You can tell this to conservatives, but they can't process it.
RT: https://poa.st/objects/bbdcc5ba-19ea-4551-9af6-09f5ad796f0a
RT: https://poa.st/objects/bbdcc5ba-19ea-4551-9af6-09f5ad796f0a
@sickburnbro
>Moral define law. Law does not define morals.
Right, you don't need laws to begin with. We don't need some baby-sitter organization known as "the government" to remind us that killing, stealing, and destroying property is wrong.
@xianc78 I mean, you don't technically, but you're going to have to force people that don't agree with your morals to follow your morals, and how does that in spirit differ from a government
Follow
@sickburnbro Spontaneous order is not the same thing as a government.
@KryptoBlok @xianc78 there is no singular entity when it comes to "government" though; agencies have power conflicts all the time. The USG denies the UN control over policies.
@sickburnbro @xianc78 From what I can tell, this is a case similar to an auto-immune disorder, or a cancer - one part of the body is attacking another, but they are both part of the same whole, the "body" of government. (You could also compare it with corporations and subsidiaries, since states are essentially just big corporations. Govcorps, if you will.)
Of course, eventually the Texas organ/subsidiary may eventually be ejected or cut off from the rest of the body, in which case we would now be looking at two governments/bodies...if you know what I mean.
In this case, both entities would still have exclusive control over their respective territories, and would thus both be monopolies. (This would potentially be a less extreme form of monopoly though, since there would now be more than one entity in an area formerly controlled by a single entity, potentially making it easier to "vote by foot". Not as good as multiple entities competing peacefully in a single patch of land, but preferable to the previous arrangement.)
Of course, eventually the Texas organ/subsidiary may eventually be ejected or cut off from the rest of the body, in which case we would now be looking at two governments/bodies...if you know what I mean.
In this case, both entities would still have exclusive control over their respective territories, and would thus both be monopolies. (This would potentially be a less extreme form of monopoly though, since there would now be more than one entity in an area formerly controlled by a single entity, potentially making it easier to "vote by foot". Not as good as multiple entities competing peacefully in a single patch of land, but preferable to the previous arrangement.)
@xianc78 there is no such thing as "spontaneous order" with humans; we aren't molecules bounding around a void.
AUTISM MODE:
If by "government" they just mean some system or practice that enforces rules, then sickburnbro is correct. However, most of the time this term is used when referring to a singular monopolistic entity/corporation that creates and enforces "law", also known as a state.
I would also recommend distinguishing between natural law and man-made law - the former is good, and the latter is only good when it is based on natural law.