5 ms·

I think it would be great to remove social safety nets and a war on drugs. Social safety nets are just forcefully taking money from people creating value in so

I think it would be great to remove social safety nets and a war on drugs. Social safety nets are just forcefully taking money from people creating value in society, taking a fee to keep alive government bureaucrats, and give the rest to people who don't produce value. It's an incentive to not create value and a disincentive to do so. If you want to donate to people in need, feel free to do it, just don't force the entire of society to do it. The concept of controlled substances is ridiculous and I don't think it needs to be justified, unless you're a government shill who benefits from it or some authoritarian person who feel like they need to impose their values on everyone else.

kingkawn 6y ago
Your position is fascism.
- seibelj 6y ago
  You may disagree with parent’s viewpoint but I would say eliminating the government is about as far from fascism as you can go. It’s anarchism.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  No, it's the opposite of fascism. It's voluntarism or anarchy. Fascism is a totalitarian authoritarian political doctrine where the state is strong. I want a weak (or, even better, non existent) state and a society based on voluntary transactions and not on taxes taken under the threat of violence.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    What's to stop a mafia appearing who takes taxes under threat of violence, if there is no state to stop them? Anarchism always seems like utopic nonsense to me. Something like, 'I don't like being told what to do, so we should get rid of the state and as long as everyone promises not to tell each other what to do, it will be great'. If there is no state, there is a power vacuum. There is a reason why power vacuums are quickly filled.
    - petre 6y ago
      True. Iraq, Libya, Syria are noteworthy examples. Chechnya is another example. https://m.dw.com/en/opinion-russia-still-lives-in-the-shadow-of-the-chechen-war/a-50609732 https://m.dw.com/en/opinion-russia-still-lives-in-the-shadow...
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Capitalist anarchy, which is what is described here, is indeed nonsense. The much more common notion of anarchy, socialist anarchy, actually advocates for smaller societies and more localized leadership (e.g. at the city level). Some role for a kind of state (e.g. an alliance of local micro-states) is often preserved, especially for military and diplomatic purposes.
andrepd 6y ago
You never wanted for anything in your life and it shows. Social safety nets aren't "handouts for lazy people". Let's take the obvious out and not even mention things like disability benefits, which exist so people who had the misfortune of having accidents or health problems which leave them unable to work and to produce value for Our Great Ruling Class aren't cast aside like garbage and don't have to depend on charity to live. Let's focus on things like unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. I'm glad that you never experienced hardships in your life, truly. But some people have. I have. Some people come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Others have hit rough patches. Some through mental health problems, substance addiction, or simply bad fucking luck and despite being hard-working simply got the short end of the stick and have no work with which to sustain themselves. Shouldn't we help these people get back on their feet? Lastly, the number of people which truly conform to your stereotype of "welfare queens" leeching off taxpayer's money are truly negligible, and have a negligible impact on the country's finances. If you truly cared about it you would much sooner worry about things like the MIC, regulatory capture, the capitalist class owning government and siphoning money for themselves (as amply demonstrated by the coronavirus bailouts), etc, rather than pick on people who are down on their luck.

kingkawn 6y ago

Your position is fascism.

seibelj 6y ago
You may disagree with parent’s viewpoint but I would say eliminating the government is about as far from fascism as you can go. It’s anarchism.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
No, it's the opposite of fascism. It's voluntarism or anarchy. Fascism is a totalitarian authoritarian political doctrine where the state is strong. I want a weak (or, even better, non existent) state and a society based on voluntary transactions and not on taxes taken under the threat of violence.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  What's to stop a mafia appearing who takes taxes under threat of violence, if there is no state to stop them? Anarchism always seems like utopic nonsense to me. Something like, 'I don't like being told what to do, so we should get rid of the state and as long as everyone promises not to tell each other what to do, it will be great'. If there is no state, there is a power vacuum. There is a reason why power vacuums are quickly filled.
  - petre 6y ago
    True. Iraq, Libya, Syria are noteworthy examples. Chechnya is another example. https://m.dw.com/en/opinion-russia-still-lives-in-the-shadow-of-the-chechen-war/a-50609732 https://m.dw.com/en/opinion-russia-still-lives-in-the-shadow...
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Capitalist anarchy, which is what is described here, is indeed nonsense. The much more common notion of anarchy, socialist anarchy, actually advocates for smaller societies and more localized leadership (e.g. at the city level). Some role for a kind of state (e.g. an alliance of local micro-states) is often preserved, especially for military and diplomatic purposes.

andrepd 6y ago

You never wanted for anything in your life and it shows. Social safety nets aren't "handouts for lazy people". Let's take the obvious out and not even mention things like disability benefits, which exist so people who had the misfortune of having accidents or health problems which leave them unable to work and to produce value for Our Great Ruling Class aren't cast aside like garbage and don't have to depend on charity to live. Let's focus on things like unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. I'm glad that you never experienced hardships in your life, truly. But some people have. I have. Some people come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Others have hit rough patches. Some through mental health problems, substance addiction, or simply bad fucking luck and despite being hard-working simply got the short end of the stick and have no work with which to sustain themselves. Shouldn't we help these people get back on their feet? Lastly, the number of people which truly conform to your stereotype of "welfare queens" leeching off taxpayer's money are truly negligible, and have a negligible impact on the country's finances. If you truly cared about it you would much sooner worry about things like the MIC, regulatory capture, the capitalist class owning government and siphoning money for themselves (as amply demonstrated by the coronavirus bailouts), etc, rather than pick on people who are down on their luck.