>>11865157You are repeating something I already covered explicitly and implicitly. Do you just want to talk or something?
I told you, people being shitty in my nation weakens my nation. I don't a weak nation. Therefore, I call out shitty behavior when I see it. You saying I'm "enraged" isn't even right or wrong, it's just irrelevant.
Now, if you have a different definition of what a nation is or how it should function (which you seem to), that's a different issue. But then that disagreement won't be decided by you spouting platitudes about the magical "free market" or the universal march of its progress through human history, or by me telling you I think this is a retarded libertarian daydream and you have an impoverished philosophy of history. It will be solved by you continuing to be complicit in the depredations of whatever nation you're from, until one of is proved either right or wrong. If you're right, enjoy your dog-eat-dog cyberpunk dystopia where it's every man for himself and capitalism rulez. If I'm right, either social programs and/or greater moral self-cultivation will prevent whores, simps, and simp-enablers like you from existing, or there will be a conservative backlash that punishes you all for your shit behavior eventually.
>>11865246Absolutely. I'm ambivalent about whether the state should be involved in enforcing temperance, but communities shouldn't be so atomized that bartenders see their patrons as "hey it's not my problem lmao I just serve the beers," because their patrons are their friends and fellow citizens.
In my view, you've lived in this broken state of affairs for so long that you don't even know another way of life is possible. Anything is possible. Gottfried Feder and Walther Darre wanted to disincentivize urban living and promote a renaissance of villages and rural living (and they partly succeeded).
