We absolutely need something like national socialism?.
Well /mlpol/ it's one of the few sites with a really good level on their discussions so, what do you think about this.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 14D83399211DE6FC1368C0A74B79F350-392073.gif (382.9 KB, 470x471, 1520984095766.gif)
File (): 80F0DE5ADB01E8AAE341031F19488877-113370.jpg (110.7 KB, 1000x500, 1493702141628.jpg)
>>143964
>If capitalism feeds of inmigration?
eh? what are you trying to say
>We absolutely need something like national socialism?.
neigh, choose freedom
>If capitalism feeds of inmigration?
eh? what are you trying to say
>We absolutely need something like national socialism?.
neigh, choose freedom
>>143966
Why do you think that, and i also want to ask you about why capitalism needs or not inmigration.
Why do you think that, and i also want to ask you about why capitalism needs or not inmigration.
>>143964
>rant ensuing, hope it is a bit coherent at least as it is late and I am a bit tired
I think every country should have a healthy dose of national socialism (or nationalism at least if they want to go another route). This is the only way to build a nation and an identity. If your country don't work for the benefit of its citizens the country looses its meaning. Sadly this is what globalists wants, and are actively perusing. If every nation on earth tried to do the best they could for their citizens first I think all nations would be better. All foreign aid could easily be privatised without problem. But a nation and its government is meant to only care for its citizens. Not to taxate their citizens so they can give it away on things that don't benefit their citizens. But there should be a great level of freedom; as it is said "I'll prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". Also we should let more countries have civil wars and sort themselves out without trying to stop them all the time.
>There is also many reasons to stop foreign aid also (but a bit on the side of the scope). If African countries had to fix their shit instead of living on foreign aid, there is a bigger chance they actually would fix their shit.
>rant ensuing, hope it is a bit coherent at least as it is late and I am a bit tired
I think every country should have a healthy dose of national socialism (or nationalism at least if they want to go another route). This is the only way to build a nation and an identity. If your country don't work for the benefit of its citizens the country looses its meaning. Sadly this is what globalists wants, and are actively perusing. If every nation on earth tried to do the best they could for their citizens first I think all nations would be better. All foreign aid could easily be privatised without problem. But a nation and its government is meant to only care for its citizens. Not to taxate their citizens so they can give it away on things that don't benefit their citizens. But there should be a great level of freedom; as it is said "I'll prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". Also we should let more countries have civil wars and sort themselves out without trying to stop them all the time.
>There is also many reasons to stop foreign aid also (but a bit on the side of the scope). If African countries had to fix their shit instead of living on foreign aid, there is a bigger chance they actually would fix their shit.
>>143971
I do actually have mixed right-wing beliefs, so i actually agree, and yeah, some policies only works in some scenarios.
I do actually have mixed right-wing beliefs, so i actually agree, and yeah, some policies only works in some scenarios.
>>143969
Because national socialism is dependant on the state, and a bad state will lead to a bad nation. Giving self-governance to all citizens means they need to improve themselves to improve their lives.
Because national socialism is dependant on the state, and a bad state will lead to a bad nation. Giving self-governance to all citizens means they need to improve themselves to improve their lives.
File (): 12E09A3366705DAE58E83B22F76180B1-181507.jpg (177.3 KB, 1245x1245, sweet dreams Leslie.jpg)
Well, in a 100% AnCap society, there wouldn't be total "freedom of movement" since owners of private property would restrict access to their property, at least to maintain its value. Short of an ideal Anarcho-Capitalist society, I'm willing to accept the state restricting immigration since it has a monopoly on certain services within its territory, and to force tax victims to subsidize latecomers would be, as Bastiat would say, "legal plunder." Similarly, I don't oppose the state jailing rapists and killers, because even though the state's monopoly on the judging and jailing of these actual criminals isn't legitimate, it would be a much worse injustice for it to prevent us from trying them ourselves while itself refusing to try them (although I do wish the courts would focus on restitution, rather than "punishment" or "rehabilitation" as they currently do.)
