Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 222

On June 04 2020 06:39 Baalim wrote: You are right the Y axis isn't violence and you can commit violence and be libertarian, hell I just advocated for people to arm themselves at defends their stores with lethal force if neccesary, I'd call the Y axis simply authoritarianism which to be fair is quite close to institutional violence. I say you are a closet red becauase you support censorshp for the wrong ideas, and violence towards the wrong thinkers and only because a grouop doesn't have a clear structure you think its not authoritarianism, but violence by the mob is just as authoritarian, for example in pats of the middle east unorganized mobs formed by the family kill "dishonored" women and gays, that is the same kind of authoritarianism you fail to see in your positions, obviously in a much greater scale. You did not advocate for punching a Nazi directly harassing somebody, in which case I'd be happy to throw the punch too, you advocated violence at any time.

"Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms." Literally the first sentence of the Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

If I'm a closet red then it means I am secretly in favor of building a strong central power, so yes, the fact that antifa only operates as decentralized cells of a few individuals means that by definition they are not authoritarian. Violent? Sure. That's not the same thing, so don't conflate the two.

There are a lot of criticisms towards collectivist/social anarchist schools of thoughts coming from the individualist ones (especially post-left anarchism) and which bring up that "mob rule" argument in a much more effective way than you do. In fact it's one of the most frequent point that comes up, yet you are under the impression that there is only an objection to it on the right so you paint all anarchists as fundamentally being "authoritarian" (anti-individual). You should learn more about the individualist traditions so you can refrain from making these simplistic arguments and generalizations. It is fundamentally an argument against democracy, and anarchists who make it (like Bob Black in "Debunking Democracy'') are certainly not making the case that fascism is better. Here's an excerpt from his essay:

"As (among many others) Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Henry David Thoreau, Mikhail Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, Errico Malatesta, and Emma Goldman said—and does anybody disagree?—democracy does not assure correct decisions. "The only thing special about majorities is that they are not minorities." [17] There is no strength in numbers, or rather, there is nothing but strength in numbers. Parties, families, corporations, unions, nearly all voluntary associations are, by choice, oligarchic. [18] Indeed, in assemblies whether direct or representative, in electorates as in legislatures, the whole is less—even less—than the sum of its parts. It is even mathematically demonstrable (but not by me) that majority decision-making generates inefficient, socially wasteful, more or less self-defeating decisions."

So you see, it's not just you and your fash-adjacent Twitter buddies that care about protecting the opinions of the minority. The left has a very rich individualistic tradition, which is where you are taking all of this stuff from, unknowingly.

No, it's not the same to have violent mobs of fundamentalists lynching gay people and women in the Middle East. That is hierarchical domination: literally the opposite of what an atheistic, anarchist anti-fascist fights for. Organizing under a fascist ideology isn't "wrong think", in the same way that organizing between pedophiles in order to abduct kids isn't just "wrong think". It's something that you stop early in its tracks if you have a spine and the ability to be rational. You do it in a way that requires the least amount of force possible and you don't build a massive bureaucracy around those precepts or a religious doctrine that would enshrine it in some Absolute Law. When the "mob" can be held accountable for its actions -- because it doesn't have the force of a state behind it -- it doesn't actually have authority, but it does have influence.

For example, regarding pronouns I'm cool with calling people what they like (unless they are fucking with me) and thats what I do, but when there is a threat of violence then I'll fight that but you wouldn't, you will allow institutional violence if it suits your left wing ideals"

The fact that you have to fish for an example that doesn't even exist in the real world to "denounce my authoritarian tendencies" is extremely telling. Pronouns aren't compelled by law; they don't need to be.

I think you would do the same, you would support the communis if you had to chose between them or right wing libertarians... and I wouldnt, the Y axis is more important to me than the X one, I value freedom more than I do prosperity and order.

