I believe libertarianism only hypothetically works for a crowd of mostly highly intelligent sociopaths. It cannot work for a moderately to lowly intelligent mass with low agency. And I suspect there would be a violent upheaval by ordinary people after getting shafted by those who get first dibs on money and power in the “free market” because of their ambition, intelligence, and aims to control other people, making libertarianism short lived anyway.
You are right about the US becoming more tyrannical which I gave complained about before. Hence I watch my P’s and Q’s on here and leave other posters to infer what I imply from some of my posts.
Disagree regarding the latter. The concept of libertarianism is flawed in due part to actions having larger, downstream ramifications that impact more than the individual at stake.
Sociopaths generally don’t care regarding the potential ramifications their actions may entail. A libertarian society with sociopaths as the sole demographic would make an interesting movie, the purge mirrored this to an extent.
Perhaps you are referring to the fact that sociopaths won’t care about the ongoing destruction unfolding around them. If this is the case it hardly mirrors a peaceful society, rather a display of callous indifference.
The “civil liberties” people typically advocate for within secular, first world democratic societies are only