Why are people so quick to embrace utopian ideologies where they have to give up their freedoms to the State...

Why are people so quick to embrace utopian ideologies where they have to give up their freedoms to the State, when Classical Liberalism, the principles of Free Market and Democracy, have been the most successful so far?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Freedom is not even desirable.

is statements like this that make me glad the USA is #1

not even american

USA is neither very free nor very good, if that's what you meant to say then OK.

>Why are people so quick to embrace utopian ideologies
They aren't. The vast majority of people enjoys living in liberal democracies. You are posting on Veeky Forums, the cesspool of radical political niche ideologies for edgy kids and basement dwellers.

I live in a heavily socialist country, with a big communist party, tons of people on gibsmedat and taxes on everything to support this resulting in low purchasing power and the young and smart fleeing the country.

Sounds like France, right? Being Etatist isn't exactly a utopian ideology.

Bait posts on Veeky Forums are more cancerous and harmful to the spreading of the principles of classical liberalism than not spamming them ever will be, you massive fag

Swedes get out

Why do dumb fucks like op believe thst it was the free market and not a protectionist state that lead to their wealth.

There is no such thing as uniform Classical Liberalism to begin with, and ancap retards/snakefags have nothing to do with it or with any success anyway.

People embrace new ideologies, because technological progress moves on, changing the economy, environment, society and politics itself.

Most people don't adhere to any ideology OP, they can't stand violence, and are generally retarded beyond that as they never had any want or desire to read into such subjects. Apart from that you have a massive structure of parasites and inheritors of power structures often mentally I'll in this form or another trying to perpetuate that illness for a hidden mistaken 'ideology' of trying to passively control a masses by either shutting down the conversation or shilling it out to the point of meaninglessnesa. It will just take one person in a significant enough position of power to start a snowball or change from this aockly elderly covert dystopian shitpool we currently inhabit. Most people aren't phased as they are happy to work enough to live a level of life they are content with and are blissfully ignorant to what's actually going on in terms of controlling mass public sentiment through unjust and devious means. These losers at the top of the shitheap should be shot, and most are so old and waiting for death that once they do inevitably go you'll just have a tower of actively mind controlled subspecies to carry on their fucking shit. But there's a small chance it could change, but probably not because some people view weak collectivism stronger then strong individualism. And this is what it comes down to. Revolutions and enlightenment constantly fight against this as truely educated and intellectual academia gets fringed out by mass purposefully perpetuated ignorance from old powers doing there best to keep passing the shit fueled torch of mediocrity and a persistent mental illness of a sense of collectivist ownership over others, or rather, just to feel like they have some notion of control over the outcome, so they influence however they can by feeding off mass retardation within the masses, the weak, the faggot, as a bundle of sticks.

Liberalism, "freedom" as a platitude, the placing of individualism on a pedestal and the atomization of society, is totally empty, and that has been recognized at least since Durkheim. The most developed and culturally liberal states, while better in many ways than poorer and more culturally "traditional" countries, also have higher rates of suicide and mental illness and struggle with growing inequality and declining birth rates. The fact of the matter is that we must reject radical liberal individualism just as we reject the most extreme, totalitarian varieties of collectivism.

And while capitalism has proven superior to planned economies, the most effective development policies are not the Washington Consensus (which just lead to your developing country being saddled with debt with your resources under foreign control) but state-led development as seen in postwar Japan and Korea.

Collectivism is a mental illness.

>but state-led development as seen in postwar Japan and Korea.
>Japan Korea
>not countries heavily helped by USA

Which country?

The problem is, the alternatives are even less attractive, the Soviet Union for example had astronomically high abortion rates for a reason. It was just more of the same old, just now without any room for participation of the citizen or for change towards a more human civilization.

And Conservative societies like Egypt literally fucked themselves to death, with 100 million unhappy conservatives living in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, leaving no room for human development and military dictatorship as the only real option for government.

>Conservative

you mean islamic

>not even american
so your a cuck then?

I bet you support the EU.

