Why leftist philosophies will never produce Utopia

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: JinMI

What? I guess 'working' depends on your intention.
I really don't know what about 'happy healthy sustainable self-sufficient communities' could be bad?
So I suggest you take your psychological (sexual?) need of being controlled and punished to your local Domina and keep it out of politics.
Because the goal in politics should always be justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And authoritarianism is always the polar opposite of it.
No matter how you dress it up.

A great non answer in response to highlighting how your logic doesnt fit.

Even in this pivot, the same clear lack of logic shows again.

You assume that "safe, happy, healthy and self sustaining" are objective terms, they are not.

Size, scope and scale all matter.

Leave your sexual proclivities out of this particular discussion please.

They dont have merit

a reply to: nickyw

Out of my element here, this isn't the mud pit... I'm liable to get in trouble around these here parts.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Humans don't want a utopia, simply down to the fact that we are imperfect animals.

Give us a true utopia and we would endeavor to tear it apart no matter which side of the political fence we happen to land.

That certainly doesn't mean we should not endeavor to try harder and do better all the same with the society we already have.

a reply to: JinMI

You quoted what I said and still somehow managed to slip a 'safe' in there not mentioned in my post, so I'd say my 'clear lack of logic' you see, is the inability to understand and properly use written language I see in you.

happy healthy sustainable self-sufficient communities

They are all objective terms.
Happy is maybe philosophically difficult, but just take it as short for 'free to pursue their happiness'
Healthy is 1. the absence of diseases, 2 in this context also: balanced, just, where everybody has their place and task and appreciation for their contributions, it feels fair, like a 'healthy dynamic' in all interactions.
Sustainable with self-sufficient means those communities produce everything they need for survival for themselves, manage their own administration decentralised power/water supplies etc, so they could continue their MO (sustain) in theory forever.
Communities means probably county sized-ish organized as Senate, grassroots democracy, experimenting with different forms of gov, whatever floats their boat and fits their needs.

Point is to get rid of overdominating federal national power and reduce that to the absolute necessary, like really just fe defence and trade and nobody is forced to participate if Texas and New Mexico also want to keep working on space travel as cooperative or other research and engineering projects.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Who are these intellectuals who are advocating for all this?

Most of the things you brought up are advocated by uber capitalist people who are finding new and inventive ways to squeeze profits out of everyone. Which includes collecting massive amounts of data to benefit their health and digging deeper and deeper, further and further, for oil and gas, and lumber, etc. at the expense of our livable environment, starting wars over land and resources and who controls monetary policies.

Most "left" philosophers and intellectuals advocate for basically recognizing that our capitalist driven world is running us off a cliff to no return so we need to start breaking down that system and rebuilding it to a more sustainable - somewhat capitalist - world.
I don't think hard lefties are the only people who can see that. Or talk about it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Peeple

No don't worry about it. We're going to build our Garden of Eden and you can follow your dear leader straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

What does the Garden of Eden look like to an anarchist.

Like Shangri La

a reply to: Peeple

You quoted what I said and still somehow managed to slip a 'safe' in there not mentioned in my post, so I'd say my 'clear lack of logic' you see, is the inability to understand and properly use written language I see in you.

Yes, I did slip in the "safe" phrase. First cup o coffee, I'm sure you understand. The rest is applicable.

They are all objective terms.

False.

Healthy; lets use your narrow definition of "absence of disease." Are diseases eradicated? What about people with inherent disease? Can they now not live among your utopia? Then you double down with a term of "balanced?" Yet another subjective term.

Sustainable is not equal to self sufficient. What if your utopia desires to utilize medical technology? Are they not to live among your utopia?

Finally onto the scale, which is my prime point in your assertion and logical flaw. What if folks want communities and not counties? Are the subjective extras simply discarded?

Point is to get rid of overdominating federal national power and reduce that to the absolute necessary,

Your own description discounts this:

manage their own administration decentralised power/water supplies etc,

Even out of the gate you are attempting to federalize decentralization.

a reply to: JinMI

Again: what?

2 in this context also: balanced, just, where everybody has their place and task and appreciation for their contributions, it feels fair, like a 'healthy dynamic' in all interactions.

It's right there dude. I Added the absence of disease because it is the first definition of healthy in every dictionary.
'In this context' could have pointed you to exactly what I mean by it.

