Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Xzi]

The problem of pollution can solve itself via technological progress

Let's not test that theory by turning the country into a radioactive hellscape before the technology to reverse it is even invented. Corporations do not and will not regulate themselves, that's been proven time and again throughout history.

keeping the roadways running is already mandatory spending to a large extent.

Not really no, the money built into the budget is just enough to keep applying new band-aids, that's about it. There are thousands upon thousands of roadways and bridges in the US which are rated at a D or lower.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's not test that theory by turning the country into a radioactive hellscape before the technology to reverse it is even invented. Corporations do not and will not regulate themselves, that's been proven time and again throughout history.


Not really no, the money built into the budget is just enough to keep applying new band-aids, that's about it. There are thousands upon thousands of roadways and bridges in the US which are rated at a D or lower.

Sounds like we should divert the funds from ineffective government programs towards infrastructure then. Maybe voters should push for that when it comes time to pass a budget, instead of inflating said budget on useless boondogles. Then again, if you put a government in charge of something, you should expect the result to be over budget and 2 weeks late.

 

[Lacius]

Some good news
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1388246953536937985

It is a not a good thing when a government restricts voting access under the guise of curbing voter fraud that doesn't exist.

I am the last person who would advocate for the GOP - I hate the GOP, as any libertarian with any connection to reality does. The Republican party has been overtaken by religious zealots to a large extent

For once, we agree. Perhaps we should stop here.

If anything, it is in my interest to have Congress in a persistent state of stalemate - libertarians like stability.

Gridlock brings instability. You can look at any of the recent government shutdowns as examples.

I don't wear masks

There's a pandemic going on.

I don't want change

Change is sometimes necessary, and species that don't change often go extinct.

 

[Xzi]

Sounds like we should divert the funds from ineffective government programs towards infrastructure then.

I'm down for taking the money from the military budget, but taking it from millionaires and billionaires is a solid choice too. Neither option affects you or I, so that meets your criteria of wanting to be "left alone."

 

[Foxi4]

It is a not a good thing when a government restricts voting access under the guise of curbing voter fraud that doesn't exist.

For once, we agree. Perhaps we should stop here.

Gridlock brings instability. You can look at any of the recent government shutdowns as examples.

There's a pandemic going on.

Oh no, not the national parks getting closed, where will I ever grill? Oh no, I don't want government employees, whom I find useless to a large extent, to miss their paychecks (they didn't, they were all compensated)! The shutdowns were great, the US should have them more often. Essential services keep on running regardless - the fact that the country *didn't* stop functioning *in spite* of Washington taking a holiday is evidence that they *are* just keeping seats warm, not the opposite. I'm only happy with change that further enshrines personal liberties and limits the size and scope of government - my priority is liberty, so I'm very happy with that kind of change slipping past the goalie. That rarely happens, so risk mitigation is the next best thing. The few things that both parties can agree are often acceptable truism.

Edit: Why retract the Like? I thoroughly enjoyed that. I'll keep it in memory forever. Good mask joke, too.

I'm down for taking the money from the military budget, but taking it from millionaires and billionaires is a solid choice too. Neither option affects you or I, so that meets your criteria of wanting to be "left alone."

False, if you know anything about how the economy actually functions. "Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps, the economy adjusts to any new and unexpected expense by adjusting pricing accordingly, the stock market responds to such events and all you end up with is paying for things with your 401K instead of your wallet. If you think "the rich" are smart enough to start and run multi-billion dollar business ventures, but not smart enough to just move their money somewhere where they don't have to pay an arm and a leg just to operate, you're disconnected from reality.

 

[Xzi]

"Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps

Talk about a hot take. I must've somehow missed the thousands of checks sent to me by the department of trickle-down economics.

Your theory doesn't hold up when examining past decades, given the top tax bracket was much higher, along with relative minimum wage, and the price of goods was relatively lower or about the same. The Waltons can't suddenly jack up the prices of all the cheap Chinese crap in their stores, or people run to Amazon/Target, and vice-versa.

The idea that the rich might "punish" the poor for higher taxes is ridiculous, they're already ripping them off as much as possible by paying poverty wages and providing zero benefits. It's also sort of a staple of neo-conservatism, there's no good reason for a libertarian to defend exploitation and oligarchy.

 

[Foxi4]

Talk about a hot take. I must've somehow missed the thousands of checks sent to me by the department of trickle-down economics.

Your theory doesn't hold up when examining past decades, given the top tax bracket was much higher, along with relative minimum wage, and the price of goods was relatively lower or about the same. The Walton's can't suddenly jack up the prices of all the cheap Chinese crap in their stores, or people run to Amazon/Target, and vice-versa.

The idea that the rich might "punish" the poor for higher taxes is ridiculous, they're already ripping them off as much as possible by paying poverty wages and providing zero benefits.