Yes, islamic societies are very conservative. There are next to no conservative Christian societies left and those that Larp as such like several eastern European countries have abysmal birth rates like Russia or Poland and a massive brain drain.

>*birthrate decline*
>rapidly shrinking and aging population
>*immigrants allowed in, destroying cultural cohesion and eroding established norms in society*
>*drug and suicide rates spike from breakdown of family life and cult of individualism*
>thinks this is an ideal that doesn't lead to collective self destruction

stop deflecting. we're talking about why you're a cuck

You are mixing things.
Conservative christian and conservative muslim are completly diferent things because the religions are completly diferent, Islam is a fascist theocracy that demands complete obedience to the religious rulers who also hold secular power and wants all muslims to strive for Jihad until the everyone is under Dar al-Islam, Jesus wanted everyone to love one another and even said "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and to God what is God's" which can be interpreted as separation of Church and State. Equating these 2 is retarded.

The thing is collectivist societies even had a worse track record on population growth and abortion rates than their western counterparts. Which begs the question why you'd thing collectivism would change that? In reality and not your utopian dream scenario.

Shouldn't you be in school right now?

Japan's postwar growth was thanks to its industrial policy more than US aid (which was more important in Europe)

You're right to point out that many of the same social ills showed up in the Eastern Bloc. But communism, fascism, and liberalism (in the global sense, not the Amerimutt sense) are all totalitarian ideologies in that they seek to do away with the old order and totally reshape society in their own image. In communism and fascism this becomes the cult of personality, military marches, etc. In postindustrial liberal societies this becomes rampant consumerism and commodification and the mindless, nihilistic cult of the individual. Both loathe the small and the sentimental; small towns give way to either concrete slabs or seas of McMansions and culture becomes standardized and sterile.

(I still don't know whether I'm a conservative or a socialist or both or neither)

except historically "jihad" has always refered to inner spiritual struggle, not holy war. I'm not denying that islam is a universal religion, but christianity is also a universal proselytizing religion that has spread through the sword as well, despite its messages to the contrary. Also, you're projecting the idea that church and state have always been separated when historically they haven't in Christian states.

>*birthrate decline*
mostly because wellfare policies impose heavy taxation on working class which sees it harder to suport children
>rapidly shrinking and aging population
see above
>*immigrants allowed in, destroying cultural cohesion and eroding established norms in society*
mostly supported by left leaning parties/people, to bring people to work for the crumbling wellfare state or because collectivist social justice policies
>*drug and suicide rates spike from breakdown of family life and cult of individualism*
see first
>thinks this is an ideal that doesn't lead to collective self destruction
the more democratic and free the state and the economy eventually leads to the hard working people not beeing encubered by the human waste and form working societies, while in collectivism these people are worked to death to support the gibsmedats and political classes

>"jihad" has always refered to inner spiritual struggle, not holy war.

You are logically inconsequent, like there are no conservative Christian societies left because they were equally repressive, but have been erased by the age of enlightenment long time ago and hence there is not a single example in recent history.
Islam is about as close as it gets to Christianity being just another iteration of the same abrahamic monotheistic religion.a An as mentioned, those religious dominated societies don't seem to have less problems, but more.
So yes, such a thing as you describe, a Christian, conservative, open, enlightened society doesn't exist and cannot exist.

I disagree with your point of Liberalism being totalitarian. People have choices, economical and social. Thats the reason why this societies are so attractive compared to all alternatives. People not making the right choices and being passiv consumers is a thing and more so with today's young generation who see themselves as victims and entitled to something better, instead of changing society according to their needs/desires.

well collectivism and individualism as you refer to it are very abstract, near useless concepts. what does "collectivist" mean with regard to soviet union except that it was an authoritarian state that had total control over the economy? As it was the idea of the communists was to liberate the individual as much as western individualism. The two systems believe that freedom comes from different causes, the former believing that political and legal freedom are the prerequisite to freedom the latter that economic freedom liberates the individual. Anyway, the soviets allowed abortion and divorce in the very beginning because they thought it offered people freedom. Ironically enough though Stalin limited abortion, divorce, homosexuality because he was pronatalist. Same can't be said for western policymakers who have don't have the authoritarian muscle to promote pro-natalist policies. Ironically enough, this is why far-right scorned liberal democracies as well. Nazis, of course, implemented pro-natalist policies and French far-right (and actually the whole political spectrum after the Franco-Prussian War), were vociferously in favor of pro-natalist policies as the expense of individual rights.

