Message from @Aaronnn123
Discord ID: 685621560274452480
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
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
but assuming those subversive elements didn't exist
asuming we are all ethical then it can work
the thing is that something like that is hard to achieve
Where has that happened
This hasn't held true in rojava, Zapatista Chiapas, exarcheia or cheran. I accept to an extent that happened in Somalia, however that seems to be more of an exception
What is "that" here?
that's it's hard to achieve a utopia where everybody is ethical
I don't think it ever happened
@Ronin well without the state to serve as an oversight, people will have a choice to be unethical, and then even worse exert their immorality onto others by subverting them
maybe it can happen in smart homgenous societies like in parts of East Asia.
Like if you were to legalize a purge in say South Korea I doubt much would happen.
Well no one will ever alwats be ethical
it's basicly assuming that greedy people will not be greedy and recognize that you need to sacrifice some things for the greater good.
Well that's obviously false Aron
Saints are saints because they have remained ethical thru out their entire life
For example
However, last century, governments killed 1/15 people from democide and war, even more from shitty economic policy and thing like Chernobyl, I think we'd be better off if governance was run by the community instead of a large state