nowisthetime
Warrior Lioness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,340
What ever happened to "small government?"
- Thread starter LJ_Reloaded
- Start date
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Inbreeding tends to cause fools like him.He was taught well. Apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.
SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
Funny how the most illogical accuse others of poor logic. Projection, or are they really so wedded to their flawed logic, premise, conclusion, etc. that they honestly view themselves as being correct? I think a bit of both, as their egos tell them that their premise can't possibly be flawed, so there must be nothing wrong with their logic or conclusion.
Free-market anarchists start from an inherently flawed premise: that we can all make it on our own, without any help from anyone else. Well, anyone who has ever needed a loan from the Bank of Mom and Dad should realize that this is wrong out from the gate. But what do I know, right? I've just lived in the real economy, that's all.
ETA: I was like him once, but I got over it.
Free-market anarchists start from an inherently flawed premise: that we can all make it on our own, without any help from anyone else. Well, anyone who has ever needed a loan from the Bank of Mom and Dad should realize that this is wrong out from the gate. But what do I know, right? I've just lived in the real economy, that's all.
ETA: I was like him once, but I got over it.
Last edited:
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
Oh yes the theoretical "Libertarian left" out in fantasy land.......we want equity but we're going to pretend we don't have to send guys with guns to force it.
Like "social anarchism" and "Communist capitalism"
Equity-schmequity
I want taxes to go toward social programs for two reasons...
The most important reason is pure, Randian self-interest: I might really fucking need it myself someday. Modern American libertarians are all Pollyannish teenagers who think they are immortal and they’re destined to always have money.
[BTW, the good counterargument to this is that a Federal system of the size of the US is incapable of providing effective and efficient social safety nets.]
The second reason is that I don’t want a bloody uprising of the disenfranchised coming through my bedroom window in the dead of night to chop me and my wife’s Gentry asses into sloppy gobbets with machetes. Google “revolutionary threshold.”
By not defining my terms in a way that guarantees failure.
I get my “liberalism” from John Stuart Mill (and his wife.) He invented liberalism, after all.
Dare I ask what you think the “core principals of liberalism” are? And do you recognize that “unalienable right” does not mean “absolute right,” and that all rights are subject to calculus of competing interests?
Last edited:
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
You're to the left of Genghis Khan, you COMMUNIST
Oh, no! They’re on to me!
*Uses Cultural Marxism Shadow Jitsu to escape*
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You say that...then turn around and directly declare your pursuit of equity.
And I'm betting you don't want those taxes procured in a "progressive" manner too as opposed to an equal one right?
That is a good one, the other is we just place a high value on liberty, individual rights, the concept of private property and the pursuit of happiness because M'arica.
What does defining terms have to do with determining failure and what does that have to do with what I asked?
You want social programs right? (leftism)
How do you do that without forcefully confiscating the property/wealth/resources/production of others under threat of violence in a manner wholly antithetical to liberalism?
No he didn't....he was a major thinker/influence on the concept but he neither invented nor defined it.
Protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual.
Yes and sometimes.
Last edited:
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
So?
Don't you support sensible regulations?? Or are those only for white people??
Never said you did you illiterate moron...learn to read.
So applying socialistic policy is an attack???
I'm glad we agree, socialism is violent evil and often racist shit.
No it doesn't....if it did it wouldn't be trying to freely exchange goods and services.
And anyone who ever got it just engaged in capitalism free market style.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
So not only are you an inbred retard, you're also a coward who can't own what you said. Gotcha.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
So you're just illiterate. Gotcha.
Must be that public schoolin'
Let me make it easy for you.
Do you or do you not support the government regulation of commerce?
Last edited:
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
I don’t understand what you mean.
Are you suggesting we argue about a progressive tax versus a flat tax? If so, the fact that you equated a flat tax with an equal tax means it wouldn’t be worth my while.
No, that’s not a good argument. That’s not even a shitty argument. That’s not an argument.
You can put high value on individual rights, including property ownership, and still have income taxes for social programs. Unalienable rights are not absolute rights. There is a calculus where you weigh the right versus the utility/purpose of the law that infringes upon it. You’ve taken Constitutional Law, yes?
You’ll see shortly. Basically you never define your terms, which is why you never ever come out on top in any of these discussions.
