Great. You want a pat on the back for doing the easy things?

A lot of accommodations cost money and are supported by taxes. Are you one of the rare Libertarians who doesn't also believe "taxation is theft"? Other accommodations require regulation because incentives (money) alone don't work (and have been repeatedly proven not to). Have you squared your Libertarianism with the need for useful regulations of accommodations?

The extreme nihilistic version has deep roots in modern American Libertarianism, I'm glad you anecdotally don't think you subscribe to it. I don't have any cookies to hand out for someone feeling happy to do the low hanging fruit when part of the point is about doing the hard things for equity (not equality) and compassion.

"taxation is theft" is compatible with a desire to help the less fortunate. We don't all have to subscribe to your ideology of forcing "conpassionate" behavior to actually help people.

There's plenty of reasons that a voluntary approach can (and does) work. Not perfectly, of course, but nothing is perfect. But it arguably works better than the more authoritarian approach you prescribe.

> "taxation is theft" is compatible with a desire to help the less fortunate. We don't all have to subscribe to your ideology of forcing "conpassionate" behavior (sic) to actually help people.

So you mean saying "oh poor you!" giving a sad look and moving on with your day?

I'm sure the less fortunate are really happy about that.

Or can you detail what's the plan to help the less fortunate without taxation on the more fortunate?

> So you mean saying "oh poor you!" giving a sad look and moving on with your day?

Oh what a zinger! You got me there! /s

Honestly, why should I waste time arguing with you?

> Honestly, why should I waste time arguing with you?

To show good faith… you succeeded at showing you didn't have that.

If you want good faith then don't open with an insult.

Can you point me exactly where I insulted you? I don't see any insult.

(I'm not him.)

> So you mean saying "oh poor you!" giving a sad look and moving on with your day?

This was insulting.

It's way worse if you're the person on the receiving side of that.

You put words in his mouth, which is rude. He was on the receiving end of it, not me, but I can still see that what you did was insulting.

He did say he didn't want to pay taxes to help the less fortunate. So I offered my view of what that looks like… he didn't care to state his view, but preferred to pull the "i'm offended" card to not reply. Which makes me think he actually had no answer to the question, and just doesn't like taxes, but doesn't like to be told he's a bad person for the inevitable consequences that has.

> He did say he didn't want to pay taxes to help the less fortunate.

Of course, I literally didn't say that. I think it's probably obvious to most people how what I said differs from your interpretation.

> So I offered my view of what that looks like… he didn't care to state his view, but preferred to pull the "i'm offended" card to not reply.

I did not play the "I'm offended" card. You chose to be a dick. If you want people to engage with you in substantive dialogue, don't be a dick.

Calling me a dick while saying I'm offensive -_-'

You never had any worthwhile opinion to share.

The hard things, like making comments calling people out on the internet for not doing exactly what you think they should do?

You can read my other posts. I've extensively written about Libertarianism. None of it matches what you describe.

I'm not asking for cookies. I'm pointing out that you have a misinformed view of Libertarianism, and gave an example.