Fuck no I wouldn't. I don't give a shit what label you give your ideology, if it's centered around hierarchical domination and a massive concentration of power I won't prefer it to some other form that is essentially the same. I also don't want to support a movement that I know is doomed to failure, which all forms of authoritarian Marxist ideology active today are, as that would just reinforce capitalism once it is defeated (and reinvigorate its proponents). If there is a possibility for a worldwide revolution (which I am far from being convinced there is), then there is almost certainly not going to be a second chance if it fails, and Fukuyama will have been right.

On June 04 2020 11:34 Loco wrote: That's true Spitfire. Hiems, it's the second time you use that picture, so you should probably be made aware now that this is not a picture of me. It's the actor from the movie "The Man Who Sleeps". Cool attempt though.

Alright loco here you go.

Solid meme

On June 04 2020 07:54 Loco wrote: He wasn't demanding money from you at any point, he was obviously talking about how relieving a decent UBI would be for him, which in theory would come out of mostly richer people's wealth (only to go back to them later anyway).

Not from me directly but from taxation.

I'm surprised you mention UBI since you dont like it since it would maintain capitalism, on the other hand I like the idea IF it turns out even without state intervention the market were to perpetually increase inequality it would be the way to rebalance the system without all the drawbacks of a state, so I'm potentially very favorable towards UBI.

You go on to say that it's a good thing that people take care of each other when the going gets tough in Mexico and you deplore the "individualistic culture" of the US where people are constantly threatened with homelessness and medical bankruptcy. Yet in effect, you're saying that in those circumstances where various forces have conspired to create such a heartless culture, you'd rather have people continually struggle to meet their basic needs or be starving on the streets through austerity measures than decent social programs.

You confuse individualism with selfishness, I dont think individual freedom should die at the alter of common good, I think helping is vital to a succesful society but it should be voluntary not compulsive through a system of systems.

Portraying him as "just lazy" and using trivializing language like "didn't feel like making pizzas" is just wrong. No one is lazy for quitting a dead-end job they hate and which had been contributing more and more towards psychological breakdown and to accuse someone of laziness based on this is borderline malicious. It's almost like if you said to a war veteran suffering from PTSD that he's lazy for not wanting to do a job that sends him into emotional flashbacks several times a day.

You posted an article how laziness literally wasn't a thing, I dont think we are going to get further in this point when you hold such a radical belief.

It's not "despite", it's "because". It's incredibly well documented that mutual aid or "primitive communism" is what human beings naturally default to in times of need. In American ghettos you see the same things that you are used to seeing in Mexico. The media doesn't make money off of it so it doesn't show it, but there are a ton of mutual aid efforts going on right now with covid-19 and the BLM movement.

I'm all for social cohesion and localism.

It's not "baffling". Capitalism now relies on increased hyper-competitivity and the way society is structured in pursuit of the "American Dream" inhibits the cooperative natures of individuals which makes them neurotic, irresponsible, abusive, etc, so of course the family unit suffers.

Cooperative natures withint a close knit circle but hyper-competitive against outside, that has been our nature for millenia... In a business you cooperate with your fellow workers.

The hypocrisy is entirely on your end here. You promote personal responsibility and individual effort above all when it suits you, yet you have no problem lumping individuals and subsuming their individual particularities into the whole of a country when it also suits you. It's meaningless to talk about where someone was born. A baby doesn't have opportunities. Opportunities come later on, usually after you have received formal education. Before such a thing can happen (or after), tragedies that alter the life of someone profoundly can happen anywhere in the world. In my case I was struck with an anxiety disorder that forced me to leave school before there were any possibilities open to me market-wise, but it's besides the point and I shouldn't have to talk about my life for you to know that your argument is plainly wrong.

Did you just say that there is no inherent privilege at birth?, so you are not inherently privileged by race or nationality, it depends on your circunstances...

BASED lol.

Right, so you're in favor of people dying on the streets when those family members decide they can't or won't support them, and you're in favor of people being abused/dependent on their family and have no autonomy whatsoever just because they are disabled and superfluous to capital. You have to just bite the bullet here my dude.

