Conversation

I don’t think [that the purpose of these laws is to embody some objective principle]

yes, you literally do

you argue that there is a limit to what can be enforced, and that limit is far past what you think it is; the only limits to what they can enforce involve the laws of physics, not your perception of how “legal” something is, and the excursions from coherent consensus legality are growing bigger, not smaller, as time goes on (see: the last two elections)

they literally now just make shit up and impose outcomes by fiat, and dare anybody to do anything about it

the system ignores things which are not threats to it; none of the activity you cite as examples of “how to do it” is a threat, therefore, it is ignored - see how that works? drug-dealing niggers do not pose a threat to the system, but a White man who is no longer either neutered and self-ghettoized (“Amish”) or trivially cancellable with a phone call is very much a danger to the system, particularly if the system he’s using is capable of being replicated or expanded to include others

the system does not tolerate competition, even theoretical future competition

nobody here gives a fuck what you’re advocating for, mostly because you’re visibly retarded and pointlessly oppositional, and spending way too much time ostentatiously telling everyone how much you’re NOT a terroristic thought-criminal (“so please don’t van me Daddy I’m a gud boi I swear”)

the point remains the same: if you’re successful, and you do not kneel to the System (or worse, if you threaten to make it incapable of forcing you to kneel), then you are going to be destroyed and quickly