>Islam is about as close as it gets to Christianity being just another iteration of the same abrahamic monotheistic religion

you are an idiot
christianity is totally diferent from islam and judaism
in fact christianity, catholics, orthodoxes, armenians and coptics are totally diferent from Protestants
today's Talmudic judaism is diferent from the Hebrew Religious practices of Jesus's times which itself was already a form of Rabinical "Judaism" diferent from earlier traditions
Islam was a moon cult that stole elements from Christianity and Judaism, the most relevant monoteistic faiths at the time/region, for legitimacy, but it's theology is extremely diferent from the others especially in it's warmongering aspects

the term "Abrahamic Faiths" as implying any kind of broad similarities between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is completly retarded

you actually don't know a shred about history do you? As I said, islam is undeniably expansionist, but jihad as "holy war" has only been popularized recently and is mostly used by westerners since muh 9/11.

Collectivism and Individualism are rather sharp terms in political philosophy and you might want to read up on them. Political ideologies can be divided into the two by the simple fact if their main goal is either to protect and promote the liberty of the individual or the well being of the collective.

You're a name calling ignorant, and your arguments reek of racist bias, low education levels, and subjective arguments designed for your little world view. I'm sure there is enough anti-islam threads for you on this board to sperg out, so I'm not even going to try to refute you.
Feel free to write a description of your conservative Christian enlightened open theocratic society, I'm game for a laugh.

>you are an idiot
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
time to read up user

I get the feeling both of you weren't exactly the smartest kid in your class. Can you please be brainlets in another thread?

>mostly because wellfare policies impose heavy taxation on working class which sees it harder to suport children
cost of living has always been high, but now that people are more educated they realize that the cost of raising children is simply not worth the stress. Children require great sacrifice for seemingly little gain, and the individualist ideology only throws this dilemma into a stark choice between "my freedom to make choices" vs. "being weighed down by crying sniffling ball of dependency that requires constant care, feeding, schooling"
>mostly supported by left leaning parties/people,
actually businesspeople aka rightwing benefits the most from immigration as they have a cheap source of labor to run their businesses. left and right parties stand to benefit for their own reasons
>see first
you seem to be skirting the issue because you're too scared to acknowledge that individuals can make bad choices and these bad choices are strengthened by feelings of detachment from society that individualism engenders. your explanation is a cop out.
>the more democratic
can you explain why all the democracies have stagnant birthrates then?
>while in collectivism these people are worked to death to support the gibsmedats and political classes
you have a very facile view of politics and society

not an argument

>The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham.

>the term "Abrahamic Faiths" as implying any kind of broad similarities between Christianity, Judaism and Islam is completly retarded

time to read up the term "broad" user, of course Abrahamic religions refers to any religion that claims to worship the God of Abraham, but that is very diferent from complete theologies being mostly similar

>I have no idea about Islam, but....
>I have also no idea about Islam, but...
>No you!
>No you!
>No you!
>No you!
>guys, can you please cut it? Grown ups trying to have a debate here.
>muh respect muh opinion!

>conservative Christian enlightened open theocratic society
there was never none
in fact, in my opinion the best christian society was the Early USA, like Jesus said "render unto Caeser", the State and Church should be separate, and the Democratic State should safeguard the freedoms of the individual, in this freedom you as a good christian should strive to lead your life in a moral way

as for conservative christian states, Francoist Spain was better than any islamic country ever, especially after the autarky policy was ended and the economy liberalized a litle

>give up freedom to the state
>hurr durr socialism = Democratic Centralism
One day I’ll get my time machine and go kill that little Russian prick before he writes State and Revolution.