To ensure my own happiness, yes. Enlightened self interest. Classic libertarianism, not “leftism,” whatever the fuck that means.
How do you do that without forcefully confiscating the property/wealth/resources/production of others under threat of violence in a manner wholly antithetical to liberalism?
Becuase your definition of “liberalism,” if you actually have one, is wrong.
Anyway. Liberals and libertarians who know what the fuck they are talking about all understand that unalienable does not mean absolute. Your right to own property is not absolute. Taxation with representation does not violate “liberalism.”
It’s called the Harm Principle, and is a fundamental element of “liberalism:”
Give you one guess said:
A legitimate, Democratic republic can pass laws that funds social programs via involuntary taxation because the benefit of such laws to individual citizens outweighs the harm done to their rights. This is not driven for a desire for equity. It arises out of, dare I use the term, enlightened self-interest and utility.
Self-interest and the utilitarian calculus for infringing upon rights. Two fundamental element of libertarianism and “liberalism.”
What you should be arguing is that the benefit of social programs does not outweigh the harm caused by taxation. And you’d have to articulate the reasons why.
Mill is very careful and defines his terms, like a good interlocutor. Read his “On Liberty.” Anyone who claims to be a classical liberal must.
Last edited:
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You want social programs don't you? That's the pursuit of equity.
If you didn't want equity you'd be just fine with everyone paying for their own goods and services....especially the luxury shit that has nothing to do with the security of the state or of the rights/liberties of the citizenry.
Yes...because you've already lost that argument. Flat tax is an equal tax, progressive taxation is not.
That is not classic libertarianism....it's socialism, leftism.
How so?
Brittanica, Websters, Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, U of California not to mention most of the classical thinkers on the topic....all back me on what liberalism is. Liberalism is a political doctrine that sees protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central concern of politics.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism
Not providing social and economic equity, that's the realm of the leftist...socialism, and the social programs surrounding it, is the primary (and only) tool by which the left has to achieve that equity.
I never said it was absolute.
Not necessarily, but it often does...democratic socialism is a grand example.
You need to go read about the Harm principle.....it in no way supports or validates sticking it to the rich to provide for others.
The harm principle says that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. One of John Stuart Mills more famous quotes best describes it.
Notice this in no way supports power being exercised over the haves to provide for the have nots. The Harm Principal means as long as an individual is not harming others the government needs to fuck off and mind it's own god damn bidnizz.
Last edited:
nowisthetime
Warrior Lioness
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,340
^What a nutjob
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Oblimo
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2006
- Posts
- 4,273
No, and I explained why (self-interest, not the betterment of others). If you really want to converse with me, you need to address my explanation and explain why it is wrong.
I don’t care about equity. I care about saving my ass. I want to pay taxes to save my ass. Everyone who is rational would want to do the same.
I don’t know what you’re talking about luxuries. You’re probably trying to get me to argue in favor of the current US welfare system then trot out something about people buying Xboxes with their welfare checks.
Well, I’m not going to do that because the current US system has lots of problems and I’m not going to defend them. They do not fatally affect the argument for social programs, however.
No, you are defining the word “equal” logically inconsistently. But I don’t want to argue definitions of “equal” with you. You pick your definitions and then don’t bother to defend them. It’s annoying.
You can’t just say things and think you’ve made an argument.
I am arguing that self-interest and utilitarianism support taxation for social programs. That’s a classic liberal argument. Look it up.
Yes. And? That doesn’t mean you can’t tax for social programs. I’ll say again: the utility to the individual of taxation for social programs outweighs the infringement that taxation causes. Now explain to me why I’m wrong. Don’t just state I am.
What’s paramount in classical liberalism is happiness. Classical liberalism says that maximizing individual freedom is central to making people happy. And a functioning society is also required.
There you go again, trying to derail into a flat tax argument again. So how about this: let’s use a flat tax to fund social programs. Do you still have a problem with that?
...
That’s the quote in the post you are responding to, genius. My argument is that social programs are implemented to prevent harm.
Notice you not even noticing what I’ve posted and are just restating your usual.
The Harm Principle says the only time it is okay for the government to interfere with you is to help others. It does not mean that the only time the government can interfere with you is to prevent you from harming others.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
So you're just illiterate. Gotcha.
Must be that public schoolin'
Let me make it easy for you.
