On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:23:22 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 07:05:17 PM PDT, Punk <
punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <
jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It would be held by people who believe that government should exist,
> Not at all. I am simply stating a fact. 'Tax cuts' for big business are a subsidy for big business. I never said government should exist. I obviously think it shouldn't exist.
Calling something a "subsidy" merely because they are robbing from "big business" LESS is a grotesque way of referring to it.
Further, "big business's" profits can be paid to stockholders. So, taxing those profits amounts to taking away money from individuals.
>> that taxes should be collected and spent by governments, not the people who earned the money to pay those taxes.Now, maybe there are indeed people who (falsely) call themselves "libertarians" who believe that way: A lot has happened in the last 20 years. But I am confident in calling them "not libertarian" at all.
> I'm confident in pointing out that the way you seem to be siding with big business that are corrupt to the core is not libertarian at all.
There is nothing inherently 'unlibertarian' about having corporations, at all. A corporation is merely a legal construct, initiated in the late 1700's. People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they invested, but for their entire worth as well.
>> Traditionally, libertarians say "taxation is theft". Libertarians, at least the minarchist ones, may believe in a small amount of government, but it is far less than that which currently exists.
> side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft.
I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense?
Wouldn't it be attacked by 'conventional' states, succumb, and then become yet again come under the authorize of a government?
Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody.
>> > Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP.
>> Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that impropriety can and should disappear.
> And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.