"Trickle-down economics" is a leftist term designed to oversimplify the matter and obfuscate the results. The actual term is supply-side economics, and it worked as it was expected to every time it was implemented, from Reagan to Trump. I don't need you to agree with me on this, the historical record and the numbers already do. Any rebuttal I've ever heard in this regard focuses on factors I don't care about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Results

 

[Xzi]

The actual term is supply-side economics, and it works as it was expected to every time it was implemented, from Reagan to Trump.

It works if the goal is to ensure the rich get perpetually richer and the poor get perpetually poorer, sure. But that's not the type of thing I typically expect to see a libertarian defending. It has nothing to do with the freedoms of the average Joe, other than perhaps his freedom to get bent over a barrel.

 

[Foxi4]

It works if the goal is to ensure the rich get perpetually richer and the poor get perpetually poorer, sure. But that's not the type of thing I typically expect to see a libertarian defending. It has nothing to do with the freedoms of the average Joe, other than perhaps his freedom to get bent over a barrel.

Lowered inflation, lowered unemployment, reduced the misery index (greatest improvement since Truman), increased the GDP and the median household income, all right after a recession. Happy days as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Lacius]

Oh no, not the national parks getting closed, where will I ever grill? Oh no, I don't want government employees, whom I find useless to a large extent, to miss their paychecks (they didn't, they were all compensated)! The shutdowns were great, the US should have them more often. Essential services keep on running regardless - the fact that the country *didn't* stop functioning *in spite* of Washington taking a holiday is evidence that they *are* just keeping seats warm, not the opposite. I'm only happy with change that further enshrines personal liberties and limits the size and scope of government - my priority is liberty, so I'm very happy with that kind of change slipping past the goalie. That rarely happens, so risk mitigation is the next best thing. The few things that both parties can agree often acceptable truism.

Edit: Why retract the Like? I thoroughly enjoyed that. I'll keep it in memory forever. Good mask joke, too.

False, if you know anything about how the economy actually functions. "Taking it from the rich" just means taking it from you with extra steps, the economy adjusts to any new and unexpected expense by adjusting pricing accordingly, the stock market responds to such events and all you end up with is paying for things with your 401K instead of your wallet. If you think "the rich" are smart enough to start and run multi-billion dollar business ventures, but not smart enough to just move their money somewhere where they don't have to pay an arm and a leg just to operate, you're disconnected from reality.

I know friends and spouses of friends who were directly affected by the government shutdowns, and it was anything but stable. They weren't getting paid, they didn't know for how long they weren't being paid, and many of them weren't compensated for the time they weren't working. My point wasn't that a short-term government shutdown was the worst thing in the world; my point was that it was a sign of the instability caused by government gridlock, and I'm not sure how anyone can look at a government shutdown objectively and say "that's stable," regardless of how one feels about the budget or spending.

The like was a misclick, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I like you or your authoritarian sentiments.

 

[Xzi]

Lowered inflation, lowered unemployment

You forgot lowered wages and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class, so they get squeezed from both ends. You and I both know it's a fucking scam, that's why they had to get an actor to sell it to the American people. I can only assume you must be benefiting from a similarly broken economic system if you're willing to go out on a limb to defend it, because no other libertarian I've talked to is a fan.

 

[Foxi4]

I know friends and spouses of friends who were directly affected by the government shutdowns, and it was anything but stable. They weren't getting paid, they didn't know for how long they weren't being paid, and many of them weren't compensated for the time they weren't working. My point wasn't that a short-term government shutdown was the worst thing in the world; my point was that it was a sign of the instability caused by government gridlock, and I'm not sure how anyone can look at a government shutdown objectively and say "that's stable," regardless of how one feels about the budget or spending.

The like was a misclick, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I like you or your authoritarian sentiments.

I feel for the families affected, but only by the virtue of them being American families. My de facto position is that I don't care about the government, and as government agents, they are part of the government, albeit on the bottom floor. I hope they're alright, but I can't lose sight of the prize even if the road towards it is covered in some stinging nettles. If Congress wants to avoid further gridlock, maybe they should get along a bit more and focus on this compromise you're talking about - ideally compromise that behoves me and my priorities.

 

[Lacius]

I feel for the families affected, but only by the virtue of them being American families. My de facto position is that I don't care about the government, and as government agents, they are part of the government, albeit on the bottom floor. I hope they're alright, but I can't lose sight of the prize even if the road towards it is covered in some stinging nettles. If Congress wants to avoid further gridlock, maybe they should get along a bit more and focus on this compromise you're talking about - ideally compromise that behoves me and my priorities.

Or we could solve the problem of gridlock with fair and democratic elections. If your ideals are popular, I'm sure they will succeed. If they aren't, then they won't. You have nothing to be afraid of if your ideals are actually effective in being conducive to well-being.

 

[Foxi4]

You forgot lowered wages and an increased tax burden on the poor and middle class, so they get squeezed from both ends. You and I both know it's a fucking scam, that's why they had to get an actor to sell it to the American people. I can only assume you must be benefiting from a similarly broken economic system if you're willing to go out on a limb to defend it.

It's a pretty good system from where I'm sitting, and you haven't presented any data to the contrary. Reagan didn't "increase taxes on the poor", he cut taxes, as did Trump. They were long-overdue for a cut after the World Wars. The results of cuts were predictable - average income grew by 75%, median household income grew by 10% and federal tax revenues *doubled* despite lower rates due to decreased tax avoidance. Your problem, in a nutshell, is that lower income brackets grew at a much slower rate than higher income brackets - I don't have a problem with that as long as everyone's growing, the disparity isn't an issue to me. Capital attracts capital - the more of it you have, the faster you grow, this is economics 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts

Or we could solve the problem of gridlock with fair and democratic elections. If your ideals are popular, I'm sure they will succeed. If they aren't, then they won't. You have nothing to be afraid of if your ideals are actually effective in being conducive to well-being.

"If you don't do any wrongthink, you have nothing to be afraid of" - many people have heard those words right before their demise. Stakes are too high, defending personal liberties takes priority over popularity - trends come and go, the government never shrinks.

 

[KingVamp]

Just looking at other 1st world countries, shows trickle-down economics just isn't a situation. Social democracies have consistently topped charts when I comes to happiness.

 

[Lumstar]

Tycoons and barons aren't going to hand their "extra" money over to the destitute without a fight.

 

[Lacius]

It's a pretty good system from where I'm sitting, and you haven't presented any data to the contrary. Reagan didn't "increase taxes on the poor", he cut taxes, as did Trump. They were long-overdue for a cut after the World Wars. The results of cuts were predictable - average income grew by 75%, median household income grew by 10% and federal tax revenues *doubled* despite lower rates due to decreased tax avoidance. Your problem, in a nutshell, is that lower income brackets grew at a much slower rate than higher income brackets - I don't have a problem with that as long as everyone's growing, the disparity isn't an issue to me. Capital attracts capital - the more of it you have, the faster you grow, this is economics 101.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts
"If you don't do any wrongthink, you have nothing to be afraid of" - many people have heard those words right before their demise. Stakes are too high, defending personal liberties takes priority over popularity - trends come and go, the government never shrinks.

My point was that if your policy positions are good, people will vote for them in a fair democracy. However, if your policy positions aren't actually good, then it's no surprise you're anti-democratic.

 

[Foxi4]

Just looking at other 1st world countries, shows trickle-down economics just isn't a situation. Social democracies have consistently topped charts when I comes to happiness.

Switzerland would like to have a word with you - it's pretty high on the list (scored third in 2020) while simultaneously having exclusively private healthcare, very lax gun control (46% of the Swiss are armed), it's effectively a tax haven (federal corporate income tax [CIT] is a flat 8.5%) and business regulations are equally lax. Seems like it can be done with the right attitude.

My point was that if your policy positions are good, people will vote for them in a fair democracy. However, if your policy positions aren't actually good, then it's no surprise you're anti-democratic.

Liberty is not subject to a popularity contest, individual rights are inalienable regardless.

 

[Lacius]

Switzerland would like to have a word with you - it's pretty high on the list while simultaneously having exclusively private healthcare, very lax gun control (46% of the Swiss are armed), it's effectively a tax haven (corporate tax rate is a flat 8.5%) and business regulations are equally lax. Seems like it can be done with the right attitude.
Liberty is not subject to a popularity contest, individual rights are inalienable regardless.

The problem is you and I both think our views are pro-liberty, as does probably everyone else. I think pro-democratic changes are the solution, but you admittedly care more about your team winning than whether or not democracy is pissed on.

 

[Foxi4]

The problem is you and I both think our views are pro-liberty, as does probably everyone else. I think pro-democratic changes are the solution, but you admittedly care more about your team winning than whether or not democracy is pissed on.

That's because I don't necessarily listen to the sentiment of the mob at any given moment, I am laser focused on optimal solutions that lead towards my stated goals. The "democracy" part of the equation is the public picking representatives that best represent their interests and can effectively implement policies that will better their lives in the long run, leaving as much kaching in their pockets while spending the least kaching in the budget. That's what I care about. Right now we're having a discussion on an Internet forum, so I don't need to account for what you believe or support, I only have to present my point of view to other readers. It might not be a popular point of view, but that has never bothered me before and it isn't about to start bothering me now. As far as political candidates are concerned, they campaign on specific promises - how they get from Point A to fulfilling the promise is completely immaterial to me as a potential voter, I only care about what they're promising and how likely it is that the promise will be fulfilled. Optimal solutions give predictable results with a high likelyhood of success, so that's what I tend to advocate for.