I meant the hysterics and mask shaming
Yes, itās either idealistic or obtuse to imagine otherwise. These people are in most cases sympathetic to some degree when you get up close to them and understand their limitations. I believe that a problem is the polarization of politics, with the handling of the ill-equipped turned into black and white talking points. Are some people lazy? Yes, and drug addiction has an element of choice as well. Iām fine with separating them out. But we bear shared responsibility for our lame and helpless.
2 Likes
No, we donāt.
3 Likes
It is that simple.
Your philosophy is to attempt to regulate criminality and ensuing victimhood by preemptively banning something for all that a few will use with ill will.
I 100% disagree with this approach and favor select reactivity where general freedoms are in question.
We can go back and forth on nuanced, individual examples probably forever but for me this boils down to nanny state vs. personal liberty.
Neither will be consequence free and Iāll err to personal liberty every time.
1 Like
We just profoundly disagree here. I donāt want a world in which the mentally ill or retarded but physically healthy live like animals because itās cheapest to house them in cells with straw to lie in and buckets of foul water.
I donāt want children deprived of food or opportunity.
Equality of opportunity requires some commitment to ensuring foundational needs (Maslowās hierarchy) are met.
I have no desire to ensure equality of outcome, however, which is I think what you imagine the goal to be.
1 Like
The goal, for me, is at will participation in the majority of interactions. Charity is a viable course of action.
Forced participation in government oversight of tax supported welfare programs should not be mandated, imo.
Classic arguments to line up on either side, Iām sure, but I donāt owe anybody shit, and they donāt owe me either.
I am charitable, FTR, and give to causes I believe in. Also nobodyās business, but my prerogative to own.
No, itās not a philosophy and youāre interpreting what Iām saying to fit a narrative that makes you comfortable.
Iām stating the fact that letting people do what they want has consequences. Iām stating the fact that those consequences impact the innocent. Iām stating the fact those consequences affect society. Trying to mitigate the harm to people and society is not only the smart thing to do with regard to individuals who obviously donāt want to suffer because of the poor behavior of others, but it is right for society as it is the most cost effective way to deal with criminal behavior.
The only reason you can think the way you do is because the society weāve created wasnāt created based on your ideological beliefs. You are taking the Rand approach which is, ironically, similar to the progressive approach. The US, and the West in general, was not built on Libertarian ideology. James Madison knew this. Machiavelli knew this. Plato knew this. Republicanism can be seen as oppositional to the inevitable tyranny that Libertarian/Randian thinking create. Even worse is that Libertarian thinking can create opposition in the form of fascism. Republicanism and fascism both rely on the concept of civic duty. Libertarianism does not but itās a crock as libertarians rely on others having a sense of civic duty in order to allow them to live in the utopia they dream of. Itās why Rand accepted SS and medicare to help pay for her cancer treatment. Good thing other people thought of other people and not just themselves.
This is how children think. Iād like to believe someone will help my grandmother cross the street or help a lost child find his parents. The man who believes these acts are a matter of choice, is not a man.
Letās be honest, if your wife or child were in need of help, and you found out they were ignored; you wouldnāt think all of those men who didnāt take the time to help a woman or child were good people and the world needs more of them. You would think they were garbage people.
So if we as men, believe that helping those in need is the right thing to do, why wouldnāt we want our government to share those values? As I mentioned above, Rand couldnāt rely on her own finances or the charity of others, so it was the government that needed to step in to try and save her life.
1 Like
I would continue to summarize your approach as a nanny state.
Your overarching suggestion is to utilize government control to manage human behavior preemptively, by eliminating choice.
We wonāt agree.
Youāre snippeting again.
I agree someone should help your grandmother cross the street.
At will
Nobody should be forced to help her, however. Regardless of my opinion of them.
Again, we will disagree. I donāt buy in to the tribal thinking you espouse.
Iām not interested in Rand.
Your position is hers. I doubt itās coincidence.
You just described laws.
But you benefit from it. That is a fact.
Youāre taking liberty with too broad of an application to manipulate a point. This is where I start losing interest.
Govt should never, ever, be allowed to shut down private businesses or individual decision in an effort to think for them.
This doesnāt mean I take issue with enforcing homicide law, to be clear.
We will not agree and Iām not going to play twisties all day.
When I hear extremes, I become interested in the foul lines. This California fire disaster provides what can be close to foul lines. Does your freedom have any limits?
Can the government issue curfews?
Can the government condemn and close areas of lands, regardless of who owns the property?
Can you elaborate?
No, the government should not
1 Like
The problem with extremes is that they are ideologically based, rely on knowing every potential scenario or outcome, are utopian, and really can only exist in theory. Itās the opposite of Machiavellian thought or Realpolitik. Not even the ancients believed in thinking that way. This is why every ideology eventually has to somehow justify exceptions.
People can say they hate tribalism and collectivist thinking however, a society is a tribe and a collective. MAGA is a tribalist slogan that takes a collectivist view of the country. Opposition to illegal immigration and wanting a more thorough vetting of legal immigrants is collectivist and tribal thinking.
If you lived in Chicago or Detroit, do you think you might have a different opinion? Keep in mind there is a reason why you would be living there, meaning, your personal circumstances would be different than they are now.