- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
NSFW for: Potentially challanging your narrative and worldview.
I recently found this article summarising important findings.
Breaking out of ones own bubble is important. And I would like you to remember this the next time you are at a ballot.
If you really think of the children, vote according to reality.
And if you FEEL personally attacked by this article and bash me in the comments, whataboutism away from the subject or bothsides-ing the issue; Thanks for making my point for me and seek help.
Are you joking? Did you even read the article?
It talks about child marriage, child labour and forced birth. None of these problems in particular require money, just laws to be passed. The solution to two of these issues is to just ban them. The solution for the third is just to unban something.
No, ‘Think of the children’ is a meme :p
Laws are written by government lawyers. Laws are revoked and rescinded by government workers. These laws still exist. Unpopular laws still exist… In many States a law can be petitioned into existence-- to get broken and watered down in beaureocratic double-speak. Worse, laws dont just go away, they’re written over. Wherein §512.765 still reffrences the ‘removed’ §218.231(A)(2) verbiage. Its a clusterfuck.
Do you really think more taxes/government will end the ageless problem of shit parenting and poor parents?
How about… Not electing government officials that are OK with child marriage?
For it! No force or taxes required
You would need police to force people into jail for marrying children or officiating said marriages, and taxes to fund said police
If you believe only the State has a right to force… ;]
In our current system, yes, only the state (and capital) have the right to force
Well… Thats lame :] But does that make it good? Do you really trust law enforcement thaaat much? ACAB? You’re not a bootlicker, are you?!
/s But you see what Im doing.
I never said it did.
Of course not. I’m not advocating this, I’m just describing it.
…sigh.
No, I really don’t.
What you’re doing is downplaying the importance of laws in general. You have to tell yourself that laws against child marriage wouldn’t really matter, in case you ever end up voting for someone that defends child marriage. You conveniently ignore all the other laws that are enforced reasonably and allow society as we know it to function.
Cops are dicks, but as the film Team America World Police said, “Sometimes dicks fuck assholes.”
I think you meant to *reply to a comment that asked for higher taxes or more government power, because that wasn’t what mine said.
Also, i am quite happy letting the government have the “power” to stop child labour and child marriage. If that’s an overstep in your book, then i don’t like your book. What seems an overstep in government power to me is regulating what people can do with their own bodies. Why isn’t that offensive to you?
The implication of all left/right ultimately boils down to taxes/force. I dont like force or taxes. This extends to bodily rights. However if you mean abortions issues, there is a true coin-flip on who’s body gets priority. (The solution is to not regulate it so that people that want it can do it and people who dont dont have to fund it. No force, no taxes. Consistency).
The mother’s body. It should take priority every single time.
You see how its a conundrum, right? That two sides of a dichotomy are definitionally extreme…
That’s not even close to being correct. The left/right spectrum is basically anti/pro capitalism and hierarchy
But I agree with how your comment ended anyway. But “no taxes” seems untenable, unless you’re also arguing for abolition of the state… in which case I’m curious where you fall on that
Eh, I see how you got there but I dunno about that. In my terms, a Communist (far left) State redistributes all wealth (~100% tax) and in a Minarchist system (far right) there is virtually no tax because there is virtually no State to fund. Thus no reason to employ force to gain said funding. The game theory is clear either way; A small State can only inflict small tyranny. A (mid to) large State typically has a war-machine.
I am more Right-skewed than typical Conservatives. I identify as Libertarian, but the LP itself is/was a mess. Mises Caucus seems legit tho. I believe that the State has limited rightful duties. As enumerated in the Constitution, the feds only need power to 1)Make and maintain currency shit (shit job), 2) Enforce or sovereignty (shit job), and 3) Enforce and promote popular law (shit job). But they want to do everything else…
Do you think your taxes are well spent? I know you dont, lmfao. If they reallocate spending then maybe I’d be cool with (some) taxes. Here and now, no. Im being misrepresented and it’s tantamount to theft. The problem isnt lack of funding, its more a lack of budgeting and prioritizing the wrong stuff. Making another committee or council only worsens the issue. They must be starved.
Dude, I’m sorry, but this just demonstrates a bizarre misunderstanding of the left and right spectrum, and a complete misunderstanding of communism.
The left-right dichotomy most certainly represents opposition or favour toward liberal capitalist democratic states. Here’s a rough outline.
Where on Earth did you hear that communists want to redistribute all wealth through a 100% tax? Seriously, wtf is that all about?
Communists want workers to control their work and work their own way without a boss taking all the profit.
deleted by creator
No, we just won’t get anywhere until we get past the foundations.
I don’t believe in horseshoe theory and it still makes sense. Why shouldn’t this make sense?
This sounds like gibberish.
Yes, this is true. Capitalism, and liberalism (later neo-liberalism) inevitably leads to fascism.
Because everyone owns these things communally. There is no private property, and thus no need for money. There is also no state, so no need for a separated governmental apparatus. The people rule themselves on equal footing, with no class distinctions. And all is made and shared on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.
You need to move past the cold war propaganda that told you communism means big government. Communism means no government.
Technically communism should be a moneyless, stateless society. No government to give taxes to. No corporations to take your money. No money to take. No one to force things. It’s all for the people by the people. The idea that you’re pointing to communism as force in order to defend your decision to vote republican on an article about pedophelia is pretty telling. This is why some people assume libertarians want to fuck kids.
Same questions as to the other commenter:
If my [labor] is the peoples’ labor, what recorsue do the people have if I want to horde? Force. What if Im a [widget] maker and the people want [widget]… What happens if Im done from making [widget] and the people still need [widget]? The dynamic of owing the
Statecommunity for yourforcedlabor is pretty… Statist sounding to me.We can talk about theory until we all feel gooey, but it just doesnt seem to go that way. I know, I know. The meme, it’s never been tried, lol.
People doing bad things IS a facet to freedom. People do bad stuff. Do you think selfish animal nature can be regulated away with enough tax? Maybe, but gosh you’ll need a big
communityState.There are just so many mistaken assumptions to correct before I can even touch this question. Let me make an analogy:
To answer this question, I have to take for granted driving licenses can spontaneously change which country they are from. This is absurd, and I hope you can agree that I don’t need to answer what would happen in that case.
Similarly, it is absurd for you to want to hoard in a communist society. With free access to social goods, they will always be there when you want them. What is the point in hoarding?
That’s not how it works.
Well if we want to take the idea of forcing to really anything, then you still want a government, which means rules, which means you are also in favor of forcing. You just want a government run by people volunteer their free time.
And if you want to learn some of the more intricate workings of communism, you can do research. But yes, everyone who can work still does work. Just as your system forces you to work or starve and live on the street.
Turns out every side has somethings that get forced and other things that don’t, because the world isn’t exactly a binary as you suggest. Even the concept of left and right has been broken down more into a square called the political compass. And some even argue you could add another axis for social issues. But at the end of the day, communism would allow freedoms in certain areas, such as it being a stateless society, while yours would mean you get to keep the money and not pay taxes.
And then you show at the end you aren’t even here for a conversation. I never said I was a communist, and I mentioned how communism doesn’t have taxes, and yet you still use it as a come back.
Maybe learn something about these theories before you spout off about them.