>>143984
This. It is the State that facilitates immigration through welfare programs and public property that immigrants don't need to pay for. A capitalist society would have none of this as to immigrate you would either need to purchase some land of your own or be supported by a sponsor who would pay for your rent, utility fees, etc. as well as compensate for any damage.
This is just another capitalism vs. national socialism thread when we've got half a dozen of them.
This. It is the State that facilitates immigration through welfare programs and public property that immigrants don't need to pay for. A capitalist society would have none of this as to immigrate you would either need to purchase some land of your own or be supported by a sponsor who would pay for your rent, utility fees, etc. as well as compensate for any damage.
This is just another capitalism vs. national socialism thread when we've got half a dozen of them.
>>143964
Capitalism only feeds immigration of a those that are looking for opportunity. This worked for America because there was a lot of land and because it was hard to get to only the most ambitious made the journey. There was also no welfare state, so the risk adverse would stay home. Furthermore, the distance that was needed to travel separated the immigrants from the motherland and forced them to integrate. America was a melting pot the added together the many European nationals and even Asian nationals to form a cohesive society. It used to work. Now opportunities are becoming scarce, and nations have welfare states made by socialists. People only immigrate now for gibs, and the few that work force out the native population. Either have capitalism and semi-open boarders, or socialism and mostly closed boarders.
Capitalism only feeds immigration of a those that are looking for opportunity. This worked for America because there was a lot of land and because it was hard to get to only the most ambitious made the journey. There was also no welfare state, so the risk adverse would stay home. Furthermore, the distance that was needed to travel separated the immigrants from the motherland and forced them to integrate. America was a melting pot the added together the many European nationals and even Asian nationals to form a cohesive society. It used to work. Now opportunities are becoming scarce, and nations have welfare states made by socialists. People only immigrate now for gibs, and the few that work force out the native population. Either have capitalism and semi-open boarders, or socialism and mostly closed boarders.
>>143985
Literally look at the Qatar model of immigration. The capitalist society feeds off of immigration. And, we are in one, you nonce.
Literally look at the Qatar model of immigration. The capitalist society feeds off of immigration. And, we are in one, you nonce.
>>143985
>This is just another capitalism vs. national socialism thread
True, but this flavor of it is interesting. let it ride.
>This is just another capitalism vs. national socialism thread
True, but this flavor of it is interesting. let it ride.
>>143987
Capitalism is an amoral system that has the objective of generating profit at all costs. Qatar is ultimately just using the Indians as a temporary and cheap labor force. Once Qatar begins automating everything that labor force will either leave or starve. That is the beauty of capitalism. You only receive based on your value and productivity. If Europe ended the welfare giving then the migrants will leave.
Capitalism is an amoral system that has the objective of generating profit at all costs. Qatar is ultimately just using the Indians as a temporary and cheap labor force. Once Qatar begins automating everything that labor force will either leave or starve. That is the beauty of capitalism. You only receive based on your value and productivity. If Europe ended the welfare giving then the migrants will leave.
>>144075
>Capitalism is an amoral system that has the objective of generating profit at all costs.
That is the problem with capitalism. It can be very destructive to a nation's culture if left unchecked.
>Capitalism is an amoral system that has the objective of generating profit at all costs.
That is the problem with capitalism. It can be very destructive to a nation's culture if left unchecked.
>>144157
Any economic system is very destructive to a nation's culture if left unchecked, that's why it's an economic system and not a moral philosophy. With capitalism the moral banner is carried by society, not government, and so it's not quite so easily possible to subvert it with top-down measures. Also, capitalism recognizes the existence of greed which will have place regardless of a nation's morality and pushes the selfish into providing services for others, while in socialism/Third Position the selfish are naturally inclined to join government where they can have far greater reach with less effort/consequences.
Any economic system is very destructive to a nation's culture if left unchecked, that's why it's an economic system and not a moral philosophy. With capitalism the moral banner is carried by society, not government, and so it's not quite so easily possible to subvert it with top-down measures. Also, capitalism recognizes the existence of greed which will have place regardless of a nation's morality and pushes the selfish into providing services for others, while in socialism/Third Position the selfish are naturally inclined to join government where they can have far greater reach with less effort/consequences.
