No, that’s the end goal of authoritarians. Liberal authoritarians think the perfect system of laws will maximize freedom without affecting the freedom of others, conservative authoritarians think the citizen should serve the state
Both of these are totalitarian dystopias - it dehumanizes people and enshrines the state.
The “your freedom ends where your fist meets my nose” axiom is one axiom, it doesn’t describe a society. Libertarians maximize this as the full limit of state involvement, anarchists can maximize this as a guiding principle culturally with no state
anarchists can maximize this as a guiding principle culturally with no state
As a fantasy, sure. I can see how some members of past “revolutions” might have thought that that’s what they’re going to do.
But then came reality, and the realisation that you can’t vibe everyone into cooperation. There’s so many different kinds of people with different goals, life stories and traumas.
Then comes the supression. Which they’re doing only for your benefit, so they rationalize.
Yes, the feelings associated with the “let’s all vibe” and “they’re not vibing and everything is crumbling down” are different. But we have to be intellectually honest and realise as a leads to b, they are the same thing.
If you think you can create a utopia through revolution, you’re delusional
A utopia can only be built by genuine buy-in. If it doesn’t come from the people, you’re just another authoritarian believing you’ve cracked the code
I don’t even think you’d disagree with this from what you’ve said so far… But can you really not imagine a better world? Can you really not even picture a path where people just are better, without the need for laws or violence?
I get how you might not see a path from where we are to there, but can you not even imagine the best timeline?
No, that’s the end goal of authoritarians. Liberal authoritarians think the perfect system of laws will maximize freedom without affecting the freedom of others, conservative authoritarians think the citizen should serve the state
Both of these are totalitarian dystopias - it dehumanizes people and enshrines the state.
The “your freedom ends where your fist meets my nose” axiom is one axiom, it doesn’t describe a society. Libertarians maximize this as the full limit of state involvement, anarchists can maximize this as a guiding principle culturally with no state
As a fantasy, sure. I can see how some members of past “revolutions” might have thought that that’s what they’re going to do.
But then came reality, and the realisation that you can’t vibe everyone into cooperation. There’s so many different kinds of people with different goals, life stories and traumas.
Then comes the supression. Which they’re doing only for your benefit, so they rationalize.
Yes, the feelings associated with the “let’s all vibe” and “they’re not vibing and everything is crumbling down” are different. But we have to be intellectually honest and realise as a leads to b, they are the same thing.
If you think you can create a utopia through revolution, you’re delusional
A utopia can only be built by genuine buy-in. If it doesn’t come from the people, you’re just another authoritarian believing you’ve cracked the code
I don’t even think you’d disagree with this from what you’ve said so far… But can you really not imagine a better world? Can you really not even picture a path where people just are better, without the need for laws or violence?
I get how you might not see a path from where we are to there, but can you not even imagine the best timeline?
I know there’s pain so great that expecting people to accept it is delusional.