>>48483736>So everyone thinks the exact same?No lol.
>Why even vote?Social issues. Immigration laws and such. That's why other developed countries vote.
>Kek, you haven't seen a leftist in your lifeC'mon anon. We've both seen Antifa.
>this absolutely never happens under leftist policies though.So we don't use leftist policies.
>Yes, the people more likely to want to tax the rich are, I presume, the people likely to tax the rich. Sorry for making that weird assumption.Yes, apples do grow on trees. But not all trees grow apples, anon.
>Yes, which is why every increment is bad because it leads to the next.I thought you said you weren't an anarchist?
>Yes, and for some reason the left only applies this to the private sector.Forget the left, anon. No one cares about the left. Plus, the private sector is the bigger problem at the moment. Do you fix a broken pipe by covering the hairline fractures first and leaving the gaping hole?
>Then we should give everything to China and call it a day.Why not to Norway? They seem to be fine. If you're going to be defeatist, then stop arguing.
>That's literally what happens with a large state.Yes. But we need a large state to fight large problems. We're a large country, anon.
>Wait, not really, with a large state it happens faster and easier.So you agree it can happen with small states, too.
>If you're against billionaries you should be against large states.Perhaps. But we can shrink the state AFTER we get rid of the billionaires. The big leak gets fixed first, anon.
>That never worked and it wont ever do.Billionaires are a new problem. It didn't work "before" because we've never tried it.
>Wont reply to this as I already did and you dont want to listen.Takes two to tango. Us having this argument means we're both not listening to something. Instead we could focus on what we agree on and get rid of the billionaires.
There can't be any billionaires if we tax away their billions, anon.