>>144164
>and so it's not quite so easily possible to subvert it with top-down measures.
I disagree. Companies with large media influence could easily subvert a capitalist society.
>and so it's not quite so easily possible to subvert it with top-down measures.
I disagree. Companies with large media influence could easily subvert a capitalist society.
>>144164
>circular logic
I suggest refraining from making anymore statements before I get my response out.
>circular logic
I suggest refraining from making anymore statements before I get my response out.
economic socialism is cancer. national socialism on the other hand has its reservation in philosophy so its compatible with capitalism.
File (): D0A81CF362D73C6388022471C5D6786F-209869.png (205.0 KB, 1024x865, 1493484513150-0.png)
>>144165
Corporations would not be able to nearly reach the size they do without state protection. Looking at industries where there are monopolies or oligopolies, you will pretty much always find that this is the result of the state restricting entry. For example, look at how taxi drivers pushed for regulation of ridesharing services when they couldn't compete.
Corporations would not be able to nearly reach the size they do without state protection. Looking at industries where there are monopolies or oligopolies, you will pretty much always find that this is the result of the state restricting entry. For example, look at how taxi drivers pushed for regulation of ridesharing services when they couldn't compete.
>>144186
Uber is operating illegally in many places (if you look at the law). Uber also isn't an employer (unless it has changed). The drivers drove customers on their own risk (many of the drivers don't/didn't know this). Uber when they started basically was able to get a pile of cash to use on layers and probably lobbying (also the VIP shenanigans in their app). They then took a few lawsuits and said "Oops our bad" when they lost and "Laws are not adapted to information age", and then just closed down operation. Uber basically is an pure pirate-taxi social media platform. Many people who offered their services via FP posts to drive people home from a night on the town etc. before Uber was made, have been found guilty and punished in court cases. But because they didn't have a pile of cash to use on lawyers, or able to hide behind the fact that "We don't drive or hire drivers we only have an app" they loose against the government.
Uber is operating illegally in many places (if you look at the law). Uber also isn't an employer (unless it has changed). The drivers drove customers on their own risk (many of the drivers don't/didn't know this). Uber when they started basically was able to get a pile of cash to use on layers and probably lobbying (also the VIP shenanigans in their app). They then took a few lawsuits and said "Oops our bad" when they lost and "Laws are not adapted to information age", and then just closed down operation. Uber basically is an pure pirate-taxi social media platform. Many people who offered their services via FP posts to drive people home from a night on the town etc. before Uber was made, have been found guilty and punished in court cases. But because they didn't have a pile of cash to use on lawyers, or able to hide behind the fact that "We don't drive or hire drivers we only have an app" they loose against the government.
>>144186
Okay, I sort of said that wrong. I'm not the best at doing a great job explaining myself sometimes. It's not as much a matter of size reached, but rather, of ability to maintain that size. While Uber is by far the biggest ridesharing service, there are others, and they have to actively compete to make sure they stay at the top. When you look at big media companies like Time-Warner or Silicon Valley companies like Google, you don't see as much competition to maintain their position, because they are partnered with the state and don't need to worry about being competed against (although that is quite clearly changing with the advent of "alt-tech" and alternative media, which would not be possible if the internet weren't a free market of sorts)
Okay, I sort of said that wrong. I'm not the best at doing a great job explaining myself sometimes. It's not as much a matter of size reached, but rather, of ability to maintain that size. While Uber is by far the biggest ridesharing service, there are others, and they have to actively compete to make sure they stay at the top. When you look at big media companies like Time-Warner or Silicon Valley companies like Google, you don't see as much competition to maintain their position, because they are partnered with the state and don't need to worry about being competed against (although that is quite clearly changing with the advent of "alt-tech" and alternative media, which would not be possible if the internet weren't a free market of sorts)
>>144194
I am quite aware of the legal loopholes Uber has gotten through, and know a bit of finer detail about some of the cases you mention. One legal case in France on the issue of consumer protection because Uber at the time did not have the minimal amount of insurance for the chance of accident, and I think a similar was made in Norway because of laws in place for keeping accountability. They did not in the beginning manage to pile on cash nor get a great team of lawyers as you said, but through like I said exploiting legal loopholes for consumer protection. They didn't actually get anyone to lobby in the beginning, so it's an overstatement.
