Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      111
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      43


Recommended Posts

He probably did because the people he chooses to surround himself with sound like sycophants.

I'm not sure how he crawls out of that self-made hole. It looks pretty damn deep.

Well considering what I've seen of his voter base he could probably have the Hammer and Sickle tattooed onto his face and run around screaming about how he wants to lynch all black people in America while slapping every woman he sees in the face with his dick and they'd probably still find a way to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering what I've seen of his voter base he could probably have the Hammer and Sickle tattooed onto his face and run around screaming about how he wants to lynch all black people in America while slapping every woman he sees in the face with his dick and they'd probably still find a way to defend it.

no soapboxing

I want him to be better prepared simply because watching him hoist himself by his own petard is going to get old and I like a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want him to be better prepared simply because watching him hoist himself by his own petard is going to get old and I like a fight.

I don't. It's funny watching him flounder like a fish out of water.

Anyway, do you guys still think Trump has a chance? I reckon that even after this he could win if he does well enough in the other debates since his voter base is as dedicated as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diehards won't care about what happens in the debates. Trump could shoot everyone in the room, and they'd still vote for him. Those that really dislike Clinton's stuff (whether it be the various controversies surrounding her, her policies, her background, etc.) are the ones that he needs to convince. But if he's going to rely on emotion, and not show that he's got some inkling of professionalism, they're gonna vote elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't. It's funny watching him flounder like a fish out of water.

Anyway, do you guys still think Trump has a chance? I reckon that even after this he could win if he does well enough in the other debates since his voter base is as dedicated as it is.

I think he does, if Twitter and his voter base is anything to go by. Yesterday morning(EST) the #TrumpWon hashtag was trending, which is funny now.

Hi, Emeraldfox here. Long time reader. I don't like either candidate much, but I do think Hillary will hurt a lot less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump did alright with the trade stuff imo and that part was Clinton's weakest segment in my opinion (she danced around the TPP flip-flop).

From my understanding this is what happened.

"I've been for trade agreements, I've been against trade agreements, voted for some, voted against others, so I want to judge this when I see exactly what exactly is in it and whether or not I think it meets my standards," adding she had some "concerns" about the TPP.

That was March 2015, October 2015 is when she said she was against it. Some other history:

Nov. 5, 2012, remarks in Australia: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

July 2014, in her memoir Hard Choices: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say the TPP won’t be perfect -- no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be -- but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers… The TPP became the economic pillar of our strategy in Asia."

Didn't seem like a sudden change. In fact that's in line with what she said, but Trump kept butting in.

DONALD TRUMP

You go to New England. You go to Ohio, Pennsylvania. You go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturing is down thirty, forty, sometimes fifty percent -- NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere but certainly ever signed in this country. And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it, then you heard what I was saying - how bad it is - and you said, I can’t win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.

HILLARY CLINTON

That is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about in --

DONALD TRUMP

You called it the gold standard. You call it the gold standard of trade deals.

HILLARY CLINTON

You know what --

DONALD TRUMP

You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.

HILLARY CLINTON

No.

DONALD TRUMP

And then you heard what I said about it and all of a sudden you were against it.

HILLARY CLINTON

Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are, I did say, I hoped it would be a good deal. But when it was negotiated, which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that -- in my….

DONALD TRUMP

So is it President Obama’s fault?

HILLARY CLINTON

...before you even announced.

DONALD TRUMP

Secretary, is it President Obama’s fault?

HILLARY CLINTON

There are --

DONALD TRUMP

Because he’s pushing it.

HILLARY CLINTON

There are different views about what’s good for our country, our economy and our leadership in the world. And I think it is important to look at what we need to do to get our economy going again. That’s why I said new jobs, with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add five trillion dollars to the debt.

DONALD TRUMP

But you have no plan.

HILLARY CLINTON

Oh, I do.

DONALD TRUMP

Secretary, you have no plan.

HILLARY CLINTON

In fact, I’ve written a book about it. It’s called, “Stronger Together.” You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore or an airport near you.