Nobody is in favor of people dying in the streets, if you keep believing yourself as morally superior to anybody with different ideas than yoursel you will continue to fail to understand them.

No, I'm in favor of communities willingly help out such people through donations.

His socio-economic views are inherently racist, sexist and ableist. "Overbearing state" and "open markets" are just euphemistic, trojan horse words to justify these types of oppression when you get them from someone like Stefan. That's where the brainwashing comes from: he strips you of your ability to know what the alternatives are, and it leads you to share his same disgusting views, like those on the welfare state and immigration which you still parrot to this day and are incredibly contradictory. This wouldn't be the case if you were a free market anarchist/market socialist/mutualist. This is where you'd be landing if you were actually interested in true open markets and a better world for as many people as possible. Just because

My disgusting views on immigration? I believe in eliminating borders, and free movement and think the concept of nationality is stupid but you have to erradicate any state benefit otherwise immigration would put an unsustainable burden on the social programs, I've said this many times.

You think the free market is racist, sexist and ableist... I mean what can I discuss about it I guess we are at an impass on that one too.

I honestly don't remember, maybe some nihilistic stuff about "being nobody" from 13 years ago or something. The difference would be that I never believed in a "Charles Manson Program"; I haven't spent a single minute in the last 10+ years looking at his stuff or spreading any idea of his, so it was obviously peripheral stuff; whereas your agreements with Stefan are at the center of your world -- they are foundational, and you often spread them still, e.g., "Nazis were left-wing, 'socialism is in their name!' and antifa are authoritarian communists which is a lot more dangerous than fascism"

I also haven't seen anything from Stefan in 10 years and if you've continued to be a nihilist that spoke in terms of "being nobody" it still wouldn't make you a Manson cultist that also believes in helter skelter through association.

I don't claim the NAZI party was socialist because of their name, but because of their economic model, which was socialist and I do believe left wing authoritarianism is a biggest threat to the world than right one because communism is easier to convince people to eat the rich than to gas the jews and none of these two ideas come from Stefan.

One side is anti- certain humans. Those humans have one fundamental flaw according to them: that they were born inferior, beastly. This group's main purpose is to dehumanize other humans. The other side is only anti- those humans who are anti- certain humans, and only temporarily so, since ideology is flexible. Yes, I am aware that some people on the left would use power if they were to acquire it in order to discriminate against others on different lines, but to simplify things, you are engaging in a false equivalence, because the things that they are promoting in that moment are fundamentally different (don't be racist, don't be sexist, demand better work circumstances, etc). I don't trust Marxists/Leninists/Maoists in any way but the propaganda they spread is not harmful in the moment, it would be only harmful if they had a chance of being in power, which they won't be, because they believe in an outdated ideology that is widely distrusted, and class-centered struggle is absolutely impossible today. Fascism on the other hand is indeed capitalism in decay and is already in power in many places and the US itself is rampant with it, so pushing for fascist propaganda is dangerous right here and now.

Many countries are literally suffering under left wing dictatorships, what countries are suffering racial genocide under hard right wing governments today?

No; the issue is that you don't share those, you only share the ones that promote the far-right's racism/conspiracy theories.

Because most are awful, I just asked for good accounts to follow on twitter and you didn't give a single account.

Individuals are formed (structured) by other individuals. That's what a nervous system is: the collection of internalized responses to interactions with a world populated with others. As a result "your" ideas are other people's ideas. Some degree of originality is possible if you are creative (an artist, a philosopher, a researcher), but that requires you to build on previous individuals' experiences too. The only clear demarcation between individuals that exists is on a physical level, where the boundaries are obvious, but there exists no such demarcation internally at the noological level.

My ideas are not perfectly unique and others have them? thanks for that Sherlock... what I'm saying is I'm not pushing anybodys agenda these are the things I think and I rake responsibility for what I say, not others because you always add shit I've never said.

