it's also wrong.
 
Not a fair assessment. Plenty...
By his definition, I am an authoritarian. And so are you, unless you are willing to agree that government has absolutely no useful role to play in society. I myself am quite dissatisfied with the role government is playing now; but I am not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I wouldn't waste my time with Chuckles if I were you, unless paucity of thought, tedious dialogue, and word games amuse you. The poor boy has been thoroughly indoctrinated, and has yet to realize it.

He has spoken of living in an enclave based upon his what-could-possibly-go-wrong notions. I suggest we let him try, maybe send a US Rep. down to Guyana to check on him periodically to see how he is doing.
 
By his definition, I am an authoritarian. And so are you, unless you are willing to agree that government has absolutely no useful role to play in society. I myself am quite dissatisfied with the role government is playing now; but I am not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

No, not by 'my definition,' by simple logic. As in, by the logical definition of the term. You believe in a centralized state with the power to tax, regulate, and control. This is not a debate over if the state has a useful role or not, the point is you have avowed a disregard of individual rights several times time over, and a support for centralized empowered authority.

You're an authoritarian. Own it.

I wouldn't waste my time with Chuckles if I were you, unless paucity of thought, tedious dialogue, and word games amuse you. The poor boy has been thoroughly indoctrinated, and has yet to realize it.

See, the funny thing is, you throw out this stuff, about it being 'tedious' and 'word games' but the fact is you have stubbornly refused to engage in any sort of dialogue or rational debate. I've made direct challenges, all of which you've stubbornly dodged. You argue I've been 'indoctrinated' yet I've laid out arguments for every point I've made, something you've stubbornly refused to even respond to.

You are not nearly as clever as you think you are. In reality, you're projecting, given you're accuse me of being short on thought, tedious, and playing word games, yet lets actually go over our 'interactions,' if we can call them that, and see who is the one who seems not to want to actually ever back up what they say, who tries to play clever with wordplay over substance, and so on.
 
  • Funny!
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
You're an authoritarian. Own it.
I own it. I believe there is an absolute need for authority. I do not believe in blind submission to it. If this involves the expense of personal freedoms, my opinion on that depends on the nature of the freedoms.

F*ck red and blue ya'll. Lets go green.

imggreen.png
 
your premise that they (ie: the party) 'want to eliminate social programs and business regulations' clashes with your idea that you 'believe in freedom,' which apparently means you believe in freedom but not freedom of association, freedom from coercive theft of property, etc.
I value freedom and making sure severely disabled folks can live with dignity, making sure children can read whether they have parents who want to pay for them to go to school or not, ensuring that humans have food independent of whether their parents are working etc. The Libertarian plan is to move these weights onto family and charity. Taking away OSHA and other social programs will ensure that wealthy people will stay wealthy and the rest of us will have children who sew soccer balls and give whatever we can to people who are even worse off.
Your claim it 'doesn't take a genius' is an implicit statement that if someone disagrees, they must be an idiot. Which is nice.
It's not thought through. Lazy thinking. Idiot is fine too I guess, but not that creative and not a way to keep a conversation going. I'd rather care about my community than just word things nicely.
 
I love all of the free* roads I get to drive around on, all of the free* putting fires out the fire department does, and the free* education I was given as a child. It's nice to have social programs to meet basic needs to function properly in a society, and so that poor people aren't all illiterate and on fire, yeah?

*It's not even technically free. Because taxpayers pay for those things.

As someone who has worked as an independent contractor, I don't see difference between me paying taxes and me giving a cut of my earnings to the avenue through which I was able to do work. For instance, someone working on MFC doesn't make any money on MFC without the site itself existing. Likewise, most jobs require the worker to have obtained at least a high school diploma (usually courtesy of the public school system), most jobs require you to go to a physical place of work (usually via roads provided by the government), and workplaces are required to give their workers safe work environments (handled by various regulatory agencies funded by tax dollars.) I owe the fact that I am even capable of going out and making money to government programs that provide opportunities for people who wouldn't have opportunities otherwise.

Private entities cannot provide those things to everyone. For instance, there is a really tiny apartment below where I live, and in that apartment, lives a guy who is mentally ill and basically completely incapable of taking care of himself fully. He has housing assistance, a nice lady who is paid by the government to help him take care of himself through the week, and probably other assistance as well because he doesn't work. He doesn't have any family from what I can tell, and honestly, even with all of the help he gets, he doesn't have much at all. The programs he benefits from are the only thing standing between him and being on the street, and I don't give one flying fuck if people think he deserves that, because nobody deserves that. What services are there for people like him if not for the government? Putting that pressure on philanthropic groups and charity workers is ridiculous, and frankly, stands in stark contrast to the capitalism that libertarians tend to idealize. Without those social programs, the rest of the world throws people like my neighbor away to die. I grew up in a place (not saying where) that had so few social programs for the homeless and mentally handicapped, that one winter, a friend of mine found the frozen corpse of a mentally ill homeless man while she was doing something as basic as playing outside her house. I will give up certain liberties to ensure that there is as little chance as possible that I have to worry about my children finding the decaying remains of our society's forgotten people.