>the best christian society was the Early USA
Apparently little known fact of history, the early USA, like the founding fathers was deeply secular. E pluribus unum, remember?

>Francoist Spain was better than any islamic country ever,
And worse than any liberal democracy in Europe.

again, no argument. instead of explaining your position with a counterargument you've retreated into insults to hide your failure to come up with something

founding fathers were a truly exceptional generation submerged in enlightenment thinking. this is highlighted by how even contemporaries and the immediate generation after the revolutionaries became deeply religious. Hell, even alexander hamilton became increasingly religious toward the end of his life, and Jefferson had to hide his fedora tipping for fear of alienating his electoral base.

Many people like the taste of the boot.
Ancap will dominate.

No, I just decided that a debate on a intellectual satisfying level is not possible with the likes of you and chose to ignore you because I'm not in the mood for pigeon chess.

Actually no, the US remained deeply secular for a long time, only in the 1950's and the conservative anti-coomunist craze E pluribus unum became In god we trust.
Please remember, secular or religious societies are defined by the segregation of religion and state, not if the majority of inhabitants believe in something or not.

Yeah I can really see the Somalia or Congo Free State models finding mass appeal. Is anyone actually an ANCAP unironically? I assume it’s all just memeing, but sometimes it really does seem like there are idiots dumb enough to believe in it.

next time read the post

the only one shitting up the debate is you with your comments. just admit, then, that you're too lazy to debate and rather shit the bathtub to scare everyone else away from debating and then claim victory

>the Democratic State should safeguard the freedoms of the individual
Yeah, the early US did a great job of safeguarding the freedoms of all those enslaved Africans.

I read it, it just didn't make much sense to me. Like why would one call a completely secular state a Christian society?

what freedoms?
slaves were codified in the Legal system, it's not like slavery was illegal and the State simply chose to ignore it because they hated niggers

USA is a fucking shithole

because I can be a christian and the State has no religion
just like I can be a christian in an anarchy
being a good christian is a choice I must exercise by my own free will not by imposition of a State actor

just because religion and state separated (which in connecticut and massachusets it wasn't till 1818 and 1833 respectively) DOES NOT mean that american was not a deeply religious society. The great paradox of american history, as pointed out by historians, is that the separation of church and state STRENGTHENED rather than weakened religion, because religion became unmoored from the vicissitudes of the state and state politics and became a matter of individual choice: a free market of religions, if you will. This accounts for America's exceptional religious conservatism vs. Europe throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

You wouldn't know the five pillars of Islam without looking them up first, yet you are internets top expert on Islamic societies...
So instead of refuting you I choose to ignore you, because yeah, pigeon chess.
I can find me someone here who studied comparative religion sciences when I feel the need to have a civilized discussion about abrahamic religions.

so tell me again which religion has slavery codified in it's holy book?

>if it was codified in the legal system that segments of the population will have no freedom, then you can’t claim that the state didn’t protect their freedom
So if I outlaw Jews and then kill all of them, as long as everyone else is free to do as they please I haven’t failed to protect their freedom?

>You wouldn't know the five pillars of Islam without looking them up firs
So? Just because my memory isn't perfect that makes me disqualified to make an argument? I don't need to prove anything.

>yet you are internets top expert on Islamic societies...
I don't pretend to be anything, especially an expert. I am pointing out that your concept of jihad is wrong and all you need to do is read the academic consensus on it. It doesn't take an expert to point out the obvious.

>So instead of refuting you I choose to ignore you, because yeah, pigeon chess.
and yet... you keep replying :^)

>I can find me someone here who studied comparative religion sciences when I feel the need to have a civilized discussion about abrahamic religions.
k

false comparison, laws were targeted at slaves not blacks, there were free black people too, slaves were not citizens, they were property, ergo the liberties of the citizens were not affected

Because of stupidity and lack of education.

