Message from @Hector
Discord ID: 669942916143120385
and?
if it were more expedient* (economical) to have another the states can secede
And does it have to be a monopoly at all
they don't, so it's economical to keep it
Cant the judges and the security just act in a fair competitive manner
man, rothbardian ethics sucks i hate talking in it
tfw statists literally admit to committing a naturalistic fallacy
Which is the only way they will have any incentive to self-improve
i hate that you take me seriously too lol
the current judicial is pretty independent as is
lol!
Independent kek
the very top isn't
They are a state enforced monopoly
but state level, local level are
What about no morre
well it wouldn't make much of a difference imo
@Chawosaurian that's the better scenario xD
Which
The degenerative monopolistic scenario?
they are a state payed and by thugs influenced monopoly
at least here
if people are too lazy to revolt and establish a fair system, because it isn't economical for them to do it now, it wouldn't be in a different system either
a supply/demand deal isn't it
people just aren't demanding justice enough
Sure the monopolist may make it comfy enough for his subjects so they stay quiet
@Ozpin88 btw, did you agree with me that epistemically, race is socially constructed?
yes just as every word
👍
That doesnt really say anything about anything
the monopolist can push a bit
He has his limit
but only upto secession or revolutionary threat
yeah
Which is why its a general rule
that every ruler needs popular support on his side to rule
When talking about ethics, are you guys moral realist, nihilists, or subjectivists?
This will continue until you get some odd post-humanist realms appaer
Is Rothbard a moral realist?
but it's like, everyone in every system will push for self interest, it's not like the PDA's don't or can't erect certain barriers of entry