>>361280
>>947947
I don't rebuff the concept of class. I actually explicitly addressed its existence in the political elite and nobility.
However, it is, indeed, a Marxist talking point, one intended specifically to introduce or exacerbate class warfare. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is on you, but it's telling that your response was to pretend I hadn't written what I had written.
I also stated that governments with wider disparity in their treatment of social classes go further left.
The government has more ability to engage in "discretionary prosecution" because the government has more power to do so, and the civilian, citizen, subject, whatever, has less recourse.
That's leftward bound.
>“who gives a shit?”
>a glaring locality flaw.
If he regards it as Hell on Earth, and he did not legally immigrate through whatever process, making him a citizen, what is he doing there? Why is he there? Why did he choose to be there?
He can't be a smuggler - it's a Libertarian paradise, nothing needs to be smuggled in.
He can't be a slave - it's a Libertarian paradise, slavery violates the NAP.
He's either highly competent and insane (to voluntarily go to Hell AND get in), or some sort of Mr. Bean idiot savant who stumbled in by a ridiculous serious of increasingly implausible coincidences.
Your "flaw" can't really exist outside of theory, in the parameters you've set.
That is why I ask, "who gives a shit?" Outside of those two ludicrously unlikely fringe cases, the first of which legitimately warrants lethal force for the danger he represents to everyone around by being highly competent and insane, or some luck build lunatic that the state couldn't catch or kill, ESPECIALLY if they were trying.
Oh, I guess there is the third option, where he's a terrorist or enemy combatant, but like in case 1, the lethal response is then warranted, and not a "flaw."
>>361303
>something happens in a dream
>get pissed off and take it out on the people who did it in your dream
That's not autism, it's just normal behavior for a woman.
>>361308
>DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES
All ration economies, wealth redistribution, government control of industries, secret police and the encouragement to snitch on your neighbors and family... how, precisely, are they opposed?
Genuine question. I would love some illumination.
Because it looks to me like they're largely interchangeable in every metric that matters. Like I said, COMPETING, not opposed.
>So if a corporation does it
Corporations largely exist because of government-enforced monopolies, anon.
There is a reason their origin lies in Fascism.
That said, if the boss mandates something you don't like - fucking quit and go into business for yourself.