>>144196
Which like above you on the other hand both overplay and underplay the role of the government in the economy. Critically more you ignore the role of finance in economies of scale which uses cost advantage to raise the stakes. The government in this case isn't a omnipotent force of change that drives peculiarities because its is just apart of the real economy as everything else is. The stock market is a lot more omnipotent because manipulation in stock pricing is used to gain an advantage very much all the time, which grows the scale of a firm, of course allowing more capital. Many businesses have had a head start in this. For example, Time-Warner uses product differentiation to confuse consumers into buying from the same company under a different (sometimes similar too) name. Which fills in niches, pretty much avoiding competition. They don't partner with the state, sometimes there are contracts, but you'll see the main driver in size is often the stock market. There's a lot more money there. I will admit, regulation can cause monopolies, but I would chalk it up to regulatory capture or bad economics. Lobbying can be dealt with my disallowing it, something not typical in democracy.
I am quite aware of the legal loopholes Uber has gotten through, and know a bit of finer detail about some of the cases you mention. One legal case in France on the issue of consumer protection because Uber at the time did not have the minimal amount of insurance for the chance of accident, and I think a similar was made in Norway because of laws in place for keeping accountability. They did not in the beginning manage to pile on cash nor get a great team of lawyers as you said, but through like I said exploiting legal loopholes for consumer protection. They didn't actually get anyone to lobby in the beginning, so it's an overstatement.
>>144196
Which like above you on the other hand both overplay and underplay the role of the government in the economy. Critically more you ignore the role of finance in economies of scale which uses cost advantage to raise the stakes. The government in this case isn't a omnipotent force of change that drives peculiarities because its is just apart of the real economy as everything else is. The stock market is a lot more omnipotent because manipulation in stock pricing is used to gain an advantage very much all the time, which grows the scale of a firm, of course allowing more capital. Many businesses have had a head start in this. For example, Time-Warner uses product differentiation to confuse consumers into buying from the same company under a different (sometimes similar too) name. Which fills in niches, pretty much avoiding competition. They don't partner with the state, sometimes there are contracts, but you'll see the main driver in size is often the stock market. There's a lot more money there. I will admit, regulation can cause monopolies, but I would chalk it up to regulatory capture or bad economics. Lobbying can be dealt with my disallowing it, something not typical in democracy.
>>144202
I have to admit I have not full comprehension of how Uber managed to stay alive in the early times. If they didn't have lawyers they probably had a TOS that gave the drivers full responsibility to have papers in order. This way Uber just makes money without the risk. I am not sure what the VIP thing was, but I remember there was a leak that showed that Uber tracked all influential people that used their service or something like that. This way Uber sent the best cars and made their service look better than it was to the policy makers (or something like that). But positive that perhaps comes out of Uber is that people will be able to start their own transport company as long as they have the necessary insurance to cover passengers. But more likely Uber will be a new monopoly/oligopoly.
I have to admit I have not full comprehension of how Uber managed to stay alive in the early times. If they didn't have lawyers they probably had a TOS that gave the drivers full responsibility to have papers in order. This way Uber just makes money without the risk. I am not sure what the VIP thing was, but I remember there was a leak that showed that Uber tracked all influential people that used their service or something like that. This way Uber sent the best cars and made their service look better than it was to the policy makers (or something like that). But positive that perhaps comes out of Uber is that people will be able to start their own transport company as long as they have the necessary insurance to cover passengers. But more likely Uber will be a new monopoly/oligopoly.
>>144204
I don't necessarily think so. Lyft is still a heavy competitor and with the advent of self-driving cars, there can be major market disruption.
I don't necessarily think so. Lyft is still a heavy competitor and with the advent of self-driving cars, there can be major market disruption.
>>144206
Yep, only future will tell.
