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

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

No one claimed there is absence of other individuals

This is methodological individualism

Well ancom are dumb

how is ancom different from left wing libertarianism?

in both cases there is no state

This is methodological individualism, and only by methodological individuals can one justify the philosophy of "dont use force unless im the initiator"

1. The collective cannot act
2. Only the individual can act
3 therefore we can only make analyses' of human nature in reference to the state of man in individualistic form, seperate from the collective

Without this, you literally cannot justify the foundation of individualism which is the NAP