People are free to rescind their rights on an individual basis no matter what

But the goal should be to restore a system under which states are separate and people have those rights

Or do you feel you have a better solution?

Both, in their own way. US States should regain their rights, nations shouldn't be shoved into collectives like the EU

You can enter a collective, you should not be forced into it

It's pretty clear that the EU is a series of slow creeping agreements designed to erode sovereignty, bolstered by economic threats

Are we going to descend into spergery here?

I'm using nation to refer to the state https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)

I'll let you guess :^)

I'm not going to bother if you're going to be deliberately obtuse, particularly when you haven't outlined your alternative

Where my syndicalists at?

The first sentence describes a category, the second describes a disagreement, the third provides a definition

A state at its core is a compulsory organisation with a monopoly on force

I dont find that question relevant

The reality is that they do

That's not being obtuse. It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't being that it seems to be a consistent outcome to form a state

Legalize did your boyfriend dump you or something? You're behaving worse than me on a Friday night.

No it doesn't, because I find the shoulds and shouldnts of it irrelevant. I'm interested in the specific structure insofar as it has to be lived in

I mean, what even is a state, really?

See above :^)

If I got the same results with a state as without, or vice versa, that would make little difference to me

Utopia is a farce

Adam and Eve made damn sure of that

>I dont care either way
>wow what an incoherent utopian
Yup, sure is an attempt to understand and not bad faith time wasting

What did I obfuscate? That is my genuine answer

You asked a question I found irrelevant and I told you that, you then doubled down as an excuse to escape the conversation

Is Beeman obfuscating or is Legalize too low iq to understand the difference?

Find out next week on "Neither One Of Us Give AF"

I didn't ignore it, you just dont like my answer

Beeman's pronouns are not "them" you bigot

Cat6 or fiber

Anything less is trash

I'm surprised, I figured it would be something like "people are gonna drive drunk anyway, so the law is clearly not working xd"

I didn't realize that sovereign citizens had gained such a foothold in Reddit.

Discipline is freedom. Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.

What do you mean by infrastructure I support?

Also, should the government be comprised mostly or completely of white people or shouldn't it? If you dont give a decisive answer you're obfuscating and being a utopian

Considering that they are the majority in this country, yes. It would be odd for the government of a majority white country to not also by majority white.

I don't really see it as an ideological battle, just a demographic reality.

As whites continue to slip into demographic obsolescence I would expect the political landscape to shift considerably though.

It won't always be like this.

No, not odd or not, should or shouldn't