You never got the "tankie" argument, I did what you do to me all the time, you adhere things I don't believe in because some random guy said some common points, the same way you have many common talking points with tankies.

So i dont give a fuck what others say, debate and adress me to what I say, or I'll debate you as if I were against a full tankie.

It's already been proven that antifascists are not responsible for a lot of the violence from the BLM protests. A lot of black activists actively deliver white people to the cops if they are trying to incite violence. They have been overwhelmingly non-violent in most states/protests and it's the cops who began the violence. There are probably hundreds of videos of police violence out there currently that are extremely brutal and don't in any way compare to some people throwing bricks and breaking windows.

errr these activist are turning white antifa idiots to the police, that proves precisely the opposite and I absolutely cheer on that, police your own protest, I disagree that they've been overwhelmingly non-violent entire neighborhoods are destroyed and I'm sure the police is doing many violent things too, so are protesters, many policemen have been killed, one was shot in the head in las vegas, absurd to recude what has happened to breaking windows.

As for the looting, the word "opportunists" is a value-laden word that doesn't come from your unique mind: it is spread all around right-wing and liberal spaces, and serves only the vicious purpose of reproducing systems of profound inequality, and I fully disagree with it. The only thing that I am willing to credit as "opportunism" is if someone who is materially well off and not marginalized goes on to participate in the looting. Which is still far less morally problematic than the kind of looting that is perpetuated by the capitalist ruling order and which you have never complained about.

Condoning theft.. not surprising but we are not going to agree on this one, as I've said I think shop owners should shoot people who try to steal.

I've never complained about ruling class looting? Except that I've been the most vocally critic against "quantitive easing" and saying how Boeing should fail etc against centrists, but ok bud, keep on strawmanning me... I guess we are going back to me calling you tankie.

As for "moving the status quo left is a bad idea for everyone not whites", that's just plain dumb. You said you were in favor of police reforms, which is all that BLM is about; they are not a revolutionary force. They'd be moving the status quo left on a racial basis if they are successful which would make their lives a little better and that's all, so you're holding two contradictory positions at this moment.

Police power has nothing to do with the X axis, its the Y axis (authoritarianism), the soviets had massive and brutal police my friend.

It's you who is ironically arguing against the power of the sindicalization of the police lol.

On June 04 2020 11:15 Spitfiree wrote: There are no good right-wing meme channels, cause the ring-wing are memes themselves 99% of the time, no need to make further jokes

True but Fox News self-parody paked at the "well do it live" and making fun of fundamental christians is like.. ableist lol. I need a source of the dankest lefty stuff.

On June 04 2020 12:23 hiems wrote: Show nested quote + On June 04 2020 11:34 Loco wrote: That's true Spitfire. Hiems, it's the second time you use that picture, so you should probably be made aware now that this is not a picture of me. It's the actor from the movie "The Man Who Sleeps". Cool attempt though. Alright loco here you go.

lololol

precisely what this thread needs, more memes and less words :D

I've never complained about ruling class looting? Except that I've been the most vocally critic against "quantitive easing" and saying how Boeing should fail etc against centrists, but ok bud, keep on strawmanning me..

Fair enough, you complain about a single aspect of the looting from the ruling class. Every other aspect you fail on. One only has to recall your hot takes on how radical Bernie's reforms were to you and how you did not support a single one of them. So, it's effectively all talk: you can complain about "too big to fail" and corporate socialism because you know it's not going to change anything. When it comes to things that could actually change something, your rhetoric is consistently the same, you don't complain, and you don't support those reforms, you vehemently oppose them, because "government bad, less government involvement always good".

The billionaire class has increased its fortune by 565,000,000,000$ since the beginning of the pandemic but your hatred is directed towards poor and marginalized people stealing a pair of Nikes and a toaster.

I'm the one who is being consistently strawman'd here; almost the entirety of your post are either strawmen or distractions/rationalisations/what aboutism, so I'm not going to go through the trouble of parsing through that.