Trump had no hope of winning that argument, what Clinton said was perfectly in line with her actions.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be fair, I also said that the Donald would bring more than what he did and put Hillary much more on the defensive. Guess I was wrong.

I don't. It's funny watching him flounder like a fish out of water.

Anyway, do you guys still think Trump has a chance? I reckon that even after this he could win if he does well enough in the other debates since his voter base is as dedicated as it is.

Sure. I actually don't think it will affect polls that much, maybe a slight gain for Hillary. Some question if the debates actually sway elections at all.

The diehards won't care about what happens in the debates. Trump could shoot everyone in the room, and they'd still vote for him.

he pretty much already came out and said that, yeah

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raven: It's classified as a full-flop on that site (which I guess is different than a flip-flop?) and after skimming through the rest of the listed full flops it seems like this is generally considered a bad thing. Do you disagree with that conclusion? I mean, she can assert what she did and be correct but it doesn't mean the fact that she did it looks good.

It does seem to be a change that happened over years as opposed to weeks but... eh... why call it the gold standard when the details haven't been ironed out yet? It suggests she really liked what she did know but I'm not sure how much the details have actually changed.

EDIT: usually the perceived winner gets a slight boost in the polls but they sometimes lose it as we near election day (re: romney)

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She said it will set the gold standard, not it is the gold standard. Her reception to it seemed to be getting lukewarm as the negotiations went through - though you could also argue that she flopped for the campaign and not because of genuine belief based on her outright disparaging it in 2015, but I would say a lukewarm reception as the details are getting ironed out are a normal thing... I just read it as high standards falling flat on your face.

I think Full-flop means full-180, as opposed to tweaking the viewpoint a little bit.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theft

noun

the action or crime of stealing.

tax

noun

1.

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

2.

a strain or heavy demand.

eh?

I never said it was.

I don't give a fuck, how is this relevant? Steve Jobs is dead.

I did not validate your point.

Also, this is an emotional argument. You are equating success to the amount of money one makes. You're trying to invoke an emotion by using an intentionally open-ended and loaded word. You're not raising taxes on someone successful. You're giving them more tax on every dollar they make after 200k. Whether or not that's successful is entirely irrelevant to this argument.

Let me put it this way; middle-income person and rich-person pay equal amount for food and housing because they live in the same area, but rich person has much more money to spend. However, one pays more in taxes than the other.

What we mean by shifting the burden to the lower class is that the ratio of disposable income to total income is very very low for the lower class under a flat tax, whereas it eases the burden for the lower class because they have living expenses to pay for all intents and purposes. If literally all money goes into food, taxes and shelter, then none of that money ever gets into the economy to help perpetuate the capitalism that you enjoy fellating over.

Now, the rich person pays the same percentage of his income in tax, but pays a significant lower percentage of his income in housing and food despite probably having access to nicer things. This person can keep capitalism afloat, because he has not only significantly more money but access to a more significant portion of his money. It's also much easier for him to participate in the system, because he can make investments and save money, gain interest on said money, and things to that effect. He can participate actively in the system, because the burden of the tax is not shifted to him.

Therefore you're taking people effectively out of being able to spend their disposable income - this is not your ideal of capitalism, especially since the person who is poor also may have had many factors beyond their low income contributing to their low income, such as living in Mississippi and learning that 2 + 2 = vagina and not having a good enough education to do anything. Then their kids can't really amount to much because they actually live paycheck to paycheck and can barely provide for them beyond food and maybe a few notebooks. Definitely can't get more than a small grant from the government for college, and that's assuming they have the resources to even get a good education in the first place. In fact, capitalism amounts to the lucky few becoming the elite, other people stumbling into it by chance, and many people offering slave labor jobs to people because they just don't have anything better. Because they were not necessarily equal from birth. You honestly think Donald Trump was a self-made man born without a silver spoon in his mouth? No, he fucking was; his idea of a "small loan" from his father is 45 million dollars, and my dad's large loan from the bank was 500k. This is only an example to convey my point, this isn't evidence.

