3. Also, having a *commun*ity determine who gets what seems a little... red...

well theres nothing vague about the irs calling you and threatening to send the police for not paying for the police.

i agree that the government is a mind concept, but the problem is you have specific people with titles doing engaging in physical force due to their beliefs.

I'm a reformist, not an anarchist.

You won't get a disagreement from me when you say the system's broken

yes. but without the majority agreeing to be ruled by physical force, there is no state.

without the military, or the police, politicians have no power

right yes, i agree

But politicians have power because we have given it to them.

and if the people decide they no longer like the military or the police, they can and will fight. is it pretty? no. is it the best option, usually not.

We, as a society, can choose who we send forward.

but this is where moral and rightful an-cap arguments, imo, fall flat

The mere fact that we've been so neglectful in our choices

or the military and police can decide not to fight, it doesnt absolutely have to be a violent change

Is proof enough that the common will is not enough to rule.

an-caps have great arguments for lessoning government involvement.

NatSocs have great arguments for reducing crime rate.

Just because it's a great argument, doesn't mean it's right.

do they thought?

a violent overthrow wouldnt last anyways

An ethnic nationalist would say that certain ethnicities are more prone to violence and should be dealt with accordingly.

Strictly speaking, this WOULD lead to a decrease in crime

But there's a core issue that you could address instead.

Cultural, of course.

you know what would get ride of more crime? removing all people at the same economic level

Elimination of the lower class?

isn't that what removing most of the ethnic minorities would do?

Elimination based on IQ?

Not entirely, though

no, and therefore there would still be crime

Because there are plenty of blacks who have broken through the supposed barriers

Hell, Asians are higher earners than Whites.

an inconvenient fact, you'll notice Asians are omitted by any NatSoc graph.

more over, you'd lose more beneficial people by removing all people not of a certain ethnic class that just removing most poor people

So if you eliminated people based on earnings, you'd be less diverse to be sure, but you wouldn't be ethnically pure

you'd also have really backed up sewers.

no, but we were talking about crime

Alright, let's trace that back then

statistically, most violent criminals come from either poor or broken families

Eliminate blacks - lower crime, white ethno-nationalism, massively bloody hands

with ethnicity, you are more likely to leave a murder or thief and deport a doctor

Eliminate Lower Earners - Lower Crime, Less diversity, Trash Pickup Delayed indefinitely.