>Milo
>Conservative

sry, forgot to mute. on phone.

Death to the great satan

america is gay

america is gay

long live the south

lol you think the confederacy is still threatening America?

Fuck you, it's treasonous to not want to be readmitted into the British empire

rebel scum

A state is supposed to be an anonymous entity, the point of a federation is that the central government derives its authority from the consent of the states

Unless you want some kind of empire

d i r e c t r u l e f r o m w a s h i n g t o n

So your notion is based entirely on legal status?

i.e. if it's technically a state it can't secede?

Well obviously no government would ever allow that

Fair enough, but it's not as though US politicians will allow it

So?

What's wrong with the south seceding?

They'd probably want to go these days

So what? US democracy is representative.

Well they voted in candidates who were pro-secession

Anti-northern sentiment existed for some time

The north drafted people too mate, both sides were just desparate for soldiers

Well they voted didn't they?

lol so basically all democracy prior to blacks having the vote was unfair, and every election was illegitimate.

OK so the US is illegitimate

We're nitpicking now. The US had a hundred years of elections where blacks didn't have the vote.
The US seceded so wealthy people i.e. not slaves could pay lower taxes. The slaves never voted on that.

If the blacks had the choice they would have sticked with the British who were about to abolish slavery

lol

US didn't give blacks representation

So fucking there

Not that I care

I'm not trying to argue that legitimacy is based on whether blacks have a say

You are

I don't give a shit

You were arguing that the politicians who supported secession were illegitimate in doing so because blacks didn't vote for them

So what? The politicians were elected by the democratic system of the time. You appear to be making an argument based on legal legitimacy.

Now you've magically shifted the goalposts to moral legitimacy

i.e. being nice to blacks or something

Even when they are in conflict?

Well an example is what we are discussing. Blacks didn't have the vote so legally they didn't factor into the consideration. But you're making a moral argument about how it was wrong that blacks didn't have the vote and using that to nullify the argument for secession

Enjoy your ZOG

America is shit and will soon be a nonwhite country. It's based on shit values and much of it was built by christian cultists.

Enjoy your sinking ship

Secularism is very Protestant

Because they all keep disagreeing on bullshit so the only way a Protestant country can avoid collapse and infighting is secularism

Similar issues, they were dealing with lots of different religions

Basically the same as dealing with lots of Christian cults

Yes, because the only way to avoid all the infighting is to adopt an individualistic approach where the state has no affiliation with religion.

You still find references to God strewn around though, so obviously America was Christian.

I want the nation to share common values and beliefs. If there's disagreement on fundamental issues between groups of people, it's better they separate into their own communities and nations

Free deseret

(for example)

lol capitalism

Enjoy getting BTFOd by China

State-sponsored economic sabotage? Doesn't sound very capitalistic to me.

Protectionism is perfectly logical, but I wouldn't count it as one of my core values.

I don't think protectionism is enough to unite a nation. Democracy is also essentially just a governmental structure, something that affects the state. Nationalism is empty without a concept of what your nation is.

Wow, your Boomerposting is impressive

What he's doing

America IS BLESB by GOD!!1 Are DEMOCRACY is the best in the WORLD,,, AMREN Borthers!!! If your not TRUE PATRIOt then kEEP SCROLLIN

So are the patriotard Boomers that talk like that online

Lol no

No, it's just that these civic nationalist types are cringey as fuck

Baathists are basically Arab fascism

🅱ased

>When someone calls me a liberal

Get redpilled by Evola

Why is having more money the ultimate goal?

You can never satisfy greed

I view a better life as not slaving away behind a desk my whole life getting depressed and unhealthy and having no connection to the wider society, only being a cog in the capitalist machine, another unit of production to be counted and measured purely in terms of how much wealth I can produce for my superiors

Oh, so I can enter the next rotation of the cycle with slightly more wealth, and fewer years left of my life to live.

What do I do with the wealth? I acquire some material items that have now become the sole purpose in my life. I add yet more layers of artificiality and techno-isolation to my life that's already devoid of real community and relationships, any sense of belonging to the wider society other than that my produce will be counted among the aggregate national statistics

Much better lifestyle frankly, but hardly efficient and capitalistic

You get a sense of connection with your origins and the natural world, the life you would live is one in harmony with that of your ancestors. You can join a simple village community and get to know them and trust them personally. You form real human connections, not professional strategic relationships. You live as you were meant to live.

Sure but not necessarily

There are some actions that you may take that are in your interest and benefit the wider society, there are others that don't.

Becoming a thief may be in your interest, for example, but harms society.

Theft?

Ok, so what about economic exploitation?

It's similar to theft but not illegal

Such as overcharging someone for a house or a repair job

I am familiar

But the free market assumes everyone is rational, and that competiton actually exists.

Monopolies are a thing

monopolies

A large company can starve out smaller competitors by various means. It can undercharge temporarily for example, putting smaller companies out of business. It can also control the means of supply.

The network effect is huge too, as well as economies of scale. Large companies will tend to grow larger in a free market

Smaller companies get drowned out in most markets.

It was an example.

Sure but it happens. Eventually there will be a monopoly, and the monopoly will be able to dictate the parameters of the market if there isn't state intervention.

There doesn't even need to be just one company in monopoly. If there are a few then they essentially make decisions in tandem. They act as an unofficial cartel.

So why were you trying to tell me about the free market if that's not what you were supporting?

Sure. Anyway, I still don't see wealth as an absolute measure of how good a country is or how good someone's life is.

That was my original point.

Well I tend to use natural law as my measuring stick. How well does a society conform to the univeral truths of nature, as well as to the truth about the human condition etc. and to what extent is someone living their lives in accordance with how nature indended humans to live.