I am a bit sceptical about self-driving cars because it is inevitable that one day one of the cars will kill the driver on purpose to avoid pedestrian or other obstacle. It is the cars equivalent of the "multitrack drifting train problem". Will the car kill you or the three drunk pedestrians? It has to kill someone, and who dies will be a calculated and deliberate choice made by the AI.
Still I think self driving cars will become a reality, I am just not sure I would wan't to sit in one unless I knew with 100% certainty the car would choose to kill the pedestrians if it the choice was between me and them.
Yep, only future will tell.
I am a bit sceptical about self-driving cars because it is inevitable that one day one of the cars will kill the driver on purpose to avoid pedestrian or other obstacle. It is the cars equivalent of the "multitrack drifting train problem". Will the car kill you or the three drunk pedestrians? It has to kill someone, and who dies will be a calculated and deliberate choice made by the AI.
Still I think self driving cars will become a reality, I am just not sure I would wan't to sit in one unless I knew with 100% certainty the car would choose to kill the pedestrians if it the choice was between me and them.
>>144208
I would agree. Ever seen the movie Logan with the tankers that never stop for anyone in the road? Like that. Although there are cars that sense incoming collisions, so they can prevent from it. So, it's not too bad. Creative destruction often comes with its new array of problems.
I would agree. Ever seen the movie Logan with the tankers that never stop for anyone in the road? Like that. Although there are cars that sense incoming collisions, so they can prevent from it. So, it's not too bad. Creative destruction often comes with its new array of problems.
>>144209
Yes, the crash prevention will be useful in many cases. But there is instances where I think it will be a hindrance. One example could be if there is a snowdrift over the road, the correct response is to hold tight and gas on to get through. But I assume a car that looks for obstacles could suddenly choose to break and presto you are stuck and need to call AAA (or equivalent) to get free. (but I might just be a negative nancy when it comes to self-driving cars)
>it is ages since I've seen Logan's Run; thanks for reminding me about it
>not sure how far away from OP topic I have taken this, but I think it is a couple of steps at least, sorry OP
Yes, the crash prevention will be useful in many cases. But there is instances where I think it will be a hindrance. One example could be if there is a snowdrift over the road, the correct response is to hold tight and gas on to get through. But I assume a car that looks for obstacles could suddenly choose to break and presto you are stuck and need to call AAA (or equivalent) to get free. (but I might just be a negative nancy when it comes to self-driving cars)
>it is ages since I've seen Logan's Run; thanks for reminding me about it
>not sure how far away from OP topic I have taken this, but I think it is a couple of steps at least, sorry OP
File (): 04338E8F9C962B0394CB969FD8187F9B-12624214.mp4 (12.0 MB, Resolution:640x360 Length:00:04:31, On UBI.mp4) [play once] [loop]
File (): 2A7793BA0880698FF5A63A65C90D2CF4-100698.png (98.3 KB, 1216x1739, 122407-15028.png)
File (): DE155C44372A9E7805943407D1E571DA-95342.png (93.1 KB, 1278x775, tech pulse.PNG)
>>144210
Do tell you, I was about to mention automation earlier in one my points, but I kind of don't see the use of it in getting myself worked up if I got the ancaps to stay at bay. In any case though, watch this video and look at some of these graphs. Automation isn't as imminent as one might think. It's still cheaper to import cheap labour than to invest in automation technologies.
Do tell you, I was about to mention automation earlier in one my points, but I kind of don't see the use of it in getting myself worked up if I got the ancaps to stay at bay. In any case though, watch this video and look at some of these graphs. Automation isn't as imminent as one might think. It's still cheaper to import cheap labour than to invest in automation technologies.
>>144213
Similar example I can bring up is the situation of the American South compared to the North in the US before the Civil War. The North had a more prosperous economy, it was more industrial, and one farmer even empirically tested if that his children at his Northern farm could pick up as much cotton as slaves in the South and they did, so productivity was either the same or probably more with less need of indebted labourers.
Similar example I can bring up is the situation of the American South compared to the North in the US before the Civil War. The North had a more prosperous economy, it was more industrial, and one farmer even empirically tested if that his children at his Northern farm could pick up as much cotton as slaves in the South and they did, so productivity was either the same or probably more with less need of indebted labourers.