Statists are the worst kind of people on this earth.

It isn’t a false comparison in the slightest. You can’t just say “oh well it was legal that they took a subset of people livin in the country and deprived them of all freedom, therefore their freedom was protected” that’s completely fucking stupid, and flies in the face of the enlightenment philosophy the early US was supposedly based on.

so are you arguing prisioners are anti enlightment too?

Now that’s a real false comparison. Children of slaves were legally slaves as well, your kid wouldn’t be imprisoned for your crimes. Prisons are a necessary evil in order to punish behavior that is unacceptable to society, chattel slavery as an institution has no such function and is generational.

you also own the ofspring of your cows

imoral doesnt imply illegal

Can I have Gagsden Flag without people assuming I'm a Libertarian?

t. butthurt eurosocialist and/or muslims
thank god americans actually value freedom and not cowardly conformity

Democratic centralism is giving power to the many to repress the few.

ANCAP is the end state of space colonization

>americans actually value freedom

the USA only has worse statistics than other western countries in big urban centers

besides what do you prefer, militarized police or police that does nothing when pakis rape your daughter

>study history
>become USAboo

>unironically thinking he lives in a free society while cops armed better than special forces treat their citizens worse than an occupying force would in a war
This is what you call doublethink, faggot

>you'll never enlist in the Confederate Army at age 16
>be a cowboy in the west
>get some money digging gold/oil
>then settle in the West coast
>tfw

I've spoken to one.

He was a fat bespectacled Channer who argued with everyone he could, whenever he could. He told me that socialists and commies are naive for being so Utopian, then we sat down in a coffee shop and talked for three hours about how if you abolished the government it would be a paradise on earth.

I asked him about roads and he said that the larger road conglomerates would handle it, and if they were shitty the townspeople, free of the burden of taxes, could start their own road paving businesses and pave their own roads.

He didn't understand the Matthew Principle.

These people are real and they're fucking pathetic.

Christianity apparently
>Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
>You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
>You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Why are you debating about religion when it is obvious that you have no idea?

>libertarians taking credit for classical liberalism/pretending they are the same thing

>when neighbor turned his house into a child brothel so you nuke him

>usa isn't very free

Haha compared to what

Germany.

>gets arrested for referencing a symbol the government disapproves of

*gets murdered by a cop*

Speak for yourself, sheep.

>gagsden flag equals libertarianism

Average person is incapable of handling freedom. We live in the greatest society ever and the masses only choose to drink, fuck, get high and play vidya.

Plato’s republic would be god tier

You literally couldn't get rid of these things without creating a society not worth living in.

>Somalia

Plato's republic was retarded and hardly even a republic, you were handing power over to essentially an educational bureaucracy and just blindly trusting that some armed band of warrior elites who weren't allowed luxuries wouldn't hijack your society. B-but muh noble dogs.

Universities already basically work the way Plato's republic might in terms of being ostensibly meritocratic (sans the warrior class) and it's rife with retarded politics.

t. Pleb

The ability to choose is the only thing worth fighting for

'Republic' was the title of the book authored by Plato. The title of the book isn't 'Plato's Republic'

In some supposedly secular societies they still aren't entirely separated. In Sweden the Church was still part of the government until 1997, I believe, and who leads the church is still determined through elections of political parties (though only three of the eight parties in parliament still attend).

that pic is bullshit
it's not individualism that is killing the West
it's identity politics, dividing people into groups and killing the worth of the individual

Look, just tell me what society I allows me to get into fights without the fear of being sued? That's all I want to know.

No society ever has managed to actually get rid of those things so quite frankly we have no idea what it would be like due to a lack of frame of reference.

Nothing is successful, this modern world was a mistake, it's nothing but trash.
Everything since the french revolution has been complete and utter hell.
Communism seeks to fufill the promises that capitalism once made. It's no different, the world is full of the last men, full of soulless bugmen. This world lacks any inherent meaning or purpose. How anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. Kali is AWAKE.