That's where I'm at on the topic of Libertarian ideas. I like some of their ideas. I want us to not go to war like we do, I like the idea of decriminalizing drugs (however, I'm more in the boat of "legalize and regulate" and on the regulation part, they fall short), I like that Libertarians were overwhelmingly in favor of letting gay people have the right to get married, etc. All of that is cool until you have to deal with the fact that we would all, rich "cream rises to the top" people included, would be severely inconvenienced without social programs to keep our poor safe.
 
I value freedom and making sure severely disabled folks can live with dignity, making sure children can read whether they have parents who want to pay for them to go to school or not, ensuring that humans have food independent of whether their parents are working etc. The Libertarian plan is to move these weights onto family and charity. Taking away OSHA and other social programs will ensure that wealthy people will stay wealthy and the rest of us will have children who sew soccer balls and give whatever we can to people who are even worse off.

It's not thought through. Lazy thinking. Idiot is fine too I guess, but not that creative and not a way to keep a conversation going. I'd rather care about my community than just word things nicely.

The fact your premise relies on emotional appeals and scare tactics doen't bode well.

So, yes, you are for government force and theft, then? Making sure we're all on the same page here: you are totally cool with theft and violence, as long as it is in the service of the stuff you like.

Incidentally, no, even now in our current society, wealth is transient. Most folks don't 'remain' wealthy at all, it doesn't last more than a generation. Further, the vast majority of the issue in wealth disparity is due to government intervention and regulation of the market. Reduction in government power would do wonders to resolve wealth disparity issues.

It's not thought through. Lazy thinking. Idiot is fine too I guess, but not that creative and not a way to keep a conversation going. I'd rather care about my community than just word things nicely.

This doesn't make it better. You're basically just saying that somehow my position is not 'thought through.' Actually, it's because I through through the implications of what your position supports as to why I oppose it. You are basically just preemptively dismissing the challenge without consideration.
 
Until 3rd parties consistently succeed in winning at the local and state level, across the board, in all 50 States, they will only be seen as a novelty or nuisance.
That's one thing that kept me loyal to the right, then the left.

But imagine if a large number of people decided to vote 3rd party this election. That in itself could cause a shakeup, get people talking about options. The 2 parties have absolutely dominated the conversation for too long.

I'm not kidding myself that it will ever happen. Voted 3rd party one time, was pretty hard for me personally to set aside the idea that doing it was just enabling the worse party to win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlairLuxe
It's an entirely fair assessment from not just this thread, but others I've been in with him.

Incidentally, I'm not libertarian in the party sense, but in the sense I am a person who values liberty. Further, your premise that they (ie: the party) 'want to eliminate social programs and business regulations' clashes with your idea that you 'believe in freedom,' which apparently means you believe in freedom but not freedom of association, freedom from coercive theft of property, etc.

You seem to think that the idea that because folks don't want the state to do something, that means they don't want it done. When in reality, the entire argument is that the state is horrible at this and can only do them via violence and theft, and private entities do them better. Your claim it 'doesn't take a genius' is an implicit statement that if someone disagrees, they must be an idiot. Which is nice.

But it's also wrong.

I wasn't going to touch this because it bores me to tears, but I will just so you don't think that if people don't engage you it must be because they are autoritarians incapable of using their imagination to challenge the current system. The fact that I am not a lolbertarian doesn't mean I haven't carefully considered every one of your arguments.

The thing is I considered myself a libertarian about 6 or 7 years ago. And then realized that it is one of those ideas that looks pretty cool on paper and makes you sound smart but it is based on an incomplete, reductionist view of humanity. If implemented, the libertarian dream (especially the an-cap dream really) will make civilized society break down. Most libertarians eventually make it to this realization on their own, which is why the majority grow out of this phase by the time they reach 30. Hence the fedora tipping meme. We use it to laugh at people like an-caps and atheists because they think they are being incredibly smart and usually are just inexperienced.

