[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Once I went to use the word "Spectrum", I just [i]had[/i] to continue with disorder, couldn't help myself. We are here to keep our host entertained. 
[/quote]

Once again, if no one is taking the conversation seriously, I'm more than okay with it but I'd like for people to stop whining about me being mildly aggressive. If shitposting gets nobody to complain. <.<

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
But yes, Libertarianism is on a spectrum moving from Republicans who like weed on down to An-Caps. All of that belongs to Libertarian thought. 
[/quote]

All of what? But, libertarian is sometimes considered a right or left wing opinion. When it actually isn't. It's just the counter to authoritarian.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
So if decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't help the through job creation for the poor, then why would anybody support decreasing said rich people taxes? That is an argument that exists, and is what the term "Trickle down economics" describe, then whether or not the term itself was used by those who pushed for it is neither here nor there.
[/quote]

No, my point was trickle down economics is a straw-man, because it's only argued and used by mis-attributing it to someone who never said it. I said a real strawman because my statement was [b]not[/b] one.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Also, we aren't arguing about Stalinism right now. That was another thread. You were using home rights as a defense for all property rights, which isn't really appropriate. 
[/quote]

Ignoring that people we're talking about it, you guys only moved because I seemed to be paying attention to it. :P *sarcasm*

But my point again, was proving it was being argued. And was not a straw-man argument. And not all, but it is a big and easy to explain part of it...

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Personal property is a legal term. Hence why we pay personal property taxes. But that's irrelevant anyway, because if you make systematic changes you'd presumably adapt the legal system to those changes.
[/quote]

It's usually the same as private though which is my point...So both words tend to mean the same thing. There isn't a difference from what I can tell.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
You can argue that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because I wasn't arguing that. In my opinion the line is drawn where the absence of the thing isn't realized by the thing itself, but rather the absence of the income produced by the thing. If someone takes your car, even if you are an Uber driver, the absence of the car itself is the thing. If someone takes your Wal-Mart though, you aren't all like "Oh no! The shelves." So whereas the former, personal property, is an inalienable right, the later, abstract property, is up for public discussion.
[/quote]

I know that. My point was replying to people making the argument. (that wasn't a strawman one) and pointing out why it was false. Businesses are owned by their owner period. They paid for it and took the risk. I assumes that's where the 'discussion' is leading.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
wat?
[/quote]

You could of at least said, I'm confused or something a little more articulate. But assuming it's genuine confusion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/22/man-sues-pizzeria-rough-treatment-during-robbery/12982441/

http://lawnewz.com/crazy/convicted-burglar-sues-homeowner-who-shot-him/

Stuff like this...except if there's any snowball chance in hell for that person to win. Is not a world we should live in...but it has. Which is my point. Clearer now?

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
If this were true, and everybody purchased along ethical lines, then big box stores would never have overcame small businesses. Experience has shown that people shop based on convenience rather than a complex ethical decisions, and that's sensible, because nobody has time to research every purchase meticulously. I can't be fuckin' bothered to google the owner of a store before I go to buy toilet paper there. So in the real world, that teen is fired and maybe her parents and friends don't go to his business, but most people would anyway because they either don't know about the problem or don't give a shit. An injustice has taken place and Libertarianism has no practical answer for it. 
[/quote]

Not always true, some small businesses suck too. Big doesn't always equal a problem. But you seem to be ignoring how social media smear campaigns can outright destroy people's lives. I think forcing people to "morally" shop is a slippery slope anyway. Granted boycotts don't work usually. But "buycotts" (stealing the word) do. So there is some level of outside forces that can effect the outcome of somebody's sales. Some people lose, but they still can try again. As bad as it seems, that's a GOOD thing for the consumers and people. If businesses weren't allowed to fail. They'd need government bailouts. Sometimes products become less needed or bought, when newer and better and cheaper stuff comes out. 

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
To the furthest of my knowledge no business has ever received a bailout for diddling the help. In our current system we have laws in place to protect employees. The point being, sometimes people are not rational actors and you need to intervene in the system to keep it just. 
[/quote]

What does diddling the help supposed to mean there? We wouldn't know what people did to employees. So can't say either way. I assume the innuendo and not the real term. But businesses getting bailouts is nothing new...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/07/porn-industry-seeks-federal-bailout/

Hasn't stopped people from trying. ;D

I will also point out, that big businesses often support more government restrictions, not less. Because they can afford it, but not their competition.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
What would they be rioting for? Their movement is new and doing well enough by simply existing, so there wouldn't really be a point to them rioting. But I think we have established that both extremes exist so we'll carry on.
[/quote]

Extremes exist on both sides, but which seems to be a bigger problem right now? It seems the worst the Alt right can do, is be horrendously unfunny. I simply point it out because SJW's were started from GamerGate and that was taken quite seriously by every big media site, when it started/fueled from nothing but a farce.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody calling themselves alt right but not wanting ethno-states are really either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk.
[/quote]

Not a citation really. And one person isn't a whole movement. So that's all I got for that.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
The problem is you get into a lot of non sequitors and it can oftentimes be confusing to try and parse together what your thesis is. I'm not telling you to dumb things down, I'm asking for brevity because I think it would make the discussion less of a clusterfuck.
[/quote]

I didn't mean to get on your case too hard, unlike the other people nitpicking me to death here. You've tended to be respectful in the past. So if you felt in anyway I was being aggressive to you, I apologize. I have an actual reason for my slightly scattered thoughts. However, I will argue that it seemed like one to you because you replied to things, that weren't statements toward you. It was one post replying to three people and separating them would just be spam. Discussions of this nature NEED more context and as much evidence as possible. Also again, I'm not typing any more/less than the other person you've been discussing with.

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
Pre college would be teenagers. What I was saying is that highschoolers saying seemingly right wing things doesn't mean much because teenagers say random shit. So if someone hears teens going on about race or whatever, it doesn't mean the next group is Generation Zyklon. I say this because I remember people saying racist or homophobic shit all the time when i was in highschool, and my cohort of millenials are the ebil lazy lefties.
[/quote]

I don't try to generalize, usually. But again, my point is kids don't even know what right or left wings even stand for. So saying their opinions are popular, doesn't make much sense. Especially right wing opinions, which aren't remotely easy to explain to a child. But it seems like you're kind of making the same point here...So maybe we're talking past each other here? I don't know. I had an entire middle school spread a rumor literally everyone in the school hated me for and it was me being gay and having a lot of sex. I can't even begin to explain just how ironic this has been. <.< And I'm almost 100% positive most of them are the “don't be mean or bully” liberal types. But I don't know what else that is, other than pointing out people being hypocritical jackarshes. (Or maybe that kids and teens suck.)

[quote=@Vilageidiotx]
also, what the righteous fuck is a smurf account? 
[/quote]

A thing I deleted that shouldn't be continually brought up. 'Not relevant'. Also already explained what it is. Google exists. :P