I guess we are going back to me calling you tankie.

"I have so little integrity that it doesn't suffice for me to point out that you have misrepresented my position, I am now obligated to lie about your views in return."

I support the erradication of private lobbying to politicians, the political parties should be funded by public money this would greatly reduce the control of corporations of the state.
I support the dissolution of bureaucratic regulation that is intended to increase the barrier of entry to many markets that helps corporations keep control.
I support closing loopholes in the tax code that allow corporations to dodge taxation that smaller busineses cannot.
I would end all pseudo-symbiosis between state-corporation that create moral hazards and builds monopolies.
I oppose quantitve easing into the hands of corporations.

Bernies proposals were awful, rent control? lol for fucks sake only a moron can't see the consecuences of that, but yeah in general terms more state is bad, less is good yet all those proposals above work on a within the presence of a state, actually they are quite doable.

I guess its "all talk" since I havent shot Bernanke in the face for bailing out corporations... but have you shot him in the face?.

Well I stopped called you a tankie but you haven't for one second stopped trying to associate me with random baddies because we happen to overlap in opinions in some areas, or they replied to a video I posted etc.

Obvious difference is that I'm an anarchist so I believe in direct action in order to effect change. I don't advocate shooting individuals because you don't destroy unjust systems of power that work through institutionalized violence by killing isolated individuals who are acting out from the constraints that are imposed within it.

In contrast you oppose direct action and most of the time you actively work to preserve the status quo. The times where you don't there is no mechanism or policy on the table by which your changes can happen to hurt the Leviathan; it's just empty rhetoric and wishful thinking "vote with your dollar" bullshit. "I am against private lobbying" are you fucking kidding me? It's like if I was an authoritarian commie and said "I am against the gulags!" Contradictory nonsense and virtue signalling is not just a thing of the left.