1380697092809.jpg

How do you reach this conclusion? Why do I believe libertarianism is a reductionist view of society? Because many libertarians and every an-cap I have met believe that individuals exist in a vacuum. They also believe that the sum of everyone's self interest will somehow produce an organized and healthy society on its own. They completely fail to see that humans are double-natured. Man has an individual dimension (like dogs or gorillas for example) and they do act on it about half the time, but we also have a communal dimension (like bees and ants) that seek to form highly complex societies in which the individuals get lost. To a libertarian that second dimension is interpreted as an infringement on the individual liberties, since communities do require individuals suppress their individuality in favor of the community sometimes. And doing so allows us to organize and create incredibly complex and successful societies.

Libertarians also believe transactions are not affected by customs and traditions. They believe the only one that can oppress people is the State. In reality people can oppress other people without the State's intervention. The State is useful in those cases as it will act as a barrier to guarantee that one person cannot take advantage of another. Another example of this selective blindness comes with customs. Libertarians don't see custom as an important factor within society. It is what makes them think that "two people can agree voluntarily on a contract, if you don't like it, don't sign it! but why make the State interfere and remove freedoms for the people?". The problem here is you don't understand customs shape interactions every single time, and some customs are incredibly unfair to the point that sometimes the State must regulate them. Same thing happens with power imbalance. To give you an example of this, people who own property have an advantage over people who do not. Everyone needs to live somewhere so landlords tend to have the upper hand. In most states in the US the custom is that the landlord will ask for 1st month, last month, and security deposit. Meaning that you have to give them 3 full months in order to be able to move into the apartment. Then, he can show the apartment to whomever he wants while you are renting it and he can even use his key to enter your apartment while you aren't there as long as he gives you 1 day notice. In my opinion this is incredibly abusive and I hate to sign leases like this. The State doesn't make it illegal for me to make the landlord a proposal to rent giving him only the security deposit and 1st month, and not letting him show the apartment until I am gone. I am free to do it. But guess what? No landlord wants to sign a contract like this with me, because even when it is completely reasonable and it is the way it is done in Europe and elsewhere, in the US this isn't customary. So nobody signs. And since nobody signs with me I need to suck it up and sign these terms or else I will be living in the streets. This is obviously not the worse case of this, just the example I came up with since I discussed this with another lolbertarian recently.

Another example of why lolbertarianism fails in practice is the fact that it considers that every individual is exactly equal and they are all good people. If you think everyone will make the exact same choices you will then it stands to reason that a completely free society will work. But guess what? Not everyone is like you, not everyone is good natured, or bound to the same circumstances, and people take advantage of situations when they can even if it will fuck others over. An example of this is rich young people with no roots like me. I am a nomad. Since I am a nomad and I have enough money to move wherever the fuck I want whenever I want to, I could go into any country, exploit circumstances that will give me an advantage, screw society over and then leave. The consequences of my reckless behavior will be shouldered by the laymen. People who don't have the same opportunities as me, who are tied to a job and a house they bought, who have a family to raise, and cannot move to a different place. They are stuck with the results of my shitty behavior. An example would be this: a person such as me but with 100 times more money could back a socialist candidate who plans to control the currency, donate millions to his campaign, have him win and then manipulate currency to make a shitload of money in the process. Society will be incredibly fucked after when their currency is worth nothing and their savings are halved overnight, but the rich nomad will have made a fuckton and he can then up and move someplace else with the spoils of this. Lolbertarian valhalla can't prevent society from these shit scenarios, and a strong State can.

I could go on and on about this and explain how a libertarian society would completely break down, but like I said it is boring cause it is going over issues that I consider to be tired and this post is already a boring brickwall of text that I doubt more than 2 people would read.

VZZywrG.jpg
 
So, yes, you are for government force and theft, then? Making sure we're all on the same page here: you are totally cool with theft and violence, as long as it is in the service of the stuff you like.

Further, the vast majority of the issue in wealth disparity is due to government intervention and regulation of the market. Reduction in government power would do wonders to resolve wealth disparity issues.
First of all, referring to taxes and enforcement as "theft and violence" is ridiculous. I have taken this view myself in the past; but it paints you as an idealogue, an extremist, or dare I say, an idiot. It tends to tarnish the good points you occasionally make.

Secondly, regulations are a mess. I have some real complaints about that. Government is definitely bloated.
I wasn't going to touch this...
Enjoyed reading that post. You're not scum of the earth any more in my book; now you are the noblest person I know. Now please fix that godawful avatar. Here's a nice liberty and personal freedom one...

cartman-i-do-what-i-want.jpg
 
So, yes, you are for government force and theft, then? Making sure we're all on the same page here: you are totally cool with theft and violence, as long as it is in the service of the stuff you like.

So you're saying taxation is theft and violence, right? Just making sure we're all on the same page here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordling
Status
Not open for further replies.