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.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with the Libertarian party existing just with the idea that the value I, or anyone puts on freedom, is somehow diminished by not agreeing with their thought train. IMO, the only people who can benefit from the Libertarian party's plans are those who are already rich enough to cover everything they'll ever need, live among only those who have everything they'll ever need and have a tall gate around their community. I don't fit that. I don't want to fit that. I don't have a gate, and I wouldn't even let a stray cat wander past my house without being fed.

This doesn't make it better.
It wasn't meant to make it better. You don't need to explain to me what I said.
 
Except the KKK is endorsing Trump...
According to Snopes... the "Imperial Wizzard" said:
"The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe."

The Imperial Wizard said he supports Trump’s calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.

"If Donald Trump dropped out tomorrow I would support Kasich before I would Ted Cruz because he is not an American citizen,” said the Imperial Wizard.

Just the mere thought of saying "Imperial Wizzard" cracks me up, but can't fault the logic except for the Cruz issue.

Welcoming mass refugees without a thorough vetting process in place is just plain stupid given the current state of terrorism. Wish I had at least some idea of a solution, but other than creating a situation like Australia's initial creation, I've got bupkis.
 
According to Snopes... the "Imperial Wizzard" said:
"The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe."

The Imperial Wizard said he supports Trump’s calls to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.

"If Donald Trump dropped out tomorrow I would support Kasich before I would Ted Cruz because he is not an American citizen,” said the Imperial Wizard.

Just the mere thought of saying "Imperial Wizzard" cracks me up, but can't fault the logic except for the Cruz issue.

Welcoming mass refugees without a thorough vetting process in place is just plain stupid given the current state of terrorism. Wish I had at least some idea of a solution, but other than creating a situation like Australia's initial creation, I've got bupkis.
That has nothing to do with my point... I was just pointing out how silly his statement read considering the KKK endorses Trump loudly, for what the fuck ever reason.
 
Just the mere thought of saying "Imperial Wizzard" cracks me up, but can't fault the logic except for the Cruz issue.
They've had some doozies as far as titles go. Take the hate, murder, and dreams of genocide out of it, you've got yourself the makings of halfway decent RPG.
 
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.

So, we open up weak and pretty much set the tone for this entire post, namely because you open by with a strawman, because at no point did I say folks that don't engage me "must be because they are autoritarians [sic] incapable of using their imagination to challenge the current system." The fact you open up by accusing me of this pretty much sets the tone of the sort of argument you're going to be making, and the fundamental flaws that are going to run through it. Also note that the fact that you collectivize one person who loosely used the libertarian label with apparently all of them, and call them 'lolbertarian,' which further bodes poorly. But hey, I just got back from work and I'm bored, so might as well go through all of this.

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.

All of this is just... blatantly wrong. For one, it premises the entire idea that somehow the ideals of libertarianism are based on an 'incomplete, reductionist view of humanity,' and you posit that implementation would make society break down. This is a very bold claim, and one that requires a lot to back up. Before you actually bother to explain this, though, you instead posture and talk about how they're just immature. The irony here being that what you're actually doing is exactly what you accuse them of doing, IE: you're trying to SOUND smart without actually BEING smart.

Incidentally, this is the first time ever I've seen the fedora meme used for libertarians or ancaps, even back when I was significantly actually opposed to them, and spent my teenage years on 4chan.

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.

And here we get into even greater issues, namely because you make a bold claim that 'many libertarians and every an-cap I have met believe that individuals exist in a vacuum.' Well, this is where your premise collapses. I am an ancap, and I do not think individuals exist in a vacuum, and have never actually seen a single ancap of any note or experience that does either. Thus, we start with yet another strawman, set up to easily be knocked down without actually addressing the core points brought up by any ancap.

You bring up the idea that the sum of everyone's self interest will produce an organized and healthy society, but don't actually address why this is wrong, or somehow how this is different from what is going on now, as if somehow self-interest isn't in play in interactions now, just with power structures that allow some to exert far greater power than they'd have in pursuit of their self-interest otherwise.

You then claim they fail to see that humans are dual natured but, again, I have never seen this. It certainly doesn't apply to me, particularly given my attempt to push as many folks as I can to read Johnathan Haidt's work, where he cites this very idea, the "90% chimp, 10% bee" description of humanity. You claim that the 'second dimension is interpreted as an infringement on the individual liberties,' but this is just... nonsensical, because suppressing individuality in favor of the community does not REQUIRE infringing on individual liberties. Further, your entire premise here just begs the question. At no point do you seem to address if this, even if it WAS necessary, is moral or ethical. In short, you don't bother to address why, EVEN IF what you were saying was true, why the objection would exist. You acknowledge the possibility that they supposedly view it as a violation of individual liberties, which you then acknowledge that in your view, it IS a violation of individual liberties, but then you never address the moral or ethical ramifications OF THAT FACT.

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.

This is yet another bold and blatant lie because no, I've never seen libertarians have some sort of universal view that transactions are not affected by customs or tradition. In fact, I've actually seen many who point out that ethnic groups, due to culture and traditions, can actually engage and form a communal competitive advantage in markets precisely BECAUSE they have custom and tradition, and in group preferences and trusts as a result.

Further, you make this claim that they believe 'the only one who can oppress people is the State,' but this again is blatantly false. Rather, the point is not that only the State can oppress, but by it's nature the State MUST oppress and does so by its very function, and enables oppression that otherwise would be unable or at the very least minimal in capacity. Thus, this entire argument is yet another strawman set up, because you make the claim that the State is useful in cases to act as a barrier, but then use the vague term of "take advantage of another." What does this mean? Does it mean aggressive action, IE: theft or violence? Does it mean fraud? Does it mean simply being smarter in a deal? Does it mean working harder and thus exploiting the other persons lower productivity? What does 'take advantage of another' actually mean? The fact is, thus far you've basically demonstrated you are either ignorant or lying; either you are ignorant of actual libertarian and ancap thinking on subjects, OR you're blatantly lying and misrepresenting them, NEITHER of which look good for you.

You then claim 'selective blindness with customs.' You bring up these behaviors you don't like for landlords and property owners. You express that you dislike these practices, and then somehow say that libertarians or ancaps haven no answers, yet the entire argument is begging so many questions. Firstly, why does you view that it is 'abusive' matter in how they dispose of their property. You merely bring up that we are supposedly 'selectively blind with customs,' yet fail to the acknowledge that maybe we fully recognize, but are waiting for you to make a rational argument as to why somehow your feeling of discomfort at the terms of a contract entitles you to enlist force of arms to bully someone into giving you a preferential contract? You seem to ignore that property regulations and state ownership of land AND restrictions of homesteading increase the value and power of a property owner to dictate terms. You act as if the ONLY options are these sorts of contracts, and there are no other methods of finding a place to live.

But, as I've touched on most of all, you've not once bothered to posit an argument why, if the landlord owns the property, it's therefor wrong for them to dictate the terms. You are not required to sign any contract, that is entirely voluntary. And if it's their property, WHY do you have a right to dictate that it is wrong? Incidentally, if property taxes weren't a thing, if government manipulation of currency wasn't a thing, prices would be significantly less of an issue in the first place.

You merely feel it is unfair. But that is not an argument. At no point do you ever address the argument YOU CITE, ie: "why make the State interfere and remove freedoms for the people?" You simply cite it, then go on to how you feel a custom is unfair, and just leave it at that.

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.

You then bring up this claim that somehow it is a principle of libertarianism or ancap views that every individual is equal and that they are all good people. This is so blatantly wrong I don't even know how you'd get it. On the contrary, the idea that people are both inherently good or blank slates, and/or equal is the principle of statism and, to a degree, communism, and the recognition they are not is precisely why many folks become libertarian. I know it's in large part why I was led to it, because I recognized that folks are NOT inherently good, and therefor giving them the power of the state is inherently dangerous because that power either will corrupt those who are good, or attract those who are already corrupt, because that is the nature of such power, and that such power can only be amassed in a centralized state. Further, the basis is that folks are NOT equal, they are NOT interchangeable, and that is why complex markets exist and why central planning and government manipulation of markets and the economy as a whole is thus disastrous, because they cannot comprehend the vastness of human variety in capabilities and desires and thus will always fall short when attempting to dictate from on high.

Thus, this entire spiel once again reinforces that you are either ignorant or a liar; you either have no idea what you're talking about yet are still pretending to, OR you're blatantly setting up a strawman rather than addressing real arguments made.

The entire premise of libertarianism and particularly in anarcho-capitalism is actually to assume that everyone, at their basis, is self-serving and selfish, because that is the lowest common denominator and building your system around that fact means that you are prepared for worst case scenarios. It does not require everyone actually BE self-serving and selfish, it simply accounts for it and is build on the idea that selfishness is best tempered when your best interests are resolved by acting in an honest and direct manner, respecting contracts, and providing products and services to the highest standard as agreed upon between two parties. IE: society functions best when both parties are served by the interaction, and it is voluntarily chosen by those parties.

Your entire premise falls flat because it is premised on the idea that your reputation will never follow you. First off, how did you amass these riches? You had to have done something to provide a service folks were willing to pay for, and thus you earned your income. This also premises that your exploiting circumstances and 'screwing over society' will somehow be in your best interest, but this is a nonsense argument. Why would it be? It's not even in your best interest, even if it was possible. The further irony of the argument you make is you literally talk about someone who apparently is somehow super rich (you don't establish how they gained this money,) and then how they exploit state power to screw people over. Then you say a powerful state can prevent this... what.

Your entire argument here is that libertarians/ancaps, who want a minimal/no state, have no answer to a corrupt rich person buying a strong central state and manipulating currency, and thus a strong state can stop someone from exploiting a strong state to screw people over.

This goes beyond strawman into the realm of asinine nonsense. The entire premise requires that a strong state exists to exploit and manipulate the currency in the first place! Yet you claim somehow libertarians don't have an answer? Libertarians who hate the idea of state controlling currency in the first place don't have answers to someone buying off and manipulating the currency through the state.

What.

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.

You could go on and on, but you'd have to actually bring up a point that isn't a strawman or nonsense, and I'd love to see you try because this entire post simply marks you as an ignorant idiot or a malicious liar, or possibly both. You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and have mustered no actual attack on any sort of libertarian or ancap principles. You've made no ground-up argument why YOUR position is right, you've merely begged the question several times over.

Grade F, see me after class, and apply yourself next time.

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.

You say it is ridiculous but fail to make an argument of why it is.

So you're saying taxation is theft and violence, right? Just making sure we're all on the same page here.

A large organization who seizes wealth from the unwilling on threat of force, and who, should you resist, will drag you off or seize MORE of your wealth. If you buy something, they require a fee for that transaction. For some items, you must continually pay a fee to them ore they will seize the property.

Yes, taxation is theft. It's the use of force to seize property from the unwilling. Dressing it up in a uniform doesn't somehow make it less theft.
 
You say it is ridiculous but fail to make an argument of why it is.
I thought it was obvious. It is because the general idea of taxation is ethical. The reasons I believe this have already been stated by others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JickyJuly
Man, I wish libertarians weren't such jerks about it. People may listen to their points, many of which are good.
 
Dude @Behemoth why are you so upset over this? Relax, have some tea, listen to some jazz... life is beautiful.

Now to address some of your concerns with my post, you did call people somewhere on this thread authoritarians and dim witted for not agreeing with libertarianism, and I would have to go back to find it and quote it but you know I am right and I cant be bothered to do it from my phone. Either way, I have my own mojo when I write which might make my posts more biting and also more subjective but my fuck garden is barren.

The same thing applies to my points, I would have to write a book about the subject if I wanted to address it with a level of detail and grain you would find satisfactory but aint nobody got time fo dat. If Jonathan Haidt didnt convince you nothing I say ever will change your mind.

Now you do have a point when you say my example of the rich person manipulating currency is not the best example if I am talking about lolbertarianism, perhaps because I was explaining just how a rich person can fuck society over not adjusting the example to lolbertarian thought. So let me offer a different example. This happens in Vancouver BC, a bunch of extremely wealthy asians have been systematically buying up all the property, especially the waterfront areas in downtown Vancouver. They use apartments as a way to park their wealth somewhere their governments wont reach and safeguard it from fluctuations in currency value. It is like buying gold in a way. This is very convenient for the rich asians who are buying property since it allows them to keep their money safe and to profit because real estate tendency is to go up. The problem is these apartments stay unoccupied and the cost of buying a place in Vancouver is going up and up since asians scoop up the best spots but never sell and artificially make the demand go up. So this is very inconvenient for actual canadians, people with a family and a job who want a house for themselves. They keep being pushed to the periphery of their own cities or be forced to take on huge debt. Chinese or korean or japanese property owners dont really care if canadian families have it rough, or the consequences this wilk have for society because the minute shit gets tough they will cash in their chips and move someplace else. You then might argue that this problem was brought by having the state control currency, if they didnt tax or devalue asians wouldnt resort to buying up property, and surely you have a point there, but there are thousands of examples that have nothing to do with the state. You can corner markets for a first necessity product by suffocating competition and once you have killed them proceed to increase the cost once you are the only provider, etc. Point is, societies are maintained by the middle class families who stay and live their entire lives there. But if you remove every protection you are allowing people with no constraints to take advantage of that fact and screw society (a society they dont belong to) making them shoulder the risks of their actions.

I might address your other points later when I am on my computer cause typing on my phone is a real drag and I cannot post more SNEK
 
Man, I wish libertarians weren't such jerks about it.

Preaching is lame and counteractive advocacy. I find faults in the approach easily, but damned if I have a better idea.

First come party debates and if you're not in them you're sunk. The Green Party was locked out a few election cycles ago; Ralph and I don't agree about rear engine cars, but he should have had a place on the stage.
 
Man, I wish libertarians weren't such jerks about it. People may listen to their points, many of which are good.
Idk, I was introduced to the Libertarian party by Neal Boortz, and him being a jerk was pretty much the only reason I listened to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cbook100
Well I'll be sitting this election out.

I was all about Bernie but look where that's got me.

I won't vote for Hillary. She's not an actual progressive. She's flip flopped on every issue. Just 5 years ago she was arguing against marriage equality. She said herself her beliefs are rooted in conservative ideals.

I won't vote for Johnson because I live in a conservative state and I don't believe states have a right to vote on encroaching on my personal freedoms, and that's what libertarians fight for. States rights to vote on issues. I suppose that's great if you live in a state that aligns with your views. I dont.

I won't vote for stein because she panders to anti-science people despite being a doctor and someone that should know better, and the fact that she supports the Nordic model of sex work

And fucckkkkkk giving my vote to trump. Every time he speaks I can actually feel my blood pressure raising. He says he's going to do this, and he's going to do that, but has yet to present a solid idea how. "I'm going to make Mexico pay to build a wall "
Bitch, please.

I live in a straight up red state. Regardless of who I vote for, this state will go to Trump. So I'll sit it out and hope for better options next year.
Fuck the DNC this year.
 
"Neal Boortz" LoL, now there's a name I haven't heard in years.

Oh, btw. Much of this page turned into "TL/DR "
 
A large organization who seizes wealth from the unwilling on threat of force, and who, should you resist, will drag you off or seize MORE of your wealth. If you buy something, they require a fee for that transaction. For some items, you must continually pay a fee to them ore they will seize the property.

Yes, taxation is theft. It's the use of force to seize property from the unwilling. Dressing it up in a uniform doesn't somehow make it less theft.
You didn't address how taxation is violence.

You know you're getting things in exchange for this "theft" right? Like it's the cost of living in a country with public roads, public education, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc.?
 
Well I'll be sitting this election out.

Hey @IndicaDesires I loved your well thought post, and I love to see where everyone comes from, why they choose to vote for someone or not. So this was pretty awesome to read.

I just wanted to address one point on your post:

He says he's going to do this, and he's going to do that, but has yet to present a solid idea how. "I'm going to make Mexico pay to build a wall"

Because Trump has talked so so so much and given so many interviews, rallies, etc, that unless you are truly paying attention or going to google to look up specifics, you will miss it.

You can read the specifics on how he will compel Mexico to pay for the wall here:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall it is totally doable, and he will make it happen if he wins. For those too lazy to click through:

He will persuade Mexico to pay by finding ways to cut the stream of money from the US to Mexico unless they comply and pay up. Keep in mind he doesn't want to create new laws, just enforce existing ones that aren't being enforced and make the US subsidize big chunks of the Mexican economy. These are the things he proposed he will cut:

1) He will require aliens to prove that they have legal status in the US in order to do any sort of transaction with Mexico like sending money orders or wire transfers. This will affect Mexico because every year 24 billion dollars are siphoned out of the US economy and sent to Mexico by mexican nationals as remittances to their families. Some of them are legally in the country, most of them aren't. By cutting down this stream Mexico will suffer the equivalent of an economic sanction, only it isn't. It is just the US enforcing the existing laws. Even if Mexico says "no" the US will feel an economic relief when those 24 bill are kept in the economy (that means more people buying things, more money circulating, more tokens being tipped lol)

2) Impose trade tariffs or enforce actual trade rules that are not getting enforced. Through subsidies the Mexican government has built their economy at the expense of the american economy stealing tons of jobs. By impossing tariffs on imports from Mexico the US will create an incentive for companies to bring back their production to the US and people will find jobs. Mexico will suffer the consequences of this and it wont be pretty.

3) Cancelling visas.

4) Increase visa fees.

Mexico has much more to lose than the US by all these measures because Mexico is dependent on the US to keep their economy afloat. Paying for the wall which is 5 to 10 Bill will be easier than letting go of all the gibsmedat.

Edit: I have one more Snek for this post that I want to dedicate to @Behemoth with love

UNXz7XS.jpg
 
You're welcome to support Trump but keep in mind, our entire agriculture industry and a lot of our housing industry (like building) is supported by illegal immigrants working for next to nothing. So getting rid of them means food cost WILL rise. And morally remember these people are working for pretty much pennies, doing jobs most people think they're too good for, because they're desperate to provide for their families. We can rant about the fact they're here illegally all day, and you're totally entitled to be pissed about that. But it is EXTREMELY hard to come here legally unless you either marry a citizen or get a work or school visa. Both of which are fairly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain if you're poor. Which most of the people coming here illegally are. I simply don't harbor a grudge against people who come here illegally to provide for their families. I get why people hold problems with it, I just dont
 
You're welcome to support Trump but keep in mind, our entire agriculture industry and a lot of our housing industry (like building) is supported by illegal immigrants working for next to nothing. So getting rid of them means food cost WILL rise. And morally remember these people are working for pretty much pennies, doing jobs most people think they're too good for, because they're desperate to provide for their families. We can rant about the fact they're here illegally all day, and you're totally entitled to be pissed about that. But it is EXTREMELY hard to come here legally unless you either marry a citizen or get a work or school visa. Both of which are fairly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain if you're poor. Which most of the people coming here illegally are. I simply don't harbor a grudge against people who come here illegally to provide for their families. I get why people hold problems with it, I just dont

It's cool that you don't have problems with it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, I just wanted to show you the specifics of what Trump plans to do, his plans are actually more detailed than the plans of any other candidate have been up to this point, everything is on his website. The problem is he talks a lot and the media focuses on irrelevant shit they blow out of proportion so nobody is really covering the specifics of his program. He himself doesn't devote much time to this because he sees rallies and interviews as an opportunity to click with people through charisma and hammering the same idea over and over. It works. It works and it is better than giving a long boring speech about tariffs and remittances. But all the info is there if you are interested in looking it up.

Personally on the illegal immigrants topic I don't agree with you. It is very difficult to immigrate to the US because it is supposed to be difficult. The US is one of the greatest countries in the world. Everyone wants to live here. If everyone was admitted there wouldn't be any country left. People need to be filtered so only the best of the best are allowed to move to the US. Instead of bringing people with many problems who do not share the US values, culture, language, etc, the US has a responsibility to the actual americans who already live here to filter the people that are coming in to make sure they will not be a drag on society. So they will be productive, they can integrate, and they can create value for the country.

And I also want to address the meme of "illegal immigrants do the jobs nobody else wants" It isn't really true. Before the massive waves on immigration post Teddy's immigration reform Americans were doing all these jobs happily. And I am not talking only about black people or other minorities, I am talking about run of the mill white protestant americans. Construction? Americans did it. Farming labor? Americans. Shitty factory jobs? Americans. And Americans would still be happily doing these jobs, I would bet my right thumb that a big number of americans who are unemployed right now would be happy to take on any of these jobs. So why are illegals doing them? Because illegals aren't bound by the law so they do not have to comply with minimum wage requirements, or social security, or anything else whatsoever. Many Americans would work for a wage below minimum wage but it is illegal for them to do so. And companies would much rather hire illegals to do these jobs because they cannot go to the government and rat the company out for paying wages lower than minimum or having unsafe work conditions, or having work days longer than 8 hours because they would have to turn themselves in and face the risk of deportation. So if Americans aren't doing these jobs is because there is an illegal immigrant class with the privilege of being the only class capable of working for a wage below minimum wage. No american can compete against it.

Now, on the fact that the cost of food and other items would go up if the cost of production goes up and it will if companies are forced to hire legal labor, prices will certainly go up, but guess what? most people will actually have a job to pay for these things. And those who already have a job will see increases in their salary because less workers in the country means more demand for workers, which means salaries go up across the board. Especially if the "floor" has been raised quite a bit. Other jobs further up the chain will likely adjust as well.
 
I thought it was obvious. It is because the general idea of taxation is ethical. The reasons I believe this have already been stated by others.

Pawning off an argument for others, without even making it, is lazy as hell.

You didn't address how taxation is violence.

Except where I directly did? It's theft. It's the seizure of wealth backed up by the force of the state. If you refuse to pay, they will send people with guns to your home and throw you in a cage.

You know you're getting things in exchange for this "theft" right? Like it's the cost of living in a country with public roads, public education, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc.?

If someone steals $100 bucks from your wallet, but buys you something with part of the money, it doesn't stop being theft, even outside the fact that they're actually doing a pretty shit job even of the supposed things they're supposed to be doing, given our infrastructure is in a bad way, public education costs more than ever yet has not improved graduation rates, we're in the middle of a major issue with law enforcement, etc.

Nothing you listed is somehow the exclusive domain of the state either. Private enterprise can and does handle all of those things, and by its nature, does it better.

Dude @Behemoth why are you so upset over this? Relax, have some tea, listen to some jazz... life is beautiful.

Attempting to use 'why are you so upset!' as a tone policing method to score cheap points without making any actual arguments is a really, really sad thing. You don't even cite any reason or even a quote to demonstrate how I'm supposedly 'upset.' :/

Now to address some of your concerns with my post, you did call people somewhere on this thread authoritarians and dim witted for not agreeing with libertarianism, and I would have to go back to find it and quote it but you know I am right and I cant be bothered to do it from my phone. Either way, I have my own mojo when I write which might make my posts more biting and also more subjective but my fuck garden is barren.

No, I called one person (and then another stepped up and fit too) an authoritarian because they support authoritarian concepts and ideals. The entire libertarian concept came AFTER that, because I'd not even stated about using the label until literally after that point, and did so to point out I really don't use it very often. I also never called them 'dim witted,' and I find this 'I'm on my phone' excuse a bit passe given I've made posts from my phone before. You can still quote things. It would take a few minutes to find, at most, given I've only been on the last, what? Two pages of this thread. So no, you're not right, but you clearly like to pretend you're God's gift to mankind and rhetoric, when really, you're kind of just an asshole.

The same thing applies to my points, I would have to write a book about the subject if I wanted to address it with a level of detail and grain you would find satisfactory but aint nobody got time fo dat. If Jonathan Haidt didnt convince you nothing I say ever will change your mind.

Yeah, no. This is you running from a debate after you were caught being directly wrong, and you trying to pawn it off on me like somehow I'm in the wrong for calling you out. No, it wouldn't take a book, it would take you be honest. Instead, I caught you in several blocks of either ignorance or lying. Also, you invoke Haidt and somehow imply that means... what? Convince me of what, exactly? This doesn't make any sense.

Now you do have a point when you say my example of the rich person manipulating currency is not the best example if I am talking about lolbertarianism, perhaps because I was explaining just how a rich person can fuck society over not adjusting the example to lolbertarian thought. So let me offer a different example. This happens in Vancouver BC, a bunch of extremely wealthy asians have been systematically buying up all the property, especially the waterfront areas in downtown Vancouver. They use apartments as a way to park their wealth somewhere their governments wont reach and safeguard it from fluctuations in currency value. It is like buying gold in a way. This is very convenient for the rich asians who are buying property since it allows them to keep their money safe and to profit because real estate tendency is to go up. The problem is these apartments stay unoccupied and the cost of buying a place in Vancouver is going up and up since asians scoop up the best spots but never sell and artificially make the demand go up. So this is very inconvenient for actual canadians, people with a family and a job who want a house for themselves. They keep being pushed to the periphery of their own cities or be forced to take on huge debt. Chinese or korean or japanese property owners dont really care if canadian families have it rough, or the consequences this wilk have for society because the minute shit gets tough they will cash in their chips and move someplace else. You then might argue that this problem was brought by having the state control currency, if they didnt tax or devalue asians wouldnt resort to buying up property, and surely you have a point there, but there are thousands of examples that have nothing to do with the state. You can corner markets for a first necessity product by suffocating competition and once you have killed them proceed to increase the cost once you are the only provider, etc. Point is, societies are maintained by the middle class families who stay and live their entire lives there. But if you remove every protection you are allowing people with no constraints to take advantage of that fact and screw society (a society they dont belong to) making them shoulder the risks of their actions.

I'm going to snip one part here... "You then might argue that this problem was brought by having the state control currency, if they didnt tax or devalue asians wouldnt resort to buying up property, and surely you have a point there, but there are thousands of examples that have nothing to do with the state." Ok, than why did you pick one that is directly due to government control, and tied up in so many other things too. You then bring up this idea that you can corner markets for necessity products and 'suffocate competition' but this is silly, because you don't seem to address how this will be done in a society without the state to do this. Either you produce a product folks want to buy, or someone will come along to produce one that will. The demand exists, and there is no way to just hedge someone out of the entire market without force, which is how a state does it.

Again, this entire premise is just a mix of begging the question, showing a total lack of understanding of economics, and pushing things that happen directly because of the state onto some mythical evil rich nomad class. At no point is an argument made from the point of individual rights or really any rational argument at all. You're just weakly asserting somehow libertarians don't understand this issue, and I'm just sitting here like... no, this stuff is addressed in basic free market economics.

Incidentally, every person who hit that 'take a chill pill' button was just proving the point I made earlier, too.
 
Pawning off an argument for others

I wish there was a yawn rating :(

Edit: cornering markets and hiking the price is a common practice that I shouldn't have to explain.

Edit 2: But I will... in the words of Vito Corleone: when I thought I was done, they pull me back in

Here is how you can corner a market: say there are 5 apple vendors in your neighborhood, each of them employs 3 people and apples cost $1. You have a lot of money and you want to make some more so you want to corner this market. What you do is you sell apples at a loss (below the cost) say at 25 cents, so everyone buys apples from you and stop going to the other vendors. You will be losing money but it is temporary and it is an investment. You put up with these prices until all the other 5 vendors are out, they closed shop. They can't fight you because they don't have enough money to put into it and sell at a loss. Once you are the only apple vendor in the neighbourhood you start selling apples for $2. How does this fare? Well, you are making twice as much as you would do otherwise, but you crashed 5 apple stores, left 5 families without income, left 15 people out of a job and the entire neighborhood has to pay twice as much per apple or go far away to buy them cheaper. Congratulations, you fucked over society to make individual profit.
 
Last edited:
See, the "America is the greatest country and everyone wants to live here" is something I just don't agree with. And it's nationalistic. I would move out of this country if I could financially do so, and take my family with me. I'm super tight with my mom so I could never leave her. I don't personally find this country great. People can say "if you don't like it, leave" all they want. But my argument to that is "sure. Are you gonna pay my way out?" My friends that are stationed in Germany for the army have every intention of going back there once their time in the military is up because they prefer it to here. It really depends on your ideals and who you are as a person as to whether this country is the greatest country in the world or not. For plenty of us, there are better options. Yes most of the places I want to live require higher taxes, but since pretty much ALL of the debt I have in my life right now is medical and educational, I think I would have been better off somewhere where I pay higher taxes when I'm healthy and able to work, instead of falling into serious debt when I'm not. But again, that's what's important to me. Those ideals aren't universal
 
I have no love for any of the canidates. Probably ending up voting trump, just because I can not stand Hillary. Yet I do not trust a thing Trump says. The republican party is a mess and needs to radically change, imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoTxBob
See, the "America is the greatest country and everyone wants to live here" is something I just don't agree with. And it's nationalistic. I would move out of this country if I could financially do so, and take my family with me.
Me and you both. Around 2003-04 I started looking into when things got so crazy. Was not possible.

Someone close to me left the country for several years, said taking a break from political bs was like a breath of fresh air.
 
See, the "America is the greatest country and everyone wants to live here" is something I just don't agree with. And it's nationalistic. I would move out of this country if I could financially do so, and take my family with me. I'm super tight with my mom so I could never leave her. I don't personally find this country great. People can say "if you don't like it, leave" all they want. But my argument to that is "sure. Are you gonna pay my way out?" My friends that are stationed in Germany for the army have every intention of going back there once their time in the military is up because they prefer it to here. It really depends on your ideals and who you are as a person as to whether this country is the greatest country in the world or not. For plenty of us, there are better options. Yes most of the places I want to live require higher taxes, but since pretty much ALL of the debt I have in my life right now is medical and educational, I think I would have been better off somewhere where I pay higher taxes when I'm healthy and able to work, instead of falling into serious debt when I'm not. But again, that's what's important to me. Those ideals aren't universal

America has many problems but that doesn't mean it isnt one of the greatest countries on Earth and most people would kill to live here. Europe fares quite high on the list too, but people from third world hellholes (I come from one) would risk everything they have to try to make it in the US (or Europe). The fact that you personally would rather live in Europe than in the US means nothing really, its like saying NYC is not a great city because a new yorker would rather live in San Francisco. Both NYC and San Fran are great cities! and a large chunk of the population would love to move there. If America wasn't one of the greatest countries on Earth the boats would go from Miami to La Habana. Ciudad Juarez would have a problem with american immigration, etc.
 
America has many problems but that doesn't mean it isnt one of the greatest countries on Earth and most people would kill to live here. Europe fares quite high on the list too, but people from third world hellholes (I come from one) would risk everything they have to try to make it in the US (or Europe). The fact that you personally would rather live in Europe than in the US means nothing really, its like saying NYC is not a great city because a new yorker would rather live in San Francisco. Both NYC and San Fran are great cities! and a large chunk of the population would love to move there. If America wasn't one of the greatest countries on Earth the boats would go from Miami to La Habana. Ciudad Juarez would have a problem with american immigration, etc.


Oh you mistake me. I never said it wasn't high on the list. Just that it doesn't reflect what I think is important in life when it comes to politics and such. Maybe it's also that I'm an atheist in the bible belt that makes things seem worse than they actually are to me, but there are plenty of other places I'd rather live than here. Not even saying Europe. Australia's weather suits me better.
 
Oh you mistake me. I never said it wasn't high on the list. Just that it doesn't reflect what I think is important in life when it comes to politics and such. Maybe it's also that I'm an atheist in the bible belt that makes things seem worse than they actually are to me, but there are plenty of other places I'd rather live than here. Not even saying Europe. Australia's weather suits me better.

Totally, the pace is also a thing. Europe has such a slower pace. I am spanish and if there is one thing I love about Madrid is even when it is a big city that has nothing to envy to say.. NYC.. the pace is much much slower. People aren't stressed out all the time, competition isn't as cut-throat, and people know how to chill. Doesnt hurt people get 1 month vacation (all August) every year, plus about ten days during Christmas, etc. But believe it or not every european believes his country is shit and they are going through a crisis, if only they could fathom that people in the US have 1 day vacation per year, no healthcare system worth crap, and no real welfare other than foodstamps for the unemployed they would get a seizure lol
 
And you're right in your posts. We have it pretty good here overall. I don't feel UNFORTUNATE to have been born here. I can't stress that enough. That being said. You make a good point. If it were easy to come here too many people to handle would do so because many places are so shittyou. I guess I just have this hopelessly optimistic ideal that instead of keeping those people in shitty places, the entire globe should try to improve them so they won't feel like they need to leave and come here to be safe. Not realistic, I know. But it still shapes my view on politics
 
  • Hugs
Reactions: Mila_
Status
Not open for further replies.