On June 04 2020 10:35 hiems wrote: I just want to add this bit about Riots/Looting. As an Asian/Korean person, this is an important issue for me: + Show Spoiler + Most of us were too young to remember the LA Riots from the Rodney King incident. I became interested in it after hearing David Choe say a bunch of times "to be honest, after the LA Riots, I didn't really like black people very much for awhile" ... as his parents store was ruined as a result of the riots. It was an interesting take from an interesting guy so I read up on it a bit. Pretty much blacks/other rioters destroyed shit-ton of Korean businesses that had nothing to do with Police brutality. Anyway here are some quotes. Many Korean Americans in Los Angeles refer to the event as Sa-I-Gu, meaning "four-two-nine" in the Korean language (4.29), in reference to April 29, 1992, which was the day the riots started. Over 2,300 mom-and-pop shops run by Korean business owners were damaged through ransacking and looting during the riots, sustaining close to $400 million in damages.[101] During the riots, Korean Americans received very little aid or protection from police authorities, due to their low social status and language barriers.[102] Many Koreans rushed to Koreatown after Korean-language radio stations called for volunteers to guard against rioters. Many were armed, with a variety of improvised weapons, handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.[103] David Joo, a manager of the gun store, said, "I want to make it clear that we didn't open fire first. At that time, four police cars were there. Somebody started to shoot at us. The LAPD ran away in half a second. I never saw such a fast escape. I was pretty disappointed." Carl Rhyu, also a participant in the Koreans' armed response, said, "If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response."104] At a shopping center several miles north of Koreatown, Jay Rhee, who said he and others fired five hundred shots into the ground and air, said, "We have lost our faith in the police. Where were you when we needed you?" Koreatown was isolated from South Central Los Angeles, yet despite this, it was the most severely damaged in the riots.[102] Korean Americans not only faced physical damage to their stores and community surroundings, but they also suffered emotional, psychological, and economic despair. About 2,300 Korean-owned stores in southern California were looted or burned, making up 45 percent of all damages caused by the riot. According to the Asian and Pacific American Counseling and Prevention Center, 730 Koreans were treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, which included symptoms such as insomnia, a sense of helplessness, and muscle pain. In reaction, many Korean Americans worked to create political and social empowerment.[102] "Korean-Americans and their stores throughout LA's Korea town were hit the hardest by the riots, with an estimated $400 million done in damages. Despite claims that Koreatown had not been intentionally targeted during the riots, by Sunday, over 1,600 Korean-American owned stores had been completely destroyed. Rioters targeted Korean-American shops in their areas, as there had been considerable tension between the two communities. Such sources as Newsweek and Time suggested that blacks thought Korean-American merchants were "taking money out of their community", that they were racist as they refused to hire blacks, and often treated them without respect. There were cultural and language differences, as some shopowners were immigrants. Other scholars compare these riots to those in Detroit in the 1920s, when whites rioted against blacks.[citation needed]But instead of African-Americans as victims, the race riots "represent backlash violence in response to recent Latino and Asian immigration into African-American neighborhoods."5] Social commentator Mike Davis pointed to the growing economic disparity in Los Angeles, caused by corporate restructuring and government deregulation, with inner city residents bearing the brunt of such changes. Such conditions engendered a widespread feeling of frustration and powerlessness in the urban populace. They reacted to the King verdicts with a violent expression of collective public protest.[142][143] To Davis and other writers, the tensions between African-Americans and Korean-Americans had as much to do with the economic competition between the two groups caused by wider market forces as with cultural misunderstandings and Black anger about the killing of Latasha Harlins.[47] takeaways: -there is no place for rioting/looting. it is wrong. PERIOD. if you are somehow justifying riots/violence/looting then you are a piece of shit. -racism against black people by police is real. it happens more often than with other races. I have stated this exists in the past. It is a bad thing and needs to change. however, it is very easy for a certain base of the left to use incidents such as these to oppress communities that are largely uninvolved, such as the Koreans during the LA Riots. They will try to oppress us, whether it is through direct violence/looting, by stealing our hard earned success through socialism, through affirmative action quotas in universities, by minority-only internships as tech firms such as google/facebook that exclude whites and asians, by portraying us negatively in liberal controlled media outlets such as (hollywood movies, netflix, ny times), by indoctrinating our youth in the education system and universities, by trying to erase student loan debt as a method of wealth redistribution, and im sure many many more devious methods. -Asians tend to split into 2 camps in response to situations like this. According to Edward Park, the 1992 violence stimulated a new wave of political activism among Korean-Americans, but it also split them into two camps.[109][110] The liberals sought to unite with other minorities in Los Angeles to fight against racial oppression and scapegoating. The conservatives emphasized law and order and generally favored the economic and social policies of the Republican Party. The conservatives tended to emphasize the differences between Koreans and other minorities, specifically African Americans. But please make sure you understand. These people DO NOT care about you. Do not be fooled. Do not give in to the evil plans of the leftists/socialists.

Your brain somehow didn't register some key parts of the quoted Wikipedia article. Namely, that police ignored the plight of the Korean-Americans:

"As the riots spread, roads between Koreatown and wealthy white neighborhoods were blocked off by police and official defense lines were set up around the independent cities such as Beverly Hills and West Hollywood.[78] A Korean-American resident later told reporters: "It was containment. The police cut off traffic out of Koreatown, while we were trapped on the other side without help. Those roads are a gateway to a richer neighborhood. It can't be denied.''[79] Koreans also said that emergency responders ignored their calls for help.[80]"

"The lack of law enforcement forced Koreatown civilians to organize their own armed security teams, mainly composed of store owners, to defend their businesses from rioters."

"When our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response."

"During the riots, Korean Americans received very little aid or protection from police authorities, due to their low social status and language barriers."

---

So, why would this info make you take the side of Law & Order? The police is a fundamentally racist institution that will defend the ruling class above the interests of anyone else, no matter what. The main takeaway is not to trust authority, period. It's to learn to depend on yourself and your community to take care of your own affairs. This is what the "evil" socialists of the anarchist tradition and Marxist tradition believe.