To fill the gaps of demand and supply we won't suddenly stop using the parts of capitalism which make sense.

Even out of the gate you are attempting to federalize decentralization.

Eh?

a reply to: Peeple

It's right there dude.

What is 'there'...dude?

What about folks with inherent disease?

To fill the gaps of demand and supply we won't suddenly stop using the parts of capitalism which make sense.

Sure, what are those parts of capitalism that make sense? Seems like yet another subjective term....like the term utopia.

Eh?

Please try to keep up if you wish to have a productive discussion.

a reply to: JinMI

You're trolling, right?

It's literally right there in the quote above and the paragraph 'it's right there dude' was the first sentence of.
I'm talking politics not medical issues, wtf?

Even out of the gate you are attempting to federalize decentralization.

I can't 'keep up' because I have no idea whatsoever what you try to say with that.

originally posted by: Peeple

Like Shangri La

Well until I enter it and I anarchist the crap out of it only because I can. My picture is closer to what humans became in the walking dead.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You poor thing.
You don't know what anarchy means other than what the 1% indoctrinated you with, right?
It's most of all nobody has the right to rule over any other person (unless in like consenting adults agreeing on a private contract or something similar)
It does not mean the absence of rules, or constant violence or any of that.

a reply to: Peeple

I'm talking politics not medical issues, wtf?

You defined healthy as:

Healthy is 1. the absence of diseases,

So what about those that have inherent disease? I didn't think this was an irrational question. However it points exactly to the subjectivity of the term.

I can't 'keep up' because I have no idea whatsoever what you try to say with that.

Sure, I'll dumb it down.


This was/is your point:

Point is to get rid of overdominating federal national power and reduce that to the absolute necessary,

to which later you also stated:

Sustainable with self-sufficient means those communities produce everything they need for survival for themselves, manage their own administration decentralised power/water supplies etc, so they could continue their MO (sustain) in theory forever.

You want to take decentralized services and resources and put them under the purview of an administration. How do you think overdomineering federalization happens?

Arguably by delegating authority to people not in charge of the production.

Again, more subjectivity.

The entire notion of a utopia is subjective which is why they do not exist or could ever work.

a reply to: JinMI

It's right there dude. I Added the absence of disease because it is the first definition of healthy in every dictionary.
'In this context' could have pointed you to exactly what I mean by it.

And to this:

How do you think overdomineering federalization happens?

I am still lost. Because I clearly said exactly not federalised ie not centralised or shared over several communities (in our discussion as replacement of states)

Sorry troll someone else.

a reply to: Peeple

You cant keep up, fine.

Its almost like all of this is....subjective.

originally posted by: Peeple

It's most of all nobody has the right to rule over any other person (unless in like consenting adults agreeing on a private contract or something similar)
It does not mean the absence of rules, or constant violence or any of that.

All looks good on paper, communism looks great on paper, then when you add humans to the formula it all fails horrendously. Maybe it's because of a million years of human evolution that for some reason a slow weak animal was able to become the apex predator. There is a reason wouldn't you say?

a reply to: Xtrozero

People really are the problem with a lot of things along with the power structures we make for ourselves.

a reply to: ketsuko

Because the humans automatically devolve to altruism, that's our default nature.

originally posted by: ketsuko

People really are the problem with a lot of things along with the power structures we make for ourselves.

How we live is what we create so when someone comes along with some nifty "better" idea I need to ask them if it is so good why are we not in it already....

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you have ever played a simulation survival type game where you build and run a small community and try to make it self-sustaining then you know how easy it is to just treat everyone like they are just simulacrums that all think, act, need exactly the same.

I am as guilty of it as anyone. It's just the most efficient to build the same room space, provide the same furniture, feed the same food, and so on and so forth, but reality is a lot more messy. People aren't content with the same size room, and the same furniture, and the same food (some might even die if you feed them the same) because we all have very different wants and needs. I might want a slightly bigger or smaller room. Certainly someone who is vegan is going to want a different diet than someone who likes paleo or Mediterranean, and someone with food allergies simply *needs* a specialized diet in order to remain healthy or even alive' and this is before we start talking about how John likes chicken and Alison likes bacon.

So really you can't just reduce everything down to simplicity and pure efficiency. We aren't social insects where it's in our nature to live like that.