Now, by giving a progressive tax, you shift the burden to people who can afford it - someone making 450k would pay maybe 30k more in taxes but that's still a small fraction (only 7%) of his total income added on. It's still very easy for said person to save, it's still very easy for him to pay all of their bills, and they still make a lot of money. The poor person now has some income to spend on other things, some frivolous and they can maybe save and maybe give the next generation something to work off of. They still probably spend a significantly larger % of their income on basic living expenses, but the idea of a progressive tax is to basically even out the ratio of your living expenses and your tax expenses to your total income across the board. It is still not even, though.

If you want to argue the theory then you should confront the theory for the facts of what it is and how it has applied to the reality of the United States. You have many people arguing against you about how it hasn't worked, how the gap between the upper and lower class is large as fuck and how the middle class is dying out completely. You're still denying this, and you're preaching the theory of capitalism by a) saying something absurdly false and b) saying something that is just a theory and in practice was not applied like this at all.

[citation needed]

You're saying 1 billion people were in poverty in Asia? What the fuck? You're saying that literally 71% of people in China and South Korea were in poverty 30 years ago.

By the way China adopts a progressive tax as well and their top tax bracket is 45%. What the fuck are you talking about? I literally got this by googling "tax rates in China"

You also didn't acknowledge why the minimum wage needs increasing. Your argument was inflation, but because of inflation the minimum wage has decreased in value. The point that people have made is that minimum wage should at least catch up to inflation.

First, citation needed. Let's go with UN statistics.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2010/fullreport.pdf

Skip to page 24. Or don't, only Asia has radically decreased poverty in 30 years and the charts before page 24 reflect that.

Ok. Why taxes are theft.

A tax can only be collected by the government at the end of a gun. If I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. Correct?

That is coercion and no different than breaking into my house and stealing 20% of my income every year. The difference is that rather than it being done without my knowledge is that it is done by force. Think of it like a mugging rather than burglery.

Now the question becomes "do I personally agree with where that money goes in order to sanction the tax". If it goes to welfare (example), I do not sanction it. If it goes to defense, I do.

Next topic. You said "why do I care about Steve Jobs, he's dead". Pretty stupid answer because you missed the point regarding how a rich person helps society more with business rather than being taxed.

So let's just say Apple rather than Steve Jobs. Apple sells you an iPhone for $300. You buy it because you think the value is worth more than $300. Apple sells you something that is worth less than $300 because that is how you make a profit. Both of you win due to a mutual transaction.

Now is your life better or worse without that iPhone? Worse. Apple essentially created wealth by creating the iPhone. They get mega rich, your life gets enhanced and everyone wins.

This isn't a zero sum game. You haven't gotten poorer because you believe that the iPhone is worth more than what you were willing to pay for.

Now with regards to slave labour, you do know that that's simply not true, correct? Nobody is forcing anyone to work. When children work for $2 a day in China, there's no gun to their head. They do it because their alternative is not working in a factory, instead working on a farm and probably starving to death.

Same thing in America. Capitalism works because every transaction is done voluntarily. If I believe that I am getting underpaid by my work, I can quit. Nobody is forcing me to work. And if a business underpays everyone and everyone quits, the business goes under. Pretty simple concept.

Next is progressive taxes. Since I laid out why taxes are theft in my opinion (which you are free to disagree with but I don't think you bothered to even understand my opinion), I firmly believe that taking more money from someone just because they have more money is wrong.

As I pointed out earlier, companies (and people as an extension) who are rich are able to create wealth for more than just themselves. Not to the same level as the person who is rich but wealth is still created.

Let's go with Trump for a second. Let's say that Trump decides to build a hotel in... how about Tel Aviv? First of all, Trump is incurring all the risk. Nobody else. Pretty important point.

So buy building a hotel in Tel Aviv, Trump creates jobs. People then come to the hotel and stimulate the economy outside of the hotel by just being there. Like if they go down to the beach and buy a bottle of water.