File (): AFFD70B191B7C654F090E7B511EF7359-2162589.png (2.1 MB, 1024x1008, IMG_2565.PNG)
>>143966
kys meme answers
>>143964
A good solution to aging demographics and lowered fertility rates is for Governments to implement policies that encourage childcare, ex. Poland.
Then you build on a reductionary and rationalist view of policy
and then you preserve national identity and values by protecting those who will uphold them (white europeans).
Each and every politician of every Western country isn't conspiring together for Jews or White Genocide, they see Immigration as a convenient and simple solution to aging demographics, bottlenecking workforce variet and muh taxes.
They are also constantly pushed by 'goodwilled' and well meaning (((humanitarian))) organizations for 'muh social responsibility' as a norm
and are constantly seeking those votes from well-meaning naive white voters and to mindlessly pander to voters and LCD(lowest common denominator) society.
I think at worse you can expect some politicians and parties -cough demonrat permanent government- to take the voter bloc angle maliciously.
kys meme answers
>>143964
A good solution to aging demographics and lowered fertility rates is for Governments to implement policies that encourage childcare, ex. Poland.
Then you build on a reductionary and rationalist view of policy
and then you preserve national identity and values by protecting those who will uphold them (white europeans).
Each and every politician of every Western country isn't conspiring together for Jews or White Genocide, they see Immigration as a convenient and simple solution to aging demographics, bottlenecking workforce variet and muh taxes.
They are also constantly pushed by 'goodwilled' and well meaning (((humanitarian))) organizations for 'muh social responsibility' as a norm
and are constantly seeking those votes from well-meaning naive white voters and to mindlessly pander to voters and LCD(lowest common denominator) society.
I think at worse you can expect some politicians and parties -cough demonrat permanent government- to take the voter bloc angle maliciously.
>>144219
Lower fertility rates isn't an issue. Most immigrants level off in fertility rate in their new nations just like the Turks.
Lower fertility rates isn't an issue. Most immigrants level off in fertility rate in their new nations just like the Turks.
File (): 52ECC4A0FF683EC3AE612F0239C2D9B8-15500.png (15.1 KB, 800x480, Flag_of_the_NSDAP_(1920–19….png)
>>143964
Yes OP is right. Capitalism replaces the native population with foreign slaves. Nationalist policy has to subordinate commerce to the needs of the racial nation.
SIEG HEIL KAMERADEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLWRAq-Kuk
Yes OP is right. Capitalism replaces the native population with foreign slaves. Nationalist policy has to subordinate commerce to the needs of the racial nation.
SIEG HEIL KAMERADEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuLWRAq-Kuk
>>143984
This. Total anarchy will never work. A state needs some, but minimal, power to protect live and property from those seeking to destroy it.
Lassez-faire capitalism can work to a great extent, but not without a state to protect it.
This. Total anarchy will never work. A state needs some, but minimal, power to protect live and property from those seeking to destroy it.
Lassez-faire capitalism can work to a great extent, but not without a state to protect it.
>>151082
>>151210
I agree that certain organizations need to exist to counter internal and external threats to society, but why should this function be monopolized in the form of a state?
After all, if the national spirit of the people is strong enough they will not need a State to protect them, as they will form RWDS to expel the (((griffons))). On the other hand, if society is weak or unwilling then a State, which is merely composed of members of society, cannot be expected to fare better. Indeed, having just one monopolistic governance offers an obvious target for the power-hungry and subverters, who will use the coercive powers at hand to enforce their agenda. It's only a matter of time.
I can see where you're coming from, though, and I recommend you look into Propertarianism, which is more of an evolved, moderated form of anarcho-capitalism. I personally disagree with it but Curt Doolittle is a genius and arguments for Propertarianism are compelling.
>>151210
I agree that certain organizations need to exist to counter internal and external threats to society, but why should this function be monopolized in the form of a state?
