What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Sun Nov 20 21:49:18 PST 2016



      From: Razer <rayzer at riseup.net>
 > economically-permissive democrat IS in the mainstream in that party 
  >>NUTS!   In any society where some people can be taxed at 50% of their income (add federal, state, local, sales tax, property tax), that is >>NOT "economically-permissive"!!!  Obviously, your idea of "economically-permissive" is CRACKED.        
 
>50% of $50 million (for instance) must be REALLY TOUGH on them. While the guy who picks the food they eat lives in a cardboard box in the >field or a TB-infected "Campo" (A few of these in the Monterey area look as bad as any NYC tenement with exposed wiring, black mold etc. I've >seen them personally.)
Oh!  I see you are justifying robbing people based on the mere assertion that they can 'afford' it.  Hey, why don't you start using this logic:  If a person makes $10 million per year, government should taken 50% of it, because they "can afford it".  But WAIT!  The guy STILL has $5 million left!  So, let's take ANOTHER 50%, or $2.5 million, leaving him with $2.5 million.  But WAIT!  The guy STILL has $2.5 million left.  So let's take ANOTHER 50%, leaving him with $1.25 million.   But WAIT!!!....
See the problem?  If the TRUE justification for taxation is that the victim can 'afford' it, that would seemingly justify virtually any percentage of taxation, as long as you leave him 'enough' to 'live'.See the problem?  
 
 
        
  >>Libertarians believe taxation is theft.  If you don't believe that, you can't be a libertarian.  And if you truly don't even understand that >>libertarians believe taxation is theft, you are utterly clueless.        
 
>I don't believe that taxation in and of itself is theft. I think the people who diburse the taxes (the government) are thieves. THEY get to decide >what the money is used for ... in the interest of people who are often QUITE Libertarian, instead of the people in the community or society at >large deciding... You need the chart from Gilens and Page for that statement about who has say in US policy decisions?
You're diverting.  
 
 http://auntieimperial.tumblr.com/post/85720026694
 
>Oh RIGHT I extrapolate on your previous statement about communities being evilly collectivist. You don't believe that communities and >societies people live within should have a say, that it all about ME and MY MONEY and fuck you! I'll build the road and YOU can't use it b/c MY >money (or play favorites ...Ie cronyism, or toll the road)... etc ad nauseum
No, your previous phrasing indicated that you believe that property (communities) is collectively owned, bought and sold.  While this may very well be true for public property, it is NOT true for private property.
 

>>> if you consider the regulations made DEFINITELY work in favor of capitalists (employers, financial industry) and not the workers. The >capitalists say that's not true. Regulation hurts them. But "Hurts them" means it prevents them from having it all."
 >>It's hard to know what you are talking about.  "Economically-permissive" doesn't merely mean "permissive only for business people".  That would be called "crony-capitalism", not to be confused with "crony socialism", etc. 
         
 
>The libertarians I know who own small businesses EXEMPLIFY Crony Capitalism Yup... One's a stone cold racist who owns a coffee shop and made a point of naming a Kenyan blend after Obama.
What does naming a type of coffee after Obama have to do about "crony capitalism""BTW, Obama's Kenyan relatives are certain he was born in Kenya.  Why is that?
 
 
         
 >Ps. You're discussing this with someone who thinks the two parties are really two right wing factions of a one party state with the belief in 'manifest destiny' and 'nationalist exceptionalism' (fascism you know?) as ideology. 
  Yes, and I consider myself an anarchist.  But that does not mean that the Republicans and Democrats arent at least distinguishable.  They have different faults, for instance.
 
 
>>Further, Fascists lead you to believe people have rights until your rights interfere with their sociopolitical needs. That's a US Libertarian, defined. 
  >>You will have to be more specific.  Which "sociopolitical needs"?  Which "rights"? 
 
>>>Hitler needed Euro Jews for slave labor to create his great war machine sociopolitically and economically. 
 
>>>Their rights. 
  
  >>Your last few lines would make sense, except for your "convenient" insertion of "US Libertarian" into the mix.
 
 
         
 
>Duly noted. It's called cognitive dissonance.
 You need to explain why merely mentioning "US Libertarians" in the context of a different subject is relevant.  Merely putting the characters "US Libertarians" near the characters "Fascists" does not make them that, does it?
 
         
 >Libertarians are fine with underpaid labor in the fields because it's the natural order of things that bright minds with bright ideas, like (snigger) app designers and database wonks are paid a fortune and the people who feed them live in refrigerator boxes in fields ... b/c "Free Market". 
  What's your definition of "underpaid"?         
 
>See above or earlier about fieldhands living in a cardboard box or TB-infested Campo. That's because they can't afford rent despite the fact they work 12 hours a day 7 days a week sunrise to sunset, until the harvest is finished.
Part of the problem is that 'they' let in a lot of cheap labor.  If the farmers had to hire Americans to do the work, wages would necessarily rise.  And fewer people would be on Welfare, etc, etc.  Fewer people would be dependent on Government.  Oh, I forgot!  THAT'S the problem!

           Jim Bell 
 
 
 
  
    
      
 
 

   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 20123 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161121/6f09e447/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list