Message from @Aaronnn123
Discord ID: 685624206645395468
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
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
That's right wing corperate libertarianism
I don't buy into that
No, that's libertarianism in general, rejection of all application of force upon a non violent entity. This can only be valid if you accept natural law of libertarianism, which states that "in absence of all other entities, an individual is free of force and is able to transform the nature around him into property"
This was outlined in one of Mises' books on natural law, and a few other popular libertarian works
If you reject that analysis, I'm interested to see what your justification for that is?
> That's right wing corperate libertarianism
@Aaronnn123
what's left wing libertarianism then?
Left wing libertarianism is incoherent then lol
since libertarianism relies on individualism
Well there is no absence of other individuals. That's the thing
Libertarianism was originally a left wing ideology
That's not really relevant?
I swear somebody explained ancom to me once and I felt like I was talking with a stoned hippy