After all, if the national spirit of the people is strong enough they will not need a State to protect them, as they will form RWDS to expel the (((griffons))). On the other hand, if society is weak or unwilling then a State, which is merely composed of members of society, cannot be expected to fare better. Indeed, having just one monopolistic governance offers an obvious target for the power-hungry and subverters, who will use the coercive powers at hand to enforce their agenda. It's only a matter of time.
I can see where you're coming from, though, and I recommend you look into Propertarianism, which is more of an evolved, moderated form of anarcho-capitalism. I personally disagree with it but Curt Doolittle is a genius and arguments for Propertarianism are compelling.
>>151219
>why should this function be monopolized in the form of a state?
Because otherwise you'll just have a bunch of disunited and disorganized militias. Then all it would take is for the larger force to separate each pocket of resistance and deal with them one-by-one on the attacker's own terms.
>why should this function be monopolized in the form of a state?
Because otherwise you'll just have a bunch of disunited and disorganized militias. Then all it would take is for the larger force to separate each pocket of resistance and deal with them one-by-one on the attacker's own terms.
>>151223
Is invasion ever likely to happen on the shores of the United States and would not multiple militias coordinate to harass and destroy a larger force?
Is invasion ever likely to happen on the shores of the United States and would not multiple militias coordinate to harass and destroy a larger force?
>>144219
sorry for double posting
>They are also constantly pushed by 'goodwilled' and well meaning (((humanitarian))) organizations for 'muh social responsibility' as a norm
exactly. what those idiots dont seem to understand is that, instead of taking millions upon millions of people in that cant all be helped in a responsible way, it would be much better to help those people in their own countries instead. Both for the own nation and to stop the "need" for mass immigration all together.
Though I simply cant except that they are all too dumb to understand that, its pretty much all about muh taxes, even though it costs way more than it yields.
Encouraging child birth instead of taking other people in is also important for the nations good, which should be top priority for every government, thats what its for afterall.
They also dont seem to understand that when you take so many people in, it will lead to a massive downfall in society and economics and in the end everyone is worse off than before.
sorry for double posting
>They are also constantly pushed by 'goodwilled' and well meaning (((humanitarian))) organizations for 'muh social responsibility' as a norm
exactly. what those idiots dont seem to understand is that, instead of taking millions upon millions of people in that cant all be helped in a responsible way, it would be much better to help those people in their own countries instead. Both for the own nation and to stop the "need" for mass immigration all together.
Though I simply cant except that they are all too dumb to understand that, its pretty much all about muh taxes, even though it costs way more than it yields.
Encouraging child birth instead of taking other people in is also important for the nations good, which should be top priority for every government, thats what its for afterall.
They also dont seem to understand that when you take so many people in, it will lead to a massive downfall in society and economics and in the end everyone is worse off than before.
>>151234
Only if every armed group or citizen is drafted, or coerced, into joining the coalition. Also, these groups would need to continue their union past the conflict and establish a mode of coercive extortion, at which point it would become a state. We would basically be at square 1 if that happens.
Only if every armed group or citizen is drafted, or coerced, into joining the coalition. Also, these groups would need to continue their union past the conflict and establish a mode of coercive extortion, at which point it would become a state. We would basically be at square 1 if that happens.
>>151238
>Only if every armed group or citizen is drafted, or coerced, into joining the coalition.
If they didn't join, they'd be on their own against the enemy. It's a choice between uniting and dying, unless they somehow have enough strength on their own to beat back the invaders.
>Also, these groups would need to continue their union past the conflict and establish a mode of coercive extortion, at which point it would become a state.
Simple: they remain united to counter any potential future invasions or attacks. Anyone who doesn't agree to the union is called a traitor. The result is a sort of military junta.
>Only if every armed group or citizen is drafted, or coerced, into joining the coalition.
If they didn't join, they'd be on their own against the enemy. It's a choice between uniting and dying, unless they somehow have enough strength on their own to beat back the invaders.
>Also, these groups would need to continue their union past the conflict and establish a mode of coercive extortion, at which point it would become a state.
Simple: they remain united to counter any potential future invasions or attacks. Anyone who doesn't agree to the union is called a traitor. The result is a sort of military junta.
48 replies | 10 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived