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

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

Are you saying saints never do anything wrong?

They wouldn't be saints if they occassionally indulged in sin lol

That's what makes them saints, full rejection of sin and full dedication to Christ

Well that's a subjective interpretation of ethics

Yeah but that's irrelevant

But anyway, I'm interested in Materialism and why you think materialistic individualism is a valid philosophy. Or do you just believe in methodological individualism?

I don't believe in individualism, why do you think that?

I said communities should make decisions instead of centralised states

Well you're a libertarian, that's why I assumed it