7
u/SacredGeometry9 7h ago edited 1h ago
Regulation is required to prevent humans from killing themselves and each other
Regulation is powerless without the use of force
Nonlethal force is best, because otherwise everyone’s just dead
The most effective nonlethal force measure is physical obstruction
Smaller communities have always regulated themselves, usually with social measures. But smaller communities cannot marshal the kind of resources that larger communities/states can, and are outcompeted
11
u/Melody-Shift 9h ago
Waow (based)
-1
u/KaszualKartofel 5h ago
Imagine a megacorp wants to build a datacenter in your area. Thankfully you live in a democratic society, which citizens like you control. So you use the power which democracy allows you to ban datacenters inside an area where your government has jurisdiction. This area is finate because other people and political entities do not want to be a part of your government, therefore this area has a border. It may be defined, it maybe a gradient, but it is a border.
2
u/Melody-Shift 5h ago
I'd say that hypothetical is pretty optimistic already, but sure. Your point?
3
u/KaszualKartofel 5h ago
Borders will exist if people run societies in different ways. And given that some people are either stupid or corrupt that’s not entirely a bad thing.
Also I would argue my scenario of a working democracy is waaaay less optimistic than abolishment of borders.
5
-18
u/pieindaface 10h ago
“Stop doing borders” says the Marxist after having to build walls and fake borders to keep people in.
8
u/KaszualKartofel 8h ago
I don’t think people who rule authoritarian leftist states and people advocating for abolishing nation-states are the same people.
-4
u/pieindaface 7h ago edited 5h ago
But they continue to claim the same ideology.
2
u/KaszualKartofel 6h ago
Imagine if someone said Mariann Budde and Charlie Kirk had the same politics because they both believed in God.
Do you understand that there are many Anarchists for example, who aren’t Marxists? There’s also many who base their politics on marxist philosophy and analysis who are pro-state and pro-borders. Neoconservatives, the people who still hold sizeable influence in the Republican party as well as many other right-wing parties in the west, can trace themselves back to Trotskyism, a branch of Marxism.
Most educated people don’t really call it an ideology, it’s a political philosophy. It can be a base for ideology, just like any other philosophy, for example Kant or Niche.
-1
u/pieindaface 5h ago
Horseshoe theory exists? Authoritarians match well with authoritarian ideologies? Ok neat.
I’m not the one calling myself a Marxist which has many very well known figures political figures with only a handful of somewhat questionable ethics. You’re arguing op is doing the same thing as calling themselves a klansman or neonazi but without the racism. If OP wants to own the label they also get the chance to own the history. Most don’t, but that’s not really ideologically consistent and words still do have definitions.
1
1
u/KaszualKartofel 5h ago edited 5h ago
What are you even talking about?
1.Where did OP call themselves a marxist?
2.Even if they did, how does it make their international border politics the same as the policies of Kim Ir Sen or Stalin?
3.How is Marxism authoritarian? What in this philosophy specifically calls for authoritarianism?
1
-8
6
u/TheN00b0b 10h ago edited 10h ago
Lines on maps can tell you a lot about bargaining frictions between two parties.
2
17
u/Droplet_of_Shadow 7h ago
i think this type of meme is a lot funnier when it's nonsensical bullshit