Another takeaway is that the ruling class maintains its rule through divide and conquer tactics. Structural violence has insane spillover effects; once the monster of anger and frustration in the face of injustice comes out, it is impossible to control. That people of color turn against each other is a great result for them; it's a given that they make sure to manipulate public opinions to turn people against each other and create the conditions for economic hardships for people which is known to intensify xenophobia/tribal reactions.

The conclusion that leftists are responsible for these problems is nonsensical. Liberals and the conservatives are in essence the same party -- they have the same central interests and only disagree on the peripheral issues and for the purposes of keeping the illusion that they are deeply antagonistic groups of people who serve distinctly different groups. They are not. Neither of them care about you; neither of them can represent your interests.

Playing oppression olympics and blaming other minorities for the oppression of another minority group is misguided. If you oppose racism you have to oppose it all the way. Not going to the root of the problem, which is hierarchy and imposed scarcity under capitalism, is necessarily going to make you take the wrong turn and blame other minority groups or be paranoid that they are "out to get you".

Median household income in the United States for Asian Americans is more than twice that of African Americans. It's profoundly racist to think affirmative action shouldn't exist and that your ethnic group is the worst off in the US. But again, it doesn't have to be you or them when there are 3 -- that's right, 3 - billionaires in the US who have more wealth together than 50% of the US population. If you earned the average annual income of a full-time salaried worker in the United States, which was 2018 in $46,800, it would take you over 3,200,000 years of work to get to Jeff Bezos' current net worth. That's 48,000 lifetimes with the current average lifespan in the US. So please don't talk about how America is a meritocracy and keep throwing around this religious Protestant work ethic nonsense.

On June 05 2020 03:06 Loco wrote: Obvious difference is that I'm an anarchist so I believe in direct action in order to effect change. I don't advocate shooting individuals because you don't destroy unjust systems of power that work through institutionalized violence by killing isolated individuals who are acting out from the constraints that are imposed within it. In contrast you oppose direct action and most of the time you actively work to preserve the status quo. The times where you don't there is no mechanism or policy on the table by which your changes can happen to hurt the Leviathan; it's just empty rhetoric and wishful thinking "vote with your dollar" bullshit. "I am against private lobbying" are you fucking kidding me? It's like if I was an authoritarian commie and said "I am against the gulags!" Contradictory nonsense and virtue signalling is not just a thing of the left.

wat.. not allowing private corporations to legally finance campaigns is the std in many parts of the world, Mexico for example, I suspect most of Europe too but I'm just guessing.


Ironically you are in favor of gulags lol.

I misread what you said since it made more sense to oppose private lobbying in general if you want to achieve meaningful results. Whether the politicians are corrupted before or after they are elected should be of very little importance.

Yeah right, I'm the one supporting gulags for thinking that educating ISIS prisoners is a good thing; meanwhile, your profit-oriented religion is what is responsible for contemporary gulags -- prison labor. The same profit-oriented religion is what blew open those ISIS detention centers too and is the main driver behind the resurgence of ISIS in the Middle East.

Not mentioning that climate change and especially the human-induced droughts were a critical component for the beginning of Syrian Civil War -- another problem caused by this same religion of profit-above-all and which lobbying groups were directly responsible for as they have consistently funneled tons of money into misinformation campaigns for decades. And don't tell me that it doesn't matter because people are responsible for their beliefs and blah blah -- because they sure as hell succeeded in confusing you.

On June 05 2020 01:49 Baalim wrote: I support the erradication of private lobbying to politicians, the political parties should be funded by public money this would greatly reduce the control of corporations of the state.

How would this be any different than lobbyism? If everything is private and society runs on willing public donations, then those money would technically again be private... I don't understand your claim at all

On June 05 2020 01:49 Baalim wrote: I support closing loopholes in the tax code that allow corporations to dodge taxation that smaller busineses cannot. .

