pressure

Use the US Fossil fuel supply and use the revenue from it to invest in renewable energy, with oil, natural gas and coal being backup

if this exists down there

what else could

To hold the Monopoly of force and serve those that uphold it

Well I can hold a lot of vacuum, how many bucketfuls of water can you hold?

we explore both, if we didn't u wouldn't have that image

we explored it

not tamed

Is that some kind of jellyfish or crustacean?

squid

bigfin squid

not tamed, the potential is there in both, why exlude one over the other

@Matty are you really black?

Out of curiosity

Two men are waiting in line for toilet paper. Hours go by and one declares, "I'm leaving! I'm going to go kill Gorbachev!"

Two more hours elapse and the man returns. His friend asks, "So? Did you kill him?"

"No. That line was even longer."

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