Now at the end of the day, Trump deserves the profits. He incurred the risk. Hillary said that that Trump needs to share those profits and the only way to do so is by force. Now it could be that he has to share with only his employees or he could be taxes to share with everyone. But nobody aside from Trump incurred the risk.

And furthermore, Trump was able to create wealth for other people by wanting more money. At no point should Trump be taxed more because he has more money. In fact, the more money he has, the better my life is. If Trump can't build that hotel because he's getting taxed too high, no jobs are created. Instead, you're taking his money and saying that he has less right to it than everyone else.

That's capitalism as explained by Adam Smith and as shown by Hong Kong.

Now you asked "what if the money goes only into food and rent"? That still stimulates the economy. That supermarket can continue to run because it makes a profit and you still get something out of it (food). Same thing with rent. That is still capitalism but on a smaller scale. I think you should read Atlas Shrugged and skip to the part about the small community where the people do transactions based on their self-interest.

All you've done is give me an emotional argument. Which is funny because it comes on the back of accusing me of an emotional argument (with no proof). Yours is emotional because you quite literally said "but think of the poor kid in Buttfuck, Ms who doesn't have access to the same education as a kid in NYC".

But according to you, I'm the only one who makes baseless statements and you know everything. So who am I to speak? ;)

Edited by Deplorable Pepe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave you no emotional argument. Your rebuttal is a restatement of your beliefs in fact. Nothing about mine was emotional; it gave something pretty logical. Your argument was about "punishing people for success" - this is loaded. The definition of success is abstract. Hence, you were pushing for emotions, calling it a "punishment," whereas you probably didn't read the fact that I said that it wasn't punishment, it was trying to even things out relative to the cost of housing and food. Hence why I'm not responding beyond these nitpicks, because you clearly didn't read my post.

The [citation needed] was for the one billion figure you quoted. You also praised China for its capitalism - despite the fact that it has a stricter progressive tax than the US does. You can't just say that a country's policy is shit and leads to an economic downfall, then praise another country for revitalizing an economy while employing said policy. It's a structurally poor argument. At any rate, your point about the iPhone was irrelevant, hence why I didn't care about it. It was one example. Donald Trump is a counterexample; rich dude who swindled a bunch of clients out of money and filed for bankruptcy repeatedly. He has actively made society worse despite being rich. Nobody is calling rich people benevolent or malevolent; they are talking about taxes. These two are completely unrelated things. You need to stop pushing this angle, because nobody cares because it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Now with regards to slave labour, you do know that that's simply not true, correct? Nobody is forcing anyone to work. When children work for $2 a day in China, there's no gun to their head. They do it because their alternative is not working in a factory, instead working on a farm and probably starving to death.

You do realize this is the same thing right? "Either work for 2 dollars an hour or die of starvation, you have no other option but we can keep paying you a pittance because of it." If they can't get any other form of job that pays more, then you may as well hold a gun to their head.

I think you should read Atlas Shrugged and skip to the part about the small community where the people do transactions based on their self-interest.

I think you should state your point instead of telling me to do shit. I'm not stating your point or looking into your point for you; you're arguing a point, you do it on your own merits, you don't rely on others to do it.

Yours is emotional because you quite literally said "but think of the poor kid in Buttfuck, Ms who doesn't have access to the same education as a kid in NYC".

You're joking right? Mississippi is known for its consistently extremely low standard of education, and its poverty levels are far above the rest of America. I deliberately invoked Mississippi - because children there lack the opportunity of the majority of the rest of the country, and this is factually proven by its crappy education and its high poverty rate. You're joking if you think everyone was created equal, on the grounds that a) children migrating out of a poor area are subject to their parents' whims leading to b) where this determines their actual opportunity. Of course, since you're a blind capitalist, you don't really see this, you just tell them to suck it up and work hard in a school that are perpetually underfunded by the government.

Also, I specifically said this at the end of my paragraph:

This is only an example to convey my point, this isn't evidence.