This is as good of support as someone stating "I support utopia" .... its impossible to close loopholes since laws are built on words, that are bound to be defined, and since you can't really define everything to have a strict meaning it needs interpretation, loopholes are simply inevitable. You're basically saying you're going to remove abstractness from laws which would be more of a dystopian solution than a positive one... All laws would be forced equally without any circumstances taken into account, that is awful.

On June 05 2020 01:49 Baalim wrote: I would end all pseudo-symbiosis between state-corporation that create moral hazards and builds monopolies. .

Which leads to this being contradictive to the first statement, as long as a government receives money by public funding in any other means than taxes its ties with business will not be cut. And even my claim is very doubtful and not very thoroughly though through

On June 05 2020 06:52 Loco wrote: It's profoundly racist to think affirmative action shouldn't exist

It is profoundly retarded to say things like these.

On June 05 2020 22:53 Spitfiree wrote: How would this be any different than lobbyism? If everything is private and society runs on willing public donations, then those money would technically again be private... I don't understand your claim at all

Lobbying buys the state power, if there is no state power to buy there is nothing to lobby for, you can't lobby to the FDA to stiffle competition to keep selling insuline at $700 a vial if there is no FDA.

This is as good of support as someone stating "I support utopia" .... its impossible to close loopholes since laws are built on words, that are bound to be defined, and since you can't really define everything to have a strict meaning it needs interpretation, loopholes are simply inevitable. You're basically saying you're going to remove abstractness from laws which would be more of a dystopian solution than a positive one... All laws would be forced equally without any circumstances taken into account, that is awful.

There are many specific bills in the tax code that could be changed to avoid tax evasion, I don't really get your argument are you claming that the US tax code cannot be improved or worsened at all?

Which leads to this being contradictive to the first statement, as long as a government receives money by public funding in any other means than taxes its ties with business will not be cut.

What? The government shouldn't recieve any funds beyond taxes, no lobbying, no running businesses, no banking or wallstreet etc.

On June 05 2020 23:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 05 2020 06:52 Loco wrote: It's profoundly racist to think affirmative action shouldn't exist It is profoundly retarded to say things like these.

Why please enlighten me with your Stefan Molyneux-inherited talking points instead of lazily throwing around some random ableist insult.

On June 05 2020 23:28 Baalim wrote: There are many specific bills in the tax code that could be changed to avoid tax evasion, I don't really get your argument are you claming that the US tax code cannot be improved or worsened at all?

No, I'm simply saying it cannot be perfected. The moment you 'fix' one thing another one pops up, its like making changes in an RTS and "fixing" an overpowered thing, it just takes a bit more time to find the new loopholes. You obviously should try to improve it, however you stated it as if its something that can be perfected which it obviously cannot be. Corporations are paying shitton of money to those people so they can find how to exploit the law to save even more money.


Also implying there will be no state power means there wouldn't be any centralized laws either, since you need an institution to regulate the laws, which would essentially then be the state, you could call it differently, but it won't change the fact that it is a state. I don't get your argument at all, its like going in circles without any hard fundamental supporting it

On June 06 2020 00:16 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On June 05 2020 23:20 Baalim wrote:   On June 05 2020 06:52 Loco wrote: It's profoundly racist to think affirmative action shouldn't exist It is profoundly retarded to say things like these. Why please enlighten me with your Stefan Molyneux-inherited talking points instead of lazily throwing around some random ableist insult.

Ableist lol going full SJW.

Ok, heres my argument, read carefully: Giving systematic advantage to people based on their race, gender or any other form of identity to compensate for statistical and/or historical disadvantages can be not only unjust because its impossible to quantify the advantages you had in life so your system will always be unjust and it will also help divide and worsen the relation between these groups driving them further apart instead of bringing them together.

Thinking along those lines doesn't make you, profoundly racist you absolute fucking moron.