Bjorn is a Stalinist?

[Martin Hash]

Let me repeat, Libertyists do NOT believe in equality. I’m fact, we strive to be as unequal as possible.

[BjornP]

Liberty is making decisions for yourself, and reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences of your actions.

The fact that you don’t know this makes my point.

The fact that you imagine that I am unaware of this, proves mine.

I wholeheartedly support making decisions for yourself, reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences. I also support the State not getting in the way of that. Hence my support for the welfare state, multiparty democracy and capitalism (but not neoliberalism). The idea that you can only "suffer the consequences of your actions" if your bad decisions ultimately end up with you homeless, is of course something I reject. Increasing the opportunities of your fellow citizens, does not take away neither their liberty nor yours. No liberty is taking away by increasing equality in law, and equality of opportunity.

[Martin Hash]

Liberty is making decisions for yourself, and reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences of your actions.

The fact that you don’t know this makes my point.

The fact that you imaginethat I am unaware of this, proves mine.

I wholeheartedly support making decisions for yourself, reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences. I also support the State not getting in the way of that. Hence my support for the welfare state, multiparty democracy and capitalism (but not neoliberalism). The idea that you can only "suffer the consequences of your actions" if your bad decisions ultimately end up with you homeless, is of course something I reject. Increasing the opportunities of your fellow citizens, does not take away neither their liberty nor yours. No liberty is taking away by increasing equality in law, and equality of opportunity.

This is good. Did I misread you advocating for equity? If you were being sarcastic, that wasn't the place for it.

[BjornP]

Liberty is making decisions for yourself, and reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences of your actions.

The fact that you don’t know this makes my point.

The fact that you imaginethat I am unaware of this, proves mine.

I wholeheartedly support making decisions for yourself, reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences. I also support the State not getting in the way of that. Hence my support for the welfare state, multiparty democracy and capitalism (but not neoliberalism). The idea that you can only "suffer the consequences of your actions" if your bad decisions ultimately end up with you homeless, is of course something I reject. Increasing the opportunities of your fellow citizens, does not take away neither their liberty nor yours. No liberty is taking away by increasing equality in law, and equality of opportunity.

This is good. Did I misread you advocating for equity? If you were being sarcastic, that wasn't the place for it.

I believe in both liberty and equality and consider it quite frankly ridiculous that anyone could think that the two aren't essentially linked. If an elite are not going to suffer the same consequences, but only only get to reap the benefits, if the elite don't have to answer to the law, but only the plebs do... who then has liberty? All citizens? Or just an elite?

Do you believe in equality before the law, Martin?

[Martin Hash]

The fact that you imaginethat I am unaware of this, proves mine.

I wholeheartedly support making decisions for yourself, reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences. I also support the State not getting in the way of that. Hence my support for the welfare state, multiparty democracy and capitalism (but not neoliberalism). The idea that you can only "suffer the consequences of your actions" if your bad decisions ultimately end up with you homeless, is of course something I reject. Increasing the opportunities of your fellow citizens, does not take away neither their liberty nor yours. No liberty is taking away by increasing equality in law, and equality of opportunity.

This is good. Did I misread you advocating for equity? If you were being sarcastic, that wasn't the place for it.

I believe in both liberty and equality and consider it quite frankly ridiculous that anyone could think that the two aren't essentially linked. If an elite are not going to suffer the same consequences, but only only get to reap the benefits, if the elite don't have to answer to the law, but only the plebs do... who then has liberty? All citizens? Or just an elite?

Do you believe in equality before the law, Martin?

I have a suggestion for you: stay in this line of thinking. Liberty means negative Rights, not positive ones; which means government can't stop your Free Speech, nor your assembly, etc., versus a positive Right which is the Government owes you food, higher education or a place to stay. Libertarians don't even agree to the positive Rights of primary education, safety, environment, healthcare & welfare, but Libertyists do.

Hillary Clinton manipulated The Law, she should suffer the same consequences as all the people who did what she did. Equality under The Law is the only equality Libertyists agree with.

As for opportunity: Libertarians don't give a rats ass, but Libertyists do: we believe most liberty to the most people, which means most opportunity to the most people. Taxation is the best way to solve that.

The first half of the egalitarian statement "from those according to their ability" is okay with Libertyists, because it obligates them to no other person; where as the second half "to those according to their ability" bestows a Positive right, because people who need can place obligations on other people.

[Hastur]

Far be from me to disappoint your expectations, so I clicked the 60% tax rate one. And working class people on average pay 33.8% of their income in taxes, and I love true liberty and sensible capitalism. And monarchy, state religion and not having a minimum wage. There's a word for things that aren't Danish: Inferior.

Those 33.8%, does that include payroll tax and VAT?

[BjornP]

I have a suggestion for you: stay in this line of thinking. Liberty means negative Rights, not positive ones; which means government can't stop your Free Speech, nor your assembly, etc., versus a positive Right which is the Government owes you food, higher education or a place to stay. Libertarians don't even agree to the positive Rights of lower education, safety, environment, healthcare & welfare, but Libertyists do.

Hillary Clinton manipulated The Law, she should suffer the same consequences as all the people who did what she did. Equality under The Law is the only equality Libertyists agree with.

As for opportunity: Libertarians don't give a rats ass, but Libertyists do: we believe most liberty to the most people, which means most opportunity to the most people. Taxation is the best way to solve that..

The first half of the egalitarian statement "from those according to their ability" is okay with Libertyists, because it's a Negative right because it obligates them to no other person; where as the second half "to those according to their ability" bestows a Positive right, because people who need can place obligations on other people.

What you call "Liberty-ists", I simply call liberals. Because what you're describing fits, particularly classically liberalism to a tee.

It is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I agree with a lot of liberal (or you'd say "libertyist") thinking. I don't believe that the government owes you anything. I believe that the sole purpose of government is to work for its citizens. Nor is the welfare state about a "right" to welfare. It is simply that it is the citizens that own government, it has no independent existence and has no right to one. It doesn't owe you anything, because its' not supposed to own anything. It simply manages your ownership: Your shared country.

Freedom is choices. Liberty is having government impede as little in that as possible. Ergo, if the citizens pool their efforts together and use their State to funnel those taxes into improving their education system, their health care, their...whatever, that's the State being used to increase opportunity. Taxation is the start of doing that, but throwing alot of money at something can only fix something if it's invested right. What right is, when it comes to improving the opportunities of those Americans who aren't Jeff Bezos? I'd probably start by fixing...whatever caused so many Americans to lose their jobs - besides the coronavirus lockdowns, that is.

[heydaralon]

DB, Egalitarianism is not an ideology, you ass. To advocate egalitarianism doesn't mean you buy some sort of "ideological package", where if you advocate egalitarinism of law and opportunity, you have to buy equality of income, too. Is this concept too "deep" for you?

It absolutely is an ideology. IT was the default ideology for billions of people for the 20th century well over a billion today in China. It was called Marxism


Shit, the proto Marxist French Revolution had Egality in their creed.

Or did they not teach you that in communist university?

Accusations of Marxism by people like you, should be taken with the excat same seriousness and gravitas as accusations of "Rayciss!" and "Sexiss!". You have absolutely no idea what that word means anymore, and I take that bullshit accusation as the excat same as the accusation of some purple-haired SJW who paints everything as being evidence of racist/sexist oppression. I'm too fucking smart to take that seriously.

"Egality" is simply equality, HD. Do you consider equality before the law, Marxist? A slippery slope towards Soviet-style gulags?

You are being dishonest. Equality before the law means that the laws apply to everyone. It has nothing at fucking all to do with socialist policies which are equality of outcome oriented. You know this, but you are a Stalinist so you will not admit the truth.

Since you have nobles, your nation is by default not equality under the law btw. It is far shittier than America and is cold and a lousy place. Losers and ISIS sympathizers comprise its citizenry for the most part.

Also, its funny how you are trying to snow me. In Demark, you are are working for the govt till Thurs morning. 60% and up to 75% of your income is stolen, and you don't blink. That is sick and un American.

You are so brainwashed that you think people who question the govt are insane. And nice false equivalency. No, I'm nothing like a purple haired gender studies dike. The fact that you are cool with your finances being taken by your Stalinist govt shows how effective the brainwashing and infantilization campaign your Marxist govt has engaged in was.

[Martin Hash]

I have a suggestion for you: stay in this line of thinking. Liberty means negative Rights, not positive ones; which means government can't stop your Free Speech, nor your assembly, etc., versus a positive Right which is the Government owes you food, higher education or a place to stay. Libertarians don't even agree to the positive Rights of lower education, safety, environment, healthcare & welfare, but Libertyists do.

Hillary Clinton manipulated The Law, she should suffer the same consequences as all the people who did what she did. Equality under The Law is the only equality Libertyists agree with.

As for opportunity: Libertarians don't give a rats ass, but Libertyists do: we believe most liberty to the most people, which means most opportunity to the most people. Taxation is the best way to solve that..

The first half of the egalitarian statement "from those according to their ability" is okay with Libertyists, because it's a Negative right because it obligates them to no other person; where as the second half "to those according to their ability" bestows a Positive right, because people who need can place obligations on other people.

What you call "Liberty-ists", I simply call liberals. Because what you're describing fits, particularly classically liberalism to a tee.

It is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I agree with a lot of liberal (or you'd say "libertyist") thinking. I don't believe that the government owes you anything. I believe that the sole purpose of government is to work for its citizens. Nor is the welfare state about a "right" to welfare. It is simply that it is the citizens that own government, it has no independent existence and has no right to one. It doesn't owe you anything, because its' not supposed to own anything. It simply manages your ownership: Your shared country.

Freedom is choices. Liberty is having government impede as little in that as possible. Ergo, if the citizens pool their efforts together and use their State to funnel those taxes into improving their education system, their health care, their...whatever, that's the State being used to increase opportunity. Taxation is the start of doing that, but throwing alot of money at something can only fix something if it's invested right. What right is, when it comes to improving the opportunities of those Americans who aren't Jeff Bezos? I'd probably start by fixing...whatever caused so many Americans to lose their jobs - besides the coronavirus lockdowns, that is.

First, "Libertyist" is my word because I used to be a "Liberal" but that word is gone and not coming back.

Second, taxes are to stop wealth concentration, not to provide money for anything else, because other people assume they are owed the taxes, and they are not. Burn the fucking money.

Also, as the originator of the word "Libertyist," I can include in it whatever I want, which means my ideas about money, which after I wrote about them, turned out to be somebody else's ideas from 1905, called Modern Monetary Theory, which is Keynesianism on steroids. It comes down to a simple concept: production must equal consumption.

[BjornP]

Far be from me to disappoint your expectations, so I clicked the 60% tax rate one. And working class people on average pay 33.8% of their income in taxes, and I love true liberty and sensible capitalism. And monarchy, state religion and not having a minimum wage. There's a word for things that aren't Danish: Inferior.

Those 33.8%, does that include payroll tax and VAT?

No, then it's maybe 20 percentage points higher, if that was the number I was supposed to have used. Not sure which is the most accurate, then:

https://www.mm.dk/tjekdet/artikel/skattetryk