Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 474278438480642049
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 đź”– 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'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