My post wasn't emotional. Just because it had some degrees of irony in it doesn't make it emotional. It's definitely rooted in fact.

The economy isn't just supermarkets. Everyone visits a supermarket for food. The whole point was somewhat theoretical and somewhat applied to real life; if you're calling this emotional then you're either projecting or just trying to deflect criticism.

Since I laid out why taxes are theft in my opinion (which you are free to disagree with but I don't think you bothered to even understand my opinion)

Taxes != theft, this is not an opinion, I gave you a definition. Without taxes, who pays for public education or government officials to run? Unless you think the government should not exist - which is why your point is heavily anarchist. Unless you are for totally private education where everyone has to pay for it, in which case you are still screwing poor children out of having the opportunity of a decent education. Do you think schools are a form of welfare? Because you said "welfare and defense" with no other caveats. You're also straying off the point; you seem to be saying the progressive tax is theft or punishment or something but then you also say that taxes are theft. Pick a side, unless you want to eliminate all taxes altogether - which is, once again, anarchist in nature, and I'm not sure if you are for anarchy.

Besides, however you define theft or taxation or whatever is irrelevant to the fact that taxes won't be abolished in the near or far future. The argument itself is fruitless and will yield nothing but banter that will inevitably lead to you dodging yet another slew of points.

If you don't want to understand why progressive tax exists, because the only two responses I've gotten were "this is why tax and progressive tax is theft," then do not respond. I don't care to understand your argument if your only response is "theft" and "punish the more successful" and clearly nitpicking a small part of a significantly larger argument for a rebuttal. Why don't you respond to each point I brought up in the paragraph about progressive tax point by point or bit by bit instead of just restating your definitions? By quoting the entire post and not taking it in chunks it's pretty fucking obvious that you're trying to avoid something, and you're not even admitting it (and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm nitpicking because I don't feel like putting any effort into a debate point after I've tried). I know how responding from mobile works, quote tags are not hard to apply on mobile. You can't expect me to understand your opinion then proceed to go ahead and ignore the reason why progressive tax exists or continue on your tirade. There is literally nothing in your post that shows to me that you actually read or understood my argument. Don't even say "I understand," that's not showing. I fully understand the "taxes as theft" argument, but it's also a strawman, because the nuances between taxes as a social contract and theft as illegal are a significant factor against their equivalence. But go ahead and continue on your tirades.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Why taxes are theft.

A tax can only be collected by the government at the end of a gun. If I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. Correct?

That is coercion and no different than breaking into my house and stealing 20% of my income every year. The difference is that rather than it being done without my knowledge is that it is done by force. Think of it like a mugging rather than burglery.

That's like saying that paying a landlord if coercion because if you don't pay them, they can kick you out.

If you don't want to pay taxes, then buy some equipment and find a forest so you can live off the land, because right now it sounds like your complaining about having to pay for something you benefit from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Re: East Asian growth. I read the snippet in that article you were referring to.

The East Asian experience, perhaps the most successful example of rapid

poverty reduction in the modern era, confirms that countries with a more

equal distribution of assets and income can grow faster than countries with

a higher degree of inequality. Higher productivity among smallholders, significant

human capital investments, scale economies linked to larger domestic

markets and greater political stability are just some of the factors suggested to

account for the fact that greater equality coincided with faster growth. Rapid

expansion of industrial investment and jobs enabling the absorption of surplus

labour leaving the rural economy was also a characteristic feature of this experience

(Khan, 2007).

The long-term success of poverty reduction in East Asian countries was

not the automatic outcome of the unleashing of market forces. Rather, it rested

on the State’s forging a social contract in which a nascent entrepreneurial class

accepted, in return for State support for socializing investment risk and bolstering

profits, some degree of direction with respect to its investment decisions.

This contract was designed both to ensure expansion of jobs in labour-intensive

manufacturing as a means of absorbing unskilled labour and reducing poverty,

and to effect a shift to more technologically demanding activities which were

more likely to guarantee continued competitive advantage in the international

markets and rising living standards in the future.

What the fuck are you praising about this?

