yea

Not ebin

The role of the state is to maintain the status quo, mainly through enforcing the law and providing all for all public goods and services that cannot adequately be met by private actor

@Bird Wizard I never said that this goal was moral or something. That is simply the way things are. Any state that survives is a state that is able to survive. If survival becomes a secondary feature, the state shall fall

u said primary

Let's imagine that a state's primary goal is combating poverty for example. If that's true then if the state ever arrives in a situation in which it may either collapse while combating poverty or survive by using funds that could've been used to combat poverty on maintenance, then the state shall choose collapse.

Ironically, having collapsed, the state shall now be unable to combat poverty. It is self-defeating for a state to put something over survival

There are times when people should view the state as a problem that needs to be brought to heel or destroyed, but if we're going to have a state it is perfectly logical for the state to place its survival first

there are things above purely surviving, I don't think that a state that doesn't serve its people or at least doesn't provide a quality existence towards its populace should continue existing. Such a boring conversation tho, much better discussion is should we project our own morals onto the state?

I mean ask yourself do you think an entity as immoral as soviet union should continue existing? Or liberalism that had its beginnings drenched in blood.

liberalism is worse than marxism, tho

I'm talking specifically the french post revolution liberalism

Robespierre literally did nothing wrong

oof

He mass murdered rootless cosmopolitan elites, how much more based can you get?

what a <:chad:508484033513259028>

>rootless
>cosmopolitan

oof

they were elites tho, but those two just no

Married a foreigner and asked them to invade when his power was threatened

Aristocrats were rootless they did not identify with the people of their nation and identified with foreign aristocrats more

typical european tradition

mostly for the elites

the plebs were not expected to understand this

because they were plebs

would u rather if they inbred

And the plebs are not expected to understand mass migration and their replacement

fuck replacing the plebs

They already did inbreed

that's different

they are plebs but they are your plebs

Notice how all the aristocrats, clergy, and global capital support mass migration today

its the age of the pleb

It’s not so different from the aristocrats supporting a foreign invasion to give them back their power (of course what’s going on now is way worse)

I'm inclined to agree with A.M., I remember a friend saying the catholics purposefully broke up the clan systems of older europe to make stupid and weak plebs

what else is to liberalism other than elites playing to the wishes of the plebians

Allowing for feudalism, and possibly fucking us over to this day