Lol, that’s unfair. People will always need food. People will not necessarily always be criminal. Most crime in society is committed by a smaller group of people. These criminals coulld agree to keep a low profile for a year or two, and then strike back when the system was more vulnerable.
people wont necessarily be criminal, but they may suspect each other of being criminals, they might have misunderstandings which they find hard to judge whether they are criminal or not. they might need a judge.
If you are referring to political ‘natural elites’ maybe you should use the proper name - it’s not natural elites - it’s oligarchy. And oligarchy has no place in a free society. In a free society there is no arch-anything. No mon-archy, olig-archy, etc.
if i said that people with iq’s above 70 form a natural elite when considered alongside those with lower scores, aside from having low standards for elitism would i be wrong, evil, unlibertarian ?
im not saying it, im just wondering about if i said it…
Really ? Kings and natural elites were mentioned in the same sentence. I think I can safely assume your ‘natural elites’ are political in nature. But if not, please enlighten me as to what ‘natural elites’ are ? Do they grow on trees ? Is that the reason you call them ‘natural’ ? And in what way are members of the elites superior to lesser mortals ?