fast before he sees

Yea lighten up a little

You can have some fun in <#587015719141507102>, so it'd be better if you just take it there.

***scrambles for mute button***

I don't want to piss off the admins

In all seriousness Konino has got a point. Sober up or move it out guys.

Everyone who wants to #bomb Aladdin go to <#587015719141507102>

Boring stays here

Libertarianism>>>>>

no

Aslong as I ain't harming anyone, it's no one else's business what I do

justify that please

Why does harm have to be the only criteria for forceful involvement by a third party?

Also, what kind of harm are we talking about?

Physical, exploitation, sexual ect

Why does harm have to be the only criteria for forceful involvement by a third party?

Physical harm is still very vague, but I will accept it for the sake of the argument

What other criteria should there be

Well you made the claim

I'm asking you to back it up

BC if I ain't directly hurting someone without their consent, it's no one's business what I do. I should have no right to go into someone's bedroom and tell them who to fuck, what they should put in their body ect

Moreover, the state is responsible for so much evil

"who cares what I do? I'm not hurting anyone!"

So what you've just done is simply reiterated the claim "force should be the only criteria for direct forceful involment" into "because im not hurting anyone"
I'm asking why does the fact that you hurt someone have to be the only criteria of direct involvement, you cannot just respond to that request with merely reiterating your original claim

its like saying "all that breaths should be killed"
"Why"
"Because if you breath you should be killed"

that doesn't address the question in any way lol

Well do you think it's right for someone to come into your house and tell you what to do if what you're doing doesn't affect anyone

And when the state interfers in people's lives, it always does more bad than good

Look at the war on drugs

Or the war in the middle east

That's a false analogy fallacy. I wouldn't be in favor of that however i would not extrapolate that principle onto the state

this text will disappear for no reason in the next 5 seconds

How's it a false analogy

Its a false analogy because it asks me an instance with which i disagree with, and then attempts at extrapolating the principle of that instance into a GENERAL thing which oughta apply to everything

That's the definition of false analogy fallacy

Fine, then do you have any arguments to suggest that authoritarianism is better than libertarianism

Well asking whether authoritarianism in and of itself is better than libertarianism is like asking whether a pickaxe is better than a shovel, they're both tools, it depends on how you use them and the context of the society in which you're asking that

My varient of authoritarianism is superior to libertarianism because the principles i adhere to exclude libertarianism as an option. I don't believe in individualism, I reject materialism upon which libertarianism entirely relies on, and its individualistic tenets

I think it's best to see libertarianism as an ideal while authoritarianism works better for the current state of things.

I disagree

You're assuming that once we get rid of the current situation, and we then switch to libertarianism since the ideas we previously enforced becomes a "norm", people will remain in adherence to those ideas. Which isn't really the case, since people will try to subvert the masses without a state to oversight the situation

I get what you mean