Andy Hallinan Feels the Bern

This photo I have actually has a rather odd story behind it. Disclaimer, I lean as an FDR-age liberal and a Libertarian Socialist, so now I support Bernie, but if that doesn't work out, I just say abolish the state and let workers control where they work. I still support the second amendment, think guns can be cool, and think they are interesting in how they work and evolved overtime. Anyway, onto the photo.

So, there's this guy named Andy Hallinan who runs the Florida Gun Supply shop or whatever who made headlines when he declared his shop a Muslim Free Zone. Whole premise is stupid because there are so many ways Muslims can still get guns from his shop whether it is by disguise or getting a friend to do it for them. If you go to his Facebook page or his shop page, he's your standard wanna-be white tough guy who thinks he's Rambo combined with Clint Eastwood who bleeds red, white, and blue, and pisses out bald eagles just because he knows how to hold and fire an M4A1.

Anyway, he later makes headlines again in April of 2016 because he posted two selfies on Facebook where he is giving a thumbs down in front of a car in a parking lot with pro-Bernie stickers on it, then gives a thumbs up in another picture where he puts some Muslim Free Zone bumper stickers over the Bernie ones. The dude makes himself into a huge hypocrite because he is one of those people who shows himself to be a law-abiding citizen which is why he should own a gun, and then here he is vandalizing somebody else's private property. Not best to lead by example, are ya Andy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
lmgtfy.com/?q=Noam Chomsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936
urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libertarian Socialism
youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia
youtube.com/watch?v=9S3gmnrHRnQ
alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Once left-leaning websites pointed out this shitshow he got some flack for it and then Andy posted a fake apology Facebook video where he apologizes for not making more targets or something like that, then he shows the targets of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton he will be selling to his customers. The thing is that the targets he is selling are, I shit you not, printed on average paper kids use to type their essays on, and the targets are nothing more than copy and pasted photos of Clinton and Sanders that were taken right from Google. It looked like Andy made these targets in two minutes in Microsoft Powerpoint, so I hope to Godzilla he didn't charge people money for something a nine year old could do better with ten minutes in Sony Vegas. His usually white-knight teabaggers are there in the Facebook comments of the video saying it is a class act and a total badass, but most of the people there are pointing out his clear hypocrisy, saying his targets are shit, and there are some ad-hominems where people are saying he is a disgusting racist or maybe just wants a bigger penis and what not. I post my comment saying in an orderly manner that Andy is acting like a PewDewPie fanboy where everybody who doesn't agree with him is a moron and hates the second amendment and tells him he may want to make better targets and lead by example when it comes to his law-abiding. But the ridiculous thing comes in when I find out my comment is gone because he or his website mods blocked me almost instantly I made that comment along with others making negative comments. Here is a man who claims to be for freedom with his big guns to protect America and make it a better place, yet he is shitting on the first amendment and blocking anybody who had the apparent nerve to make a negative comment about him.

>Libertarian Socialist.

This is literally impossible to be.

Then the best part comes in when I find people have been photoshopping the images of him giving a thumbs up and thumbs down in front of new backgrounds that makes him look like a Bernie supporter or a gay person. People were spamming THIS photoshopped image somebody made of him giving a thumbs up in front of a Bernie poster. There were others I saw but did not save, including one where he is giving a thumbs up in front of a rack filled with dildos that somebody photoshopped in there, along with another where he is giving a thumbs down in front of hot women in naked bikinis, and a thumbs up in front of overly muscular men wearing nothing but gym shorts and shoes. People start spamming this photo a ton because Andy keeps blocking people who post it, but he can't keep up with the rate because there are so many. They even go to the other pages he runs about his gun shop and spam the photos there. It was absolutely glorious and even hilarious how this stunt Andy did backfired against him immensely. Better yet, last time I checked, I think the car he vandalized belonged to a woman who was in Massachusetts, like he was at the time, and she was bringing Andy up on criminal charges. I guess the moral to this story is that you should always know the powers of photoshop, social attention towards your story, and probably to lead by example. This man is probably the perfect example of appearing like a gun-toting, flag-waving shooting badass for freedom, and behaving like the complete opposite. But never forget that after that eventful Facebook shitstorm, Andy Hallinan Feels the Bern.

I'm not reading your opinions on fucking bullshit people that nobody cares about.

You're fucking retarded, though.

Is it a meme or what? I've seen several people say this but it seems too retarded even for libertarians

I don't know. But you can't be socialist and libertarian. It's literally impossible to be.

>Libertarian Socialist

Please don't breed.

>he is shitting on the first amendment and blocking anybody who had the apparent nerve to make a negative comment about him.

Facebook has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. Facebook itself is a liberal/marxist medium that uses censorship to control the narrative.

Liberartarianism's original definition was more broad. It really now means focusing more on the individual than the community. People like Karl Marx were some of the first well-known libertarians. They believed that workers should control their workplaces and that they should be ran democratically, and that no hierarchy should absorb the profits from the working class etc., etc. In America as time went on, libertarianism evolved into a belief of free-market capitalism, and socialism evolved into a definition of something like the USSR or North Korea, though these are different from the original meanings, ie socialism really means communities as a whole running the economy instead of private owners for profit. The libertarian side of me is basically mostly in agreement with Noam Chomsky. Look him up.

Yeah, but faggots used to mean bundles of sticks, but if you start going on and on about sucking on faggots, nobody is going to have that image in their head, you fucking retard.

You're a socialist. There is no such thing as a libertarian socialist, because in order for you to achieve socialism, you will need to initiate government force against the people for a good that is FAR from universal.

>Liberartarianism's wrong definition

I'd put down the shitty Chumpsky and try a different flavor of kool-aid because you got it all wrong friendo

Technically speaking then, faggots still means bundles of sticks, just like how gay originally means happy, and that fag originally means cigarette. They even used that term in the 1977 adaptation of the Hobbit is speaking. The government force of intrusion against people is more of America's redefining of the term, coupled with other types of socialist structures that are not anarchist. Again, Noam Chomsky may have that answer, he advocates abolition of states, thinks they do horrible things in the long run, and wants to abolish capitalism along with the state and have the workers control their factories. That's what libertarian socialism is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

You are the worse kind of retarded.

Cool feels, bro.

Do you not know how to reply to a post? Honestly, where in the fuck do you think you are?

>he advocates abolition of states
>they do horrible things in the long run,
You need to prove that beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

>wants to abolish capitalism
You're fucking retarded. Thinking like this is why the USSR formed up, and why innovation and progress stagnated to the point that light therapy was being used to treat cancer as late as the 1990's.

More than 80% of business ventures started fail within 10 years. The founders are the owners because they took the risk. The workers, meanwhile don't take the risk, and, during unprofitable years, still take money home, even though the business owners don't.

FURTHERMORE, unions in Education and the Automotive industry have fought AGAINST changing the pay to performance/profit-based.

Nah, last time I checked this was the worst form of retarded...

>Still talking out of my ass.

Secular progressivism is the descendent of Puritan Calvinism. Blasphemy, inquisition, indoctrination, and brainwashing still occur from the perspective of the progressive religion.

Hierarchies are a natural consequence of innate differences and are necessary for societies to function. Stratified outcomes alone are not enough to prove discrimination or a failure of "social justice". There is no "social justice," only traditional justice. The only morality is civilization. Any belief or ideology that works against civilization is evil no matter how well-intentioned.

Traditional values are not accidental. They are non-ideological social adaptations that provide good solutions to complex social problems. Cultures separated by vast amounts of time and geography independently converged on similar values. Values converged because cultures that implemented these values had a competitive advantage over their neighbors and became civilizations. Cultures that did not implement them failed and are forgotten.

No. Seriously, you're worse. Because while this movie may suck, you would make the WORLD suck, and force your stupid belief system on everyone, not allowing people to voluntarily engage in capitalism (else you wouldn't be pushing the abolishment of capitalism).

>More than 80% of business ventures started fail within 10 years.

I think it's around 82% failure rate within the first year and a half.

If you look up Noam Chomsky on YouTube, read his works, or look him up on the internet in general you'll find that proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's really not that hard to see after a half hour of research. As for the USSR, the actions of that revolution does not erase the ideology of Libertarian Socialism as a whole or erase it form existence. But then again that's why I said LEAN on it. Those reasons are why I support an FDR age liberal platform now, but if there was to be an anarchist society I'd go with workers control and that's what LR is when the philosophy is studied and analyzed.

>If you look up hours of videos, read hours of his books, or do my research for me, you'll come to the same conclusion
I'm not doing your legwork for you. Burden of proof is on the claimant.

You can't go to YouTube and Wikipedia and search a first and late name with your fingertips, are the sites not working for you?

You are debating on the level of SJWs. "It's not my responsibility to educate you! Just listen and believe, or go and research the stuff yourself."

No. Either you present the evidence, or you are making a baseless claim. I am the skeptic. I do nothing but review your claims, where you use citations.

And if you believe in the dissolution of the state, you need to explain how you could possibly abolish capitalism, unless you are going to establish some sort of government to enforce such an abolition.

lmgtfy.com/?q=Noam Chomsky

Lulz

Ok, so your argument is baseless. Watch this:

Every single argument that Chomsky ever made has been utterly destroyed. If you don't believe me, just search duck duck go until you find what I'm talking about. Don't stop until you've searched literally the entire internet, including the deep web sites.

Man, it's like that Valentine's episode of Spongebob where nobody can get Patrick to take a look at the fuckin' chocolate balloon right fuckin' behind him...

How can one go about abolishing free trade while abolishing goveenment as well.

The two are contradictory notions. Free trade is the natural state of people absent a coersive force.

I'm pretty sure this is your first time posting on Sup Forums, considering you don't seem to understand how to reply to posts. As such, you don't seem to know how making a claim works.

When you make a claim, you are responsible for substantiating it. You don't get to send all of your challengers on a scavenger hunt on google. If YOU make the claim, then YOU have the source ready to go when challenged (and expect to be challenged on EVERYTHING). And quoting the man directly is not proof (unless your claim is that someone said something).

Since you are saying that you think that the state is evil and should be dismantled, you need to show statistical proof that it is worse to live under a state than without one.

Since you also want to abolish capitalism, you need to provide a lot of proof that:
>Socialism works.
>Socialism works better than capitalism
>That capitalism can be abolished without the existence of the state.

You substantiate none of your arguments, and just tell skeptics to go search Noam Chomsky on google. Eat a dick.

Try this thread again when you are actually ready to substantiate your arguments.

Free trade still exists, it's just controlled by the workers who now control the factory, and is no longer controlled by private owners. IE free trade continues, it's just that now the working class looks over it, since they control the workforce now.

Aboliahing the state is called anarchy. Anarchy is a vacuum ofpower. It is unstable and ceases to exist as soon as someone gains the upper hand over others and begins to force people to do what he says.

Usually its not one person but a group that does this (the strongest tribe with the best warriors and spears).

Inany case, the stronger group becomes the new defacto government, at which point you've got an oligarchy or dictatorship.

The point of having a limited government is to prevent this scenario and preserve the maximum amount of freedom.

How do you force someone who starts a business, and incurs all the risk of failure to treat someone who hired on 30 years later as an equal without an authoritarian power? Furthermore, how do you expect anyone to actually take the risk or time necessary to innovate when there is no incentive to do so?

What happens when someone doesnt want to share ownership with "the workers," and buys his own factory and hires his own employees and compwtes with the workers co-op?

Maybe if you had the energy and cared enough to look at the evidence that's I linked you to originally you wouldn't be repeating yourself in an endless loop after all this time. It's called a Google and YouTube bar and keyboard. You should research those as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution_of_1936

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Libertarian Socialism

I don't necessarily believe in anarchy to begin with, its just that if I felt the government could not function for a good force in anyway possibly, I would be a LR, that's why I said I lean on it. Basically I would say sustain what the Spanish Revolution of 1936 did during its ten month period before being betrayed.

For the record, you said ages ago you wouldn't listen to my opinions and you're still here after this time? So...

Yeah, I think the same way many times, though as somebody who is fairly optimistic I'd say if anarchy was to happen I would go with the Libertarian-Socialist model more than any other anarchist model. Though If I did believe more in anarchy I would be a LS. That's why now I'm more of an FDR-era liberal.

>I felt the government could not function for a good force in anyway possibly.
Ok. You need to prove that. Let's start with comparing the United States to, say, Somalia, a Stateless country. If that is not a fair comparison, then why not?

And you have yet to answer how socialism would exist without a government force to force this to happen.

youtube.com/watch?v=-XgdtHewGR0

The problem is that free market economics is not a "system." It's merely an observation of human trade.

Given a safe and stable society (dont have to worry about warlords showing up and stealing your stuff) people will engage in voluntary trade which creates a dynamic, emergent system where some people will be richer than others and ownership of various goods and enterprises will be unequal.

The idea that you can come in, wipe the slate clean, and start over with everyone having an equal ownership in a co-op is absurd.

It's like if I have pressurized air inside a valve, then open the valve. The air will rush out until the pressure inside reaches equilibrium with the pressure outside. The idea of abolishing the state (through force by the way) then abolishing capitalism (you HAVE to use force to accomplish this, it's impossible otherwise) and expecting the resulting system to be stable, is nonsensical.

People who believe these esoteric, meritless theories are living in the clouds and completely incapable of critical thinking. They don't understand how the real world functions and cannot analyze the consequences of their pie-in-the-sky ideology being implemented.

Maybe if you were actually paying attention you could already predict my response to that question. But then again I'm not so surprised if you didn't even click on the links you asked for that I provided.

There's more to my version of anarchy than just a stateless country, genius. Libertarian socialism puts a heavy focus on having workplaces ran by workers and communes rather than just saying let's all have chaos with pirates roaming about. The Spanish Revolution of 1936 is what I'm talking about while it lasted. No centralized government demanding others give their wealth to it to fund stuff that does not benefit the working people, but instead, makes it so that the workers simply control where they work. Also, as a matter of fact, Somalia now does have a centralized and recognized government:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia

It has a president, and branches of government, etc. Once Somalia puts a focus on having workers and communes run the workforce then you'll have some more ammo. Spain in 1936 was brought about via revolution with an inded goal towards socialist anarchy.

And seriously, Steven Crowder? Lol, that egotist doesn't even realize Sanders is a social democrat /FDR-era liberal, and already got his ass handed to him by the Amazing Atheist twice.

The thing with me is that the Spanish Revolution of 1936 showed promise, and even to this day shows a bit, even if it didn't last long, but the fact that for months factories were run by worker committees, communes, and the class in general etc. across the nation shows a bit of hope for me, even if it's not much.

That's why I'm an FDR-era liberal for now. But if LS can be more successful in the future, I'm open to it.

>Libertarian socialism puts a heavy focus on having workplaces ran by workers and communes rather than just saying let's all have chaos with pirates roaming about.

Yes, I get that. Now, how do you achieve that without having some form of a state? Give examples. How do you stop privatization of said businesses? How do you stop the stagnation and decay that has plagued every socialist nation up to this point?

>And seriously, Steven Crowder? Lol, that egotist doesn't even recognize Sanders is a social democrat/FDR-era liberal.

Except that, in that very video, he discussed democratic socialism. Go back to that video. Skip to 6:04. Kick back, and watch how their own arguments literally call for government power to remove freedom.

That is the hard part about anarchy is trying to maintain it, but in the Spanish Revolution of 1936, they simply did this by abolishing heirachy via revolution, toppling private ownership of the factories, and establishing a more equal society where the workers are paid as much as they work for instead of having profits absorbed by higher ups. They looked after and over each other but they refused to set up a centralized state which institutes power with a capitalist system that abuses workers. So there's your answer and Crowder's answer. It stayed in place for months and it's collapse was due to dictatorship betrayal backed up fascist forces and not mob rule. Mob rule was inherently abolished when higher forms of authority are not allowed due to the fact the workers looked after each other and overlooked each other. It doesn't always work, and that is why I go to being an FDR-era liberal, which Crowder here would also call "socialism".

Crowder here wastes time putting words in other places mouths whether it is using Vladimir Lenin's quotes, unfunny gags, and goes on a slippery slope fallacy. The website never said they are going to completely control and demolish corporations. Though he cleverly says "nothing is ever distributed under capitalism", except for this little thing called taxes to fund wars, and welfare systems in capitalist society.

He also never bothered to bring up the fact the Scandanavian countries also have other huge higher ups such as lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, and what about the fact that Denmark, even in the face of being the cancer capital of the world has a higher life-expectancy rate past the US even in the face of that? No nation is perfect, but that does not erase the fact that other nations that don't have such an icky view on FDR-era liberalism have so many other advantages over others. He also doesn't care to mention the enormous savings that would happen under Sanders that would more than earn U.S. populations more than the extra taxes they paid. And by Godzilla, he's still defending trickle down economics at 15:00 saying they need more to give to others? That umbrella was disproved when wealth redistribution to higher ups in the economic system skyrocketed. Why not also mention the fact Supreme Court rulings in this amazing system he loves like Citizens United basically allows corporations to bribe representatives at endless amounts by just calling it a donation? Also amazes me how he implies that every business owner risked his or hers and erases the concept of inheritance. But then again, doesn't surprise me when these business owners he looks up to like Trump in the economic world refuse to release their tax records. Why not also mention that over the past years so many jobs in this amazing capitalist society are just tossed over to China to avoid paying their workers more. That's because Crowder refuses to reveal the fact capitalism puts profits before anything, even human lives, and the well-being of the working class. Just look at all the horrible dictatorships the US government backed in due to lobbying from fruit companies that killed thousands in the process like in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and more? And he wants to talk about others cherry picking?

Again, not surprised the Amazing Atheist owned this guy twice.

It's an oxymoron

>but in the Spanish Revolution of 1936
Fair enough, but there is a significant portion of the population that has no interest in enforcing what you want the public to enforce.

>Though he cleverly says "nothing is ever distributed under capitalism", except for this little thing called taxes to fund wars, and welfare systems in capitalist society.
Taxes are capitalistic? Capitalism gives you the ability to vote with your wallet. Take Target's new bathroom policy. I completely disagree with it, but I don't disagree with their freedom to do it. So I don't ask the state to block it. I just don't shop there.

Tell me how I can vote with my wallet in regards to taxation?

>No nation is perfect, but that does not erase the fact that other nations that don't have such an icky view on FDR-era liberalism have so many other advantages over others.
True, but that does not negate the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government. You have two choices in the US: vote for your state to act in your interests (so long as it's not violating the protections of the US constitution, which are god-given and protected by the federal government), or to move to said countries that already have the programs that you are interested in implementing.

>That umbrella was disproved when wealth redistribution to higher ups in the economic system skyrocketed.
Interesting. Have any sources to confirm that? Love to read up on it.

>Why not also mention the fact Supreme Court rulings in this amazing system he loves like Citizens United basically allows corporations to bribe representatives at endless amounts by just calling it a donation?
Probably the same reason that he pointed out that he was against bailing out businesses, as well as government guarantees. Conservative does not mean "corporatism" by definition.

>erases the concept of inheritance
According to cnn money, in the United States, over 90% of all familial wealth is spent and gone within 2 generations. It's not a problem.

>Why not also mention that over the past years so many jobs in this amazing capitalist society are just tossed over to China to avoid paying their workers more.
Sure, lets talk about that, as well as the H1B Visas. Free trade isn't free unless the wages are equal, as well as the environmental regulations. Just like illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from the poorly educated by working for less than the minimum wage.

>I'm a Libertarian and want to abolish the state
>I want to have a revolution where we take away your factory via government force, and give it to "the workers."


Pick one you moron.

The spanish revolution was retarded. There's nothing preventing you from opening up a co-op where the profits are divided equally among all of the employees. Absolutely nothing prevents you from doing this in a free market.

What you are advocating for is fascism. You want to take other people's property and redistribute it.

>That's because Crowder refuses to reveal the fact capitalism puts profits before anything, even human lives, and the well-being of the working class
Yes. That's why a limited government is seen as a net positive my most of society. They are supposed to look after the interests of their citizens, and keep things relatively fair. But to say that it is fair for a worker to take equal ownership in a successful business without incurring any of the actual risk isn't fair.

>Just look at all the horrible dictatorships the US government backed in due to lobbying from fruit companies that killed thousands in the process like in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and more?

Ok. What do those have to do with the belief in limited governmental power?

>Again, not surprised the Amazing Atheist owned this guy twice.
The Amazing Atheist does not hold the State to the same standards that he holds religion. He worships state power being used in a method that he agrees with, despite historical evidence of his preferred system being a failure.

it's easy to feel the bern when the clinton are rapists and pedo enablers and trump talks about fucking his own daughter

youtube.com/watch?v=9S3gmnrHRnQ

look up libertarian socialism

"libertarian" was originally leftist libertarian

the meaning changed with dumbasses in the U.S. turned in to something right wing and anti-authoritarian

i would say that it originally came from the spanish civil war in 1936, then milton friedman stole it in the 40s

alternet.org/visions/true-history-libertarianism-america-phony-ideology-promote-corporate-agenda

look up anarcho-syndicalism

all kinds of people including karl marx agree that workers should own the profits of their own labor and own the means of production

1. Again that's why I don't totally believe in anarchy.

2. In capitalist societies, yes, you have taxes in which money is collected and distributed to other efforts, be it wars, funding for programs, infrastructure repair, etc etc. If socialism so many people think of is taking money from others and then giving to others, then the exact same thing happens with the entire concept of taxes. Population pays them and hands the money over to others to do different things

B - You don't completely vote with your wallet, there is also the factor of media, an entire group dedicated into making people want stuff they don't want, at it is also entirely possible for corporations to sell bad products using deceptive advertising. To quote Carlin: "We buy shit we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like."

C - First of all our rights are not "god-given." Our Constitution is secular, as so is the ways government should function, our founding fathers were either deists or atheists and did not state our rights were due to any higher powerful deity in our laws that govern our nation. Why would I have to pick one or the other in those cases when I can help the U.S. get better at implementing the programs that help others.

Incredibly wide gap between the rich and poor: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States (Section 4)

D - Really, because to me it seems the filthy socialist he talks about "Sanders" is the main guy talking about repealing decisions like Citizens United, and even then as a person who claims to tell the truth he should have the courage to tell his people how decisions like this do not create that much of a free mark when any corporation can bribe bodies of government to work odds in their favor.

E - Even if 90% is all inherited, that doesn't erase the fact that many businesses are still inherited and not every business owner is entitled to share the spoils of their parents victory in this system in a logic that puts heavy emphasis on "the value of work".

F - Again, the faults of the system. The goal is to make profits soar, and that is what comes first above all, even if it means the main working class has to suffer.

Meanings of words changes throughout history. News at 11

G - Except capitalism does not encourage limited government in the long run. It is inevitable that corporate powers will use the government to their advantage to further their own interests. It is in the nature of the system to make it so that capitalists will either use to state or care their own to uphold the status quo. That is why I brought up the death squads the U.S. supported. Speaking of...

H - These support of death squads are one of the pieces of evidences that shows how capitalism was not only immoral, but encouraged massive government. Tons of money from the U.S. government used by all kinds of presidents who supported this system to supported dictatorships that censored their own media, killed innocent peasants, and used waves of mass terror to instill fear in their masses. Due to corporate lobbying, aka United Fruit Company having control over the entire Guatemalan economy thanks with the help of the CIA.

J - TJ got Crowder good in all his vids covering him, showing how much of a tough guy he pretends to be and how much he fights against the very class that makes the best of society possible to begin with.

>In capitalist societies, yes, you have taxes in which money is collected and distributed to other efforts, be it wars, funding for programs, infrastructure repair, etc etc.
That happens in any instance in which there is a state, not just capitalism.

>If socialism so many people think of is taking money from others and then giving to others, then the exact same thing happens with the entire concept of taxes
The difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism wants everybody to benefit off of someone else's success, and everyone to suffer off someone else's failure. True capitalism (presuming a state exists), limits the state's involvement to universal goods that the private sector couldn't handle. For example, the people could form a militia pretty easily without a heck of a lot of training, but a Navy? Not so much, which is why, in the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers wanted a standing Navy (and, one could argue, an Air Force), but not a standing Army. Every house was to be a military garrison. Now, the State government can go beyond the extremely limited roll of the federal government so long as the laws don't infringe on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

>You don't completely vote with your wallet, there is also the factor of media, an entire group dedicated into making people want stuff they don't want, at it is also entirely possible for corporations to sell bad products using deceptive advertising. To quote Carlin: "We buy shit we don't need, with money we don't have, to impress people we don't like."
I don't. You do what you want, but you do so freely, without any threat of force even being IMPLIED if you refuse to.

>First of all our rights are not "god-given."
You're right. They aren't given at all, but rather yours by simply being alive. The Constitution guarantees them, forbidding any to violate them.

Lol

Karl Marx was a bearded, idiotic lazy bum who sat around all day thinking about how great it would be if he didnt have to work, while mooching off his maid.

His "theories" have failed spectacularly all throughout the 20th century.

Taking marxist ideology seriously is on the level of being a flat-earther.


Why do you hate free trade? You keep advocating for big brother to come along and dismantle capitalism. That is bolshevik tier. You're not a libertarian-anything. You're a bolshevik who cant stand seeing other people succeed.

ITT: OP is an uneducated cuck who can't accept free trade and wants big strong men with guns to raskulachyt everyone who is successful.

Why would I have to pick one or the other in those cases when I can help the U.S. get better at implementing the programs that help others.
You can do whatever you want, so long as you do not violate the rights that the Constitution guarantees. Doesn't mean you have the right to strip people from their freedom to operate in a different way than you like. Feel free to open a business and make every worker an equal owner in said business.

>Really, because to me it seems the filthy socialist he talks about "Sanders" is the main guy talking about repealing decisions like Citizens United,
Citizens United is not a cut and dry case. If you can't see both sides of the issue, and are educated on the issue, something is wrong.

>E - Even if 90% is all inherited, that doesn't erase the fact that many businesses are still inherited and not every business owner is entitled to share the spoils of their parents victory in this system in a logic that puts heavy emphasis on "the value of work".
It's their property. They can do whatever they want with it. You seem to have this misunderstanding that business isn't property. But it is. They were responsible for its success, so if they want to shut the doors and burn it to the ground, so long as they aren't breaking any laws, they are free to. If you don't like that, then don't work for private businesses, and start your own worker-owned business.

>The goal is to make profits soar, and that is what comes first above all, even if it means the main working class has to suffer.
Which is why the necessary evil of the government is allowed in minimal fashion.

>G
Ditto for the masses.
>H
You shouldn't argue morality when you are essentially arguing to take people's property away from them.

>J
Who cares? Nothing you said refutes what I said about TJ.

Here's my proof for TJ worshiping the state, by the way. I think he would probably like this picture. It's a logical thought process.

Now, let's make the switch to government:
"My favorite part of Democratic Socialism is where Government allows the people to have free will/trade, but then takes the property of anyone who doesn't follow the Socialist mentality, and redistributes it to the workers."

...

...You still have no goddamn clue what my position is, do you?

Democratic Socialism. You've flip flopped on whether you want there to be a government, but you've given no method of making everything socialist without a government.

I never said I flopped, I said I leaned on the two, and if I did believe in anarchy more I would be for the LR model. I said I lean on the two at the very beginning and reinstated that later constantly.

Yeah, I think I understand these arguments of yours. They're all just replying to strawmens. Might as well have been replying to the the Scarecrow from Conker's Bad Fur Day all this time.

I never said i flip flopped, I said I leaned and if you don't know what that means, it means still deciding or not sure. Said that at the beginning and reinstated that position constantly through the thread.

I think I get these arguments now. They're all just replying to strawmen.

Then clarify, or are you falling to the tactics of the pic I posted here:

You already said this. Which is funny, because each of my responses focused on something you said. And then you ignored that, and tried to defend TJ's worship of the State, instead of the arguments you put forth, and I responded to.

Except in this case I did clarify what my definition was aka workers control of the workplace in the branch of socialism I believe in called Libertarian Socialism, and I also mentioned before there can be numerous branches of socialism. And also FDR-era liberalism which isn't even socialism to me to begin with. Seems like your replying to an argument you haven't even understood yet.

>Workers control of the workplace in the branch of socialism I believe is called Libertarian Socialism.
You haven't differentiated Libertarian Socialism from Regular Socialism here. Please differentiate.

>And also FDR-era liberalism which isn't even socialism to me to begin with.
How is it different. Qualify your beliefs beyond simplistic labels.

Socialism means at a core means a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

How exactly this is enforced though can vary whether it is via governments, people, and as a result there are varying levels. There's statist socialism where the government controls the means of the production, there's democratic socialism where democracy operates in an environment where workers control the work force, though they can still get support from some sort of government, and libertarian socialism is the anarchy version of having the operations controlled by the working class with no centralized government, and having communes and the class itself operate in the workforce etc. This is my belief if I do end up fully believing in anarchy. Don't really believe in Democratic socialism though, I'm an LS when it comes to socialism.

FDR-era liberalism is basically as simple as it sounds and this is really what Bernie Sanders is more like since he still wants to maintain the basics of capitalism, but not the entirely free-market style that many may believe in. Aka welfare programs, government support for failing economies, regulations of ill practices done by banks, other programs designed to get others to work, and intervention if the working class need support. Though there are some things in the modern world to be done like stopping disastrous supreme court rulings that breathe down the neck of Washington, pointless and wasting wars, etc. Certainly far off from what conservatives and modern libertarians view as capitalism.

Does that clear it all up?

>libertarian socialism is the anarchy version of having the operations controlled by the working class with no centralized government, and having communes and the class itself operate in the workforce etc.

See, it seems like you're getting slimy here. You've aren't sold on anarchy, at least not to begin with, right?
>I don't necessarily believe in anarchy to begin with.
Also, how do you achieve socialism without a centralized government to influence it? You have yet to explain this, despite being asked multiple times.

>Certainly far off from what conservatives and modern libertarians view as capitalism.
You need to prove that claim if you're going to make it.

>Does that clear it all up?
Your definitions? Sure. How they are at all feasible, let alone "libertarian," as the dictionary defines it? Not even a little.

Again, still making my mind, that's why I said "lean". Still more of an FDR-Era liberal, but I will wait and see if I end up preferring anarchy more than liberalism and become more of an LS.

Again, my definition just answered that and I explained this previously. Societies will operate in communes, they will abolish heirachy in the workplace, abolish central governments that instill the capitalism, and look after but also regulate each other while at the same time preventing mob rule because hierarchy is simply not allowed. Even if it doesn't last long, that is how it would work, so I'm afraid you still are in a mindset that socialism's most basic definition is about demanding government interference. It simply means production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, and how this is implemented can go either way, so I go with the anarchist version.

Here in the US many libertarians and conservatives here view capitalism meaning a fully free-market, meaning small, to very little, to even no regulation, lesser focus on welfare systems to support lower classes, lower taxes regardless of the income, while FDR-era liberalism, at least the one I am talking about is centered around regulations of big forces, a good amount of support to welfare systems, and concentration on helping others get jobs, but the basic structure of an economy ran on private profiting is still in place.

Libertarianism at it's most basics just means upholding liberty as its principal objective. Libertarianism here in the US is more specific and altered to mean belief in unregulated free-market capitalism, but there are still signs of other forms of left-wing libertarianism that existed in the past and exist today like Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, William Goldwin, Charles Fourier, and even some parts of George Orwell who expressed support for the Spanish Revolution of 1936 because he was a left-libertarian.

Again, it seems to me the only definitions you seem to recognize are either the very specific ones that branched from the original meaning, or the ones that are accepted exclusively to American culture.

The meaning of "progressive" did a 180 as well

the nazis were the progressive party by 1920s standards

>libertarian socialist

What the fuck....

>Again, still making my mind
>Societies will operate in communes
>look after but also regulate each other while at the same time preventing mob rule because hierarchy is simply not allowed
So, to understand you correctly, you don't know whether you are arguing for "libertarian socialism," "Anarchistic Communism," or FDR-era liberalism. And you expect me to follow your train of logic with 3 VERY different beliefs?

>Societies will operate in communes, they will abolish heirachy in the workplace, abolish central governments that instill the capitalism, and look after but also regulate each other while at the same time preventing mob rule because hierarchy is simply not allowed.
How?

>Even if it doesn't last long, that is how it would work,
If it doesn't last long, then it doesn't work.

>It simply means production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole,
And relying on the government to force the nation into socialism (and giving it the power it needs in order to do so), before abolishing it.

I'm not going to stick around in this thread. If you have the ability to create this entire post, but not see the problems inherent with your logic as you are typing it up, I'm honestly at a loss. There is so much cognitive dissonance in it, and the cherry on the sunday is that you don't even give a shit if it works. You want to upend the concept of personal property and force socialism on the nation (regardless of the individual's wishes), and say "Even if it doesn't last long," as though it would be justifiable even if it wound up lasting an hour?

It's literally a "What the fuck is this guy thinking?" post when I read it. Reminds me of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, honestly.

A - In this case I'm defending Libertarian Socialism's definition, not because I believe in it the most, but because I want to make sure I let everybody know that not every socialist belief on the spectrum is like that of Stalin. I do believe in it and will defend it just as much as FDR-era liberalism, it's just that I believe in FDR-era liberalism more. But it's just two new definitions I'm sure you can keep up with just two. Anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism are actually similar, but there are some differences because communism's original term was establishing a stateless and moneyless social order with no hierarchy, but socialism's original definition does not explicitly state what to do with hierarchy, money, and classes though.

Anarcho communism is a theory of anarchy about abolishing the state, capitalism, wage labor, and private property, but also has a clause about respecting "personal property", and is also centered around direct democracy, common ownership, and a network of worker collations. Libertarian socialism though is more anti-authoritarian and believes less in networks and collations, and instead believes that emphasis on the individual should be respected more than in anarcho communism, which is why it gets labeled as a libertarian philosophy.

B - The very line I gave you is the answer to your "How?" Again, I also told you this is one of the areas of logic where I don't totally fully agree with anarchy.

C - Again, I said WOULD, even if the possibilities of it working for a while are slim. It's possible to outline a thought of how something would work in a philosophy even if it is not possible.

D - That's statist socialism. The one I favor would just be abolishing the state and capitalism all together then the workers take control of everything. Again, seems to me you have convinced yourself there is only one brand of socialism.

Well, to be fair I clearly told you to look up examples of one of my beliefs from the beginning but you kept on asking for specific links, and even when I did give the links to you it seems you didn't even pay much attention to them. No, I do give a shit if it doesn't work which is why I told you why time and time again I don't fully believe in LS as much as FDR-era liberalism. No, I never argued for statist socialism, I simply said workers should control the work force, and because it is a libertarian philosophy then if somebody doesn't like the system then we have to respect them, plus I never said everybody has to believe in my LS, and pursue it. If people don't want to go through with LS, I won't get butthurt and am fine with it.

Again, seems to me you didn't pay attention to the evidence I gave you, refused to understand the original and most basic definitions of these terms, and just created strawman after strawman despite me telling you what I believe in, what I really want to be done, and instead arguing against the same thing you were arguing about replies ago. You were like Kent in this video of an interview parody...

youtube.com/watch?v=IBHEsEshhLs