"Ok, I give up. Good job there."
Good.
Don't think that's going to save you from me having the last word.
"You are not only misrepresenting everything I've said, you are also just regurgitating alt-right and extreme libertarian talking points. Not very good ones at that either. Just a few things: "
Hardly "extreme".
"Rape should be legal on your property" is extreme.
"Pedophilia/necrophilia should be legal if there's consent" is extreme.
In fact these positions should be better described as lolbertarianism.
Wanting far lower taxes and fewer regulations (didn't say 0 regulations by the way) isn't. That's standard libertarianism and I'm probably a moderate compared to some other folks who don't even want public roads.
Also, I'm "alt-right"? LOL, when did I say I was alt-right or express core alt-right positions? The closest thing is that I'm not for open borders, but that's not being alt-right, that's not being a fucking idiot. The country is kind of an extension of property rights with citizens being similar to shareholders. Therefore, non-citizens need to get permission to come in. They can't just walk in, unannounced, as they please. Even YOU said you wouldn't want me in your country because you think my values would be detrimental (not that I've ever expressed an interest in going there or give a shit if you ban me from entering, to me it's like getting banned from Mars, have fun with that), so clearly you believe in some immigration standards yourself and aren't willing to accept literally everyone.
Maybe you should take note, being gay and all, your government is importing over a MILLION people who don't come from a culture that is the least bit friendly to gays. It's not that they disagree with gay marriage or think being gay is "icky", it's that they literally want to murder you, and would if they could. That's not "racism", it's not race-based, it's based on legitimate concerns of common core values as well as their ability to actually earn their keep.
As for your leaders, take note of point c of the definition of genocide:
"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; "
It is very close. The only we still have yet to prove is that Merkel is doing this deliberately (mainly because we can't read her mind). But there's no question that bringing in 1 million people from a deeply homophobic culture is going to put homosexuals at great risk of murder or injury. At the very least every person that dies from a refugee should sue (and win) the German government and the EU for wrongful death and they should all go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.
"Ayn Rand fell into: Fighting against "the welfare state" and "discrimination against the rich" her whole life until she was suddenly in a tight spot and needed the assistance of the state she hated so much to help her... and taking it VERY willingly."
That's the government's problem. It's not her fault for playing the game by the rules set up. Don't hate on the playa yo. Blame the devs.
If you force people into a deal they wouldn't make otherwise, don't be surprised if they're going to make the best of it. If nothing else just to mitigate their loss and I'm willing to bet that Ayn Rand and her family paid far more in taxes than they actually got out of it in benefits. Ever thought that if people keep more of what they earn they're not going to need welfare?
Now taxes are inevitable, but you don't really need a lot of it to fund the police, military, courts and MAYBE (best case scenario) assistance only for the super poor (starvation level, not 11k a year level) that would maybe be a compromise worthwhile but as I've learned, socialists spend money on anyone but the most poor. Some of your taxes actually go to fund bailouts and subsidies to corporations. (I'm against that, if corporations want to raise money they should get a loan from the bank, issues bonds or do an IPO on the stock market.)
Hell, you're in the EU, you should KNOW that billions in funds get spent on "EU projects" where basically people get PAID to start their business and they don't even have to pay it back. That's not how a free market works, you're supposed to start a business with the money YOU save or the money you attract from other willing investors. EU is actually very corporatist which is not free market capitalism. Corporatism is basically socialism for the corporations.
All these taxes and STILL get homeless beggars... And STILL with all these excessive taxes in Europe (literally over HALF of what you make sometimes if you take into account income tax, property tax, VAT etc. and that's true even for eastern Europe like Hungary or Romania which people seem to think are more right-wing somehow), almost no country even meets their 2% of GDP military spending WHICH is a NATO OBLIGATION, not some unreasonable request, why is that??
"I provided a source for how many rich people withhold money from reentering circulation (expensive cultural items, houses etc.). "
And I explained houses don't grow on trees, they need people to build them AND maintain them after they are built, so this does stimulate the economy. Every time someone like Trump builds another mansion - people are going to be employed to built it and then they're going to be employed some more just to maintain it, because there's no way he's doing that by himself.
As for cultural items - well if people weren't willing to pay a lot of money for them and had no use for them, they would probably get thrown in the dumpster. Is that what you really want? To lose your cultural heritage? It's good that some people obtain and preserve them.
Besides, don't they have to buy it from someone? So that someone, whoever he is, gets a lot of money in income so now he's not dependent on welfare anymore. LOL
"Your argument about "women wanting REAL men" etc. also just brings about memories of incels, pick-up artists and Vox Day in me."
It was my understanding that incels were saying the exact opposite (that women should ignore their standards and just fuck them anyway, kind of how third wave feminists insist on men giving the morbidly obese a chance or blame them that they like "models" like that idiot Sarkeesian is doing all the time, saying beauty standards are somehow "sexist").
PUA can be over-the-top, but they're not completely wrong either about everything. There are differences in terms of what men like to see most in women and what women like to see most in men. Hence you get incels because they can't or don't want to conform to those expectations. Though the issue for women is more about finding a committed partner than "getting laid".
"Just with the addendum that they would still be in place if not for movements for equality like feminism. "
Feminism has long outlived whatever usefulness it had.
Also, first wave feminism had its problems too. Women should have had the vote all along, but they should have also been obligated to serve in the army.
Feminists quietly accepted the right to vote without the responsibility of possibly being drafted in time of war. So you get a kind of perverted situation where someone can vote to go to war, but she's always exempt from the consequences of war even if she's capable of combat. And they have the sick nerve to whine about "male privilege" when they've avoided all the horrors of WW2 and Vietnam. While men who refused fight were branded with a criminal record for life.
There's just no excuse, if modern feminists are serious about equality they should sign up for selective service and if they're not allowed to they should protest until they are. Instead they whine about non-issues like "manspreading", "not enough women in STEM" (even though they chose gender studies instead and never bothered with STEM) and "coffee propositions in elevators". Sick. Joke.