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's like saying that paying a landlord if coercion because if you don't pay them, they can kick you out.

If you don't want to pay taxes, then buy some equipment and find a forest so you can live off the land, because right now it sounds like your complaining about having to pay for something you benefit from.

Actually no.

I have a voluntary agreement with the landlord to pay him X in order to live there. It's not coercion if he kicks me out because I can't pay. It's because he is not making any money off of the agreement we made.

I don't have to live there in the first place. That's the point. I entered into a business deal of my own volition.

Reread your statement.

Raven, I'll get to you later. But quoting each segment means a shit load of copypasta which adds at least 15 extra minutes of headache. Hence why I go full response rather than breakdowns. If you really want, I'll break down everything in the last post that I responded to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raven, I'll get to you later. But quoting each segment means a shit load of copypasta which adds at least 15 extra minutes of headache. Hence why I go full response rather than breakdowns. If you really want, I'll break down everything in the last post that I responded to.

not my problem

you complain about respect, then you should suck it up, because some of us on mobile indeed do this from time to time (i'm on laptop now but I respond from mobile with multiple quotes sometimes). not even that difficult

a breakdown makes it obvious what the fuck you're responding to and what points you're ignoring. Because it's obvious to me you're ignoring at least 50% of my points and saying irrelevant shit for another 25%.

I have a voluntary agreement with the landlord to pay him X in order to live there. It's not coercion if he kicks me out because I can't pay. It's because he is not making any money off of the agreement we made.

you have a voluntary agreement with the government; you live on their land, you pay their taxes in accordance to their tax code to fund it. otherwise they kick you off land or punish you (as per the social contract you agree to when you move there). you should know, you moved between countries

or you could do as he said and move out to your own private island

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no.

I have a voluntary agreement with the landlord to pay him X in order to live there. It's not coercion if he kicks me out because I can't pay. It's because he is not making any money off of the agreement we made.

I don't have to live there in the first place. That's the point. I entered into a business deal of my own volition.

Reread your statement.

But your taxes aren't being paid voluntarily?

Because right now, you have an agreement with the government to pay them x percent of your income in exchange for a number of services. By your own logic, you aren't being coerced if they punish you because they aren't making money off the agreement.

Like I said, if you're not paying taxes of your own volition and you don't want to, go live off the land. Because otherwise, you are voluntarily giving your money to the government for the benefits of living in society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize this is the same thing right? "Either work for 2 dollars an hour or die of starvation, you have no other option but we can keep paying you a pittance because of it." If they can't get any other form of job that pays more, then you may as well hold a gun to their head.

i was also gonna say this is fundamentally the same lol

Some of this sounds like it would fit under anarcho-capitalist, but I'm not overly familiar with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no.

I have a voluntary agreement with the landlord to pay him X in order to live there. It's not coercion if he kicks me out because I can't pay. It's because he is not making any money off of the agreement we made.

I don't have to live there in the first place. That's the point. I entered into a business deal of my own volition.

Reread your statement.

Raven, I'll get to you later. But quoting each segment means a shit load of copypasta which adds at least 15 extra minutes of headache. Hence why I go full response rather than breakdowns. If you really want, I'll break down everything in the last post that I responded to.

why do you ignore my posts yet respond with bullshit i already addressed.

you live wherever you live, and taxes are part of the cost of living there. you don't get to be a citizen of a nation for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this sounds like it would fit under anarcho-capitalist, but I'm not overly familiar with it.

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Eh, like any form of anarchism i find it extremely stupid, but imho it makes more sense than anarchist communism

Like, how to prevent people from hoarding lots of resources and building private armies to protect themselves without any State?

Edited by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's an actual philosophy, but it's a contradiction of terms. You can't have capitalism without a state apparatus that enforces private property laws and the labour-capital hierarchy. If anything, the state will just be replaced with private armies from the people who wield the most capital, which sounds like a psychotic dystopia.

I was going to type a long post about anarcho-communism, but this thread might not be the place to have that discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...