Thread:Johnny-Swing/@comment-34650195-20180706193155/@comment-34650195-20180709094744

1. You are trying to say that in the way that it would sound not so bad. But still. X tells individual Y what to do and forces him based on "logical" "ethics" that the court decided are right he doesn't necessarily agree with. That is not freedom. That is just a hypocritical system to uphold some retarded and unneeded social idea working while not letting it to work simply by existing.

2. Just by saying that you think that they're logical you will not create perfect rules. Communism if perfectly logical, can you argue against that?

3. Your answers is childish. Why wouldn't I want? Is it a rule or not? There is a basic rule in your system. The rule that have to enforce and that lets the system work.

4. What is that is not enough? What if there is a large militant cult and you can't stop its progress without using large armed forces and there are very little volounteers? And if you would know anything about warfare you would know that simply having a bunch of random people isn't even nearly enough. Where do you train them? And you have to train soldiers for years. How will you ensure there will be no terrorist strikes or this cult's sects in your very heartland? Your system cannot fight any more or less organized enemy and therefore it will almost immidetely collapse. And if it will try to fight back then it will collapse too because it will become the very thing it used to be an anathema to. Your political system is impossibe.