/liberty/ - Liberty

>>73170

If you think nuclear is a middle of the road solution, then your survey is not worth even looking at.

Everything should be free

>>73172

>Report submitted!

>>73176

Anarchists do not report

>>73170

dat pic

>Ben is a free individual and I should not steal from him. Jerry is as well. But when they are together I can because the fundamental preceding rules no longer apply.

>>73192

Ben & Jerry's is a company

>>73192

>Missing the point

He's saying that Ben and Jerry's Homemade Holdings, Inc is not a person, it's a group of people who may exercise their rights individually, but shouldn't be given special rights collectively.

>>73195

I didn't miss it. He failed to make it. What he says does not support what he wants to prove. Sanders has been repeating ad infinitum how "corporations aren't people" even though they are composed exactly of that. Because "they aren't people" you can have different rules that apply only for them. I didn't miss a thing. I'm referring to that in particular. His attack on cronyism is justified, but poorly argued. A Collectivist arguing against granted privileges is a sure failure every time. He locates the problem and attacks it for all the wrong reasons with all the wrong measures, which isn't helping at all.

>>73196

Are you illiterate? He says in the picture right there that a corporation is not a person. It is not an individual. He's not claiming that it is not made of people. If you think a corporation is an individual because it is made of individuals you seriously need to rethink your life and should consider enrolling in special needs education.

>>73170

>[energy] can be [free] if everyone operates on their own independent solar panels

purchasing and maintaining solar panels is not "free"

>>73197

Are you illiterate?

>>73209

No.

>>73197

You're missing his point completely. He was saying that Sanders failed to make a valid argument, and that's true. Sanders said that legal persons aren't persons, implying that therefore, you can limit "their" freedom and steal "their" property, when in fact this freedom and property belongs to the actual persons behind Ben&Jerry's.

It's true that legal persons have special privileges, and that they can be used as a front to cheat. All of that is true, and it makes for a wonderful argument against legal persons. Problem is that Sanders didn't make that argument, no matter how benign you interpret what he said.

>>73213

I thought he knew about Sanders' tax proposal based on what he says in the pic, so I didn't bother pointing it out explicitly. Of course, if you ask Sanders, unions are just fine and dandy, and "are people" when it comes to taxing their income.

>>73197

You're missing his point completely. He was saying that Sanders failed to make a valid argument, and that's true. Sanders said that legal persons aren't persons, implying that therefore, you can limit "their" freedom and steal "their" property, when in fact this freedom and property belongs to the actual persons behind Ben&Jerry's.

It's true that legal persons have special privileges, and that they can be used as a front to cheat. All of that is true, and it makes for a wonderful argument against legal persons. Problem is that Sanders didn't make that argument, no matter how benign you interpret what he said.

>>73220

He didn't just not make it once. He repeated it over and over a bunch of times on different occasions. It's not like our interpretations could have misaligned because of this one particular case. Hell, it's the core of his Robin Hood tax bullshit. How can ANYONE miss it?