Anonymous justinian 1w

Well you wouldn’t have taxes under a libertarian society. That has the potential to weaken the federal government and maybe the economy, but the US has enough economic motion that it would probably be okay. In terms of defense, the American citizens would take care of that. If you simply pay state or even local government taxes you could still raise enough money for simple infrastructure. It’d be great. Plus you could smoke a joint…

0

Anonymous OP 1w

So I said you wouldn’t pay taxes and then said you’d pay taxes… my bad. You wouldn’t pay the big evil federal income tax. That’s what I meant

0

Anonymous #3 1w

Haven’t really met anyone who has strange age of consent views but yeah that’s a great strawman

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So I have this problem with anarchists also. What about a natural disaster? You need a large apparatus to coordinate aide. And what stops the creation of company towns enforced by company-paid armies. All agricultural societies *started* fairly anarchist. Then big guys with big swords and influential religious leaders aggregated power.

5

Anonymous #3 1w

Well we’ve all seen how poorly FEMA performs anyway. I’m from an area that got hit pretty hard by Helene and there was no help. We literally had coal miners re-paving the roads. Why do we pay into things that don’t benefit us anyway? The difference between libertarians and anarchists is that a libertarian society would not allow company towns to enforce their own rules on other individuals. Libertarians aren’t necessarily anti government. We just think that it doesn’t “know what’s best”

1

Anonymous OP 6d

I mean based on tax rates your state probably isn’t the one funding fema much anyways. And fema being ineffective is in a large part due to recent government cuts. The answer to “natural disaster agencies aren’t doing enough” isn’t “there shouldn’t be any at all.” It’s not like hurricane katrina would have gone better if there was *no* aid instead of not enough.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

You raise some good points. Which is why I also noted that we aren’t anti government, just extremely limited. Natural disaster and external defense👍 Sexuality and Domestic Police👎

1

Anonymous OP 6d

I’m also against the police state and the govt getting in the business of consenting adults, but in a democratic socialist way because I think social programs are very important.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

And that’s where we would really disagree. Social programs have the potential to be good, but also to drain money and people become dependent

1

Anonymous OP 6d

The dependency argument is more of a talking point than borne out in statistics. Most people who are poor still will want a better life even without the danger of their kids starving to death. Taking away food assistance usually just… makes the kids starve. The happiest and healthiest countries tend overwhelmingly to be ones with strong social safety nets. Welfare puts people in a position where they are able to start accruing wealth.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

There are plenty of private organizations that are able to provide food for people who truly need it. And some people can’t break the poverty cycle, and thats tragic. But there are ways to take care of those people without taking money from people who work hard for their comfort.

1