individualist

@anonymous anonymous Depends on what, exactly?

if he can get some ebony

@Deleted User Well individual rights are a nice ideal but can be damaging, like a drug attic can say its my right to do that drug. Yes it is but that can affect other people there for it should be illegal. Because the damage ought weights the freedom.

But you could say the same about guns. But the right to defend ones self out weights the damage firearms make.

Individuals

Free speech

Wooh

whats that thing in your avi

ensuring the rights of the individual

Collective

It's rather self-evident that the interests of the collective should be prioritized over that of the individual. The near-extinction of smallpox, polio, etc from the general public were collective population-wide efforts that ended more human misery than any single advance in individual political rights ever has. Likewise one of the largest sources of misery in the public today is found in the unchecked consumption of processed foods and the resulting degradation of body, mind, and spirit- the only plausible solution to which involves collective efforts in constraining individuals. If individual rights are important at all they are only important as political tools toward collective ends, particularly as barriers towards the majority appropriating the resources of or otherwise arbitrarily oppressing the minority in ways that ultimately harm the collective.

It's also quite evident that almost every single society on the planet, even those who are supposedly committed to individual rights, is willing to jettison individual rights as seen necessary when push comes to shove during wartime in order to protect the continued existence of the collective.

Outside of a few fanatics very few people actually support individual rights in principle as terminal goods ('God Given', 'Liberty or Death' types) because doing so is fairly stupid. More often people uphold them either because they're foundational to the social order (ex: constitutional rights), because they broadly benefit them personally now and for the foreseeable future (see: the partisan shift on free speech in the past 30 years), or because they believe they are ultimately beneficial to the collective interests of their society and/or humanity (ex: justifying gun rights because it keeps the people from being shuttled into concentration camps by a tyrant).

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question

Do you believe that it is better for private companies to be in possession of your country's natural resources, or should they be in the hands of the state? Explain your reasoning.

that's a question with a lot of hypotheticals.

Hi

The State, they have to atleast pretend like they care about the integrity of the Nation and not destroy everything for shekels.

They should be in the hands of whomever gets them /shrug

INDIVIDUAL

commie

COLLECTIVE

commie

I am a libertarian

he means libertarian (socialist)

Private ownership is best for resources

wew imagine someone unironically saying that

I am a libertarian

I'd say private for a general answer but really depends on the resource and situation in question

Private ownership of land and resources but only for individuals and companies native to the country. Free trade benefits us all, but we shouldn’t allow other nations to rob us of the fruits of our own lands. Take Romania for example. Germany is fucking the shit out of them. Germany has strict rules when it comes to cutting timber in Germany , so they just go to Romania, buy the land from poor farmers, and clear the forest out. It’s bull shit.

And Romania can’t do anything because the EU forces them to let Germany in.

abolish the EU

and the UN

STATE

Private Ownership is good in fields where quality outweighs necessity

Privately owned things will be managed in such a way that are most beneficial for the company. So services and some products. But the nation should directly control its resources, as they pertain directly to the nation. They are a necessity of the state if not the populace itself.

The whole point of The United States of America is to make the title President of The United States of America not the most powerful one in the world.

Reduce federalism

Agreed

If people gain power of the current USA who really shouldn't, we're in trouble. Bring back statism

Im a regionalist

It's called regionalism? I thought it was just statism

I believe in organized cooperative secession between the cultural regions of the USA. I.e., I want all nations to work together to achieve their own sovreignty

@Deleted User depends on the quality of the individuals in said country

I think that political systems overall are very subjective

it depends on the populace

for instance I think most whites have lost their sense of purpose and way in life, in the USA, Europe, etc.

So while I oppose statism as I believe it to be not optimal, it might be beneficial for the state to own the resources and use them to give people a national purpose and thus unity

The USA right now has no reason to exist. The whites in the USA thus have no reason to exist beyond personal ones, which most people don't have. They're sleepwalking through life while brown people slowly replace them.

^

Well said

I'm not an ethnic nationalist, but I do see the (almost) inevitability of the death of the white race as a severe problem

And that we should work to rectify this

in group preference by whites and exclusion of non-whites in nearly every professional capacity

hispanics/blacks already have this via government violence (affirmative action), asians do this in their small businesses

Obviously I think I and others are in principle against this but the fact is literally every group except whites does this, and jews do it to great success

Like instead of hiring some illegal spic to do your roof, spend a bit of extra money for a white

It should be in the hands of the state to be used by its countrymen instead of being used by greed businesses.

Well you fail to understand that most states are NWO tier

@everyone 🔖 Daily Question

Which is more important? Economic growth or maintaining tradition? Are they mutually exclusive? Explain

maintaining tradition

economic growth

Economic growth.

tradition is meaningless

^

Without followers

Economic growth.

i don't think those are mutually exclusive things tho

Economic growth

i dont need to grow my economy for some consumerist faggot brown people

sorry

that's just weird racism

i'm used to racism here

but that's just weird

Maintaining tradition. And they are mutually exclusive, as growing economy requires the disposal of morality to continue feeding The Machine.

no

i'm confused also

are there units of morality?

what is this machine you are talking about?

how is the process of producing something with value immoral?

or exporting something

@21tagtmeiern if you told someone 500 years ago that they could give up most of their family life to work making cardboard boxes for a few extra shekels, they would never say yes to that

that answers 0 of my questions

In a capitalist world, there is no higher meaning to life

If you want morality to be measured physically, I don't know what to tell you

~~In a capitalist world,~~ there is no higher meaning to life

A nihilist you are?

you said disposal of morality

i act as if life has meaning but there's no reason to believe that other than why not

how can you dispose morality

also how is economic growth necessarily capitalism

also quality of life has gone up in the past 500 years

>how can you dispose morality
Enforce state lead education and teach that wealth is the goal of life

COLLECTIVE

truth

sure but that's not the only way to grow the economy

Capitalism is the source of most immorality in this world

greed is the source of most immorality true