I mean, I hear you, but when I talk to them I think that the fact that we’ve allowed definitions to evolve over time has turned into carte blanche for words to become meaningless.

Shout out to the idiots who are so simple minded they can’t contemplate that his message is so blindingly easy to comprehend that we’d rather spend our time laughing at an anarchist complaining that the government isn’t solving a problem.

Think about what you’re asserting and stop embarrassing yourself dude.

You are wrong. Marx eventually thought it wouldn’t need to be organized by a state. That all members of the proletariat would voluntarily work together to organize economic activity in a way that was both relatively efficient and resulted in equality.

Yeah yeah I know I know all that but still, Marx’s end game ultimately requires people to not be like people have been since people have been people and not primates.

I work in a finance department in fact, and spend quite a bit of time looking at whether marginal changes in things like tax rates and other expenses necessitate changes in business strategy.

That’s nonsense. The amount of the tax Seattle was proposing is absolutely nothing to Amazon to pay. The marginal cost of a few hundred dollars per employee wouldn’t change Amazon’s hiring decisions in Seattle one iota over the next decade.

No one “gives a fuck” in any serious sense.

I mean, I hear you, and you’re probably right, but how badly does the inside of your cheek hurt after writing “he’s just trying to live within the system”.

Well, maybe. In one sense, Marx was an anarchist. In his hypothetical future state, eventually the proletariat no longer needs the state to ensure that socialist ideals are carried out. People just ... evolve beyond their base natures and somehow we all become smart enough to effectively distribute goods and services…

That would be a compelling reason, but the problem is when you label yourself an “anarchist” you label yourself as someone who has a political philosophy that is neither useful nor moral in anything other than a hypothetical discussion.

Maybe, but I think you might be giving him too much credit.

While ranting about how the city government didn’t solve a problem.

I’m mad they didn’t do this too, but I have to admit I chuckled a bit at a self-described anarchist going on a rant that is essentially “The state needs to do something about this very pressing problem”.

who didn’t sign a prenup

Uh ... I don’t think that person disagreeing with your point.

Those people were never going to vote for Kaine anyways though, and the coalition that gave Kaine power in Virginia absolutely has some people who that sort of messaging appeals to.

Yeah yeah, I’ve read the Morriscreative infographics too there pal.

I do not expect CNN, MSNBC and the rest of mainstream corporate media to cover the blocking of Democracy Now when it happens; they don’t even cover the things Democracy Now covers you think they’re going to cover it being blocked?