>>3094427See how I did not say "national decency" or "racial decency", but rather "human decency". A decent person wouldn't treat people with the trait A different than people with the trait B (unless it's something like being a thief or something, you understand I am sure).
>there will always be (...)Hmm, haven't heard that before...
Look, neither of us knows if that is really possible or not, we are not able to. We just can say that or that, believe that or that, but we cannot be sure, unless we somehow prove one of the options.
>>3094477Tell me, who are you talking with. Some Pole or all the Marxists (which I am not one of as I mentioned)? Treat me as a person, not as a movement. I should be a tabula rasa to you, just like you are to me.
I am a bit confused by an anarcho-capitalist (correct me if I am wrong) wanting a "state"...
>Why is this a good thing?>Why is it good to destroy your heritage and nationality?Never said it was, yet, ask yourself the exact oppsite questions. Why is it bad?
>the "no divisions" pointWhy wouldn't they? They would just be a part of a bigger equal community consisting of every person in the world. (Well, unless they would start to go against the whole principle of communism, but the assumption is that they would not).
>How does making everyone poorer help all humans.You're making a wrong assumption. Making everyone equal would make most of the people actually "richer" although, currency would not exist, so don't know if that is the right terminology.
>it's impossibleHow do you know?
>some humans have higher IQJust a side note, but you do know that IQ doesn't measure anything other than abillity to solve IQ test, right? Was proven multiple times.