Do you or do you not support the government regulation of commerce?
So not only are you an inbred retard, you're also a coward who can't own what you said. Gotcha.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
He's a fucking parrot. He couldn't explain why the sun is hot without consulting his white masters, much less answer your challenge.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
I am addressing your explanation and why it's wrong....you just don't like what I'm saying.
Your taxes aren't enough....that's why you want to send government goons to come rob me for my money to pay for your shit, you want equity.
If you didn't you'd be fine paying for your own shit and everyone else paying for theirs like actual liberals who know what they are talking about do.
Not at all.
I don't have to defend them....the dictionaries and encyclopedias do that for me.
If you can't agree that the dictionaries and encyclopedias are the authority on the definitions of terms you're just a wormy leftist playing fuck fuck games and not worth my time.
Not even close bubba and I know for a fact you don't have anything to back that up.
It's not happyism...it's liberalism, liberty is paramount in liberalism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism
I'm not trying to derail...it's very much part of the fair vs free and liberalism vs socialism discussion.
Yup.
A fair (flat) tax should be used to provide equity but ensure the rights and liberties of the people.
Yes and mine is that they can ONLY do so by harming others thus being antithetical to liberalism. You can support socialism, or you can support liberalism, you can even argue that you can support aspects of both in the same society.... but you can't do both in the same space at the same time because they are directly opposed to one another.
HC for example....you can socialize it (left/socialism) or you can have a free market HC (liberal, right wing) but you can't have both.
No it doesn't...and once again unlike me you have NOTHING to support that because that's the simplified version of the socialist/leftist principal called Marxism-Leninism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism
Yea...it does.
Here, read up on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Last edited:
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Do you or do you not support the tight government control over the means of production and distribution of goods and services or not?
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
So not only are you an inbred retard, you're also a coward who can't own what you said. Gotcha.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
And if you don't want to play by those rules you should be free to leave and go live in the jungle with the other uncivilized animals.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
OH look at that the socialist is suddenly tongue tied about their support of state control over commerce.
I'm not a socialist, so I'll leave the uncivilized animal shit to you.
I'm glad you support those rules and thus that white woman calling the cops on that unlicensed operation being run by a black girl.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Capitalism is by definition barbarism.
I'm glad you support those rules and thus that white woman calling the cops on that unlicensed operation being run by a black girl.
So not only are you an inbred retard, you're also a coward who can't own what you said. Gotcha.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 42,096
Government 'got big' because a lot of people want it that way. This is a lazy instant gratification generation that wants everything done for them.
People these days want to blame everything on something and want the problem fixed by someone.
Perfect example child obesity. The parents take no responsibility for letting the kid eat what they want, don't get them off their ass and outside to play(because then mommy and daddy might have to get out there, oh, no) and the answer is to tell Gov that certain foods and snacks should be banned and blah blah blah....
Government has taken full advantage of laziness and people who spend their lives on social media and watching netflix and have no idea what's going on around them nor do they care to know.
Its why fake and skewed media outlets are so successful. They put out any story and its taken as sooth, with the majority of people unwilling to question it or look around to validate it.
Lemmings.
People these days want to blame everything on something and want the problem fixed by someone.
Perfect example child obesity. The parents take no responsibility for letting the kid eat what they want, don't get them off their ass and outside to play(because then mommy and daddy might have to get out there, oh, no) and the answer is to tell Gov that certain foods and snacks should be banned and blah blah blah....
Government has taken full advantage of laziness and people who spend their lives on social media and watching netflix and have no idea what's going on around them nor do they care to know.
Its why fake and skewed media outlets are so successful. They put out any story and its taken as sooth, with the majority of people unwilling to question it or look around to validate it.
Lemmings.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
No, it's not.....that's your fantasy.
Awwww look at the socialist curl away from his ideology
You made that little black capitalist got pwned by your socialist buddy the fat racist white bitch???
Too bad...suck on it.
THANKS BOOMERS!!!
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
So not only are you an inbred retard, you're also a coward who can't own what you said. Gotcha.No, it's not.....that's your fantasy.
Awwww look at the socialist curl away from his ideology
You made that little black capitalist got pwned by your socialist buddy the fat racist white bitch???
Too bad...suck on it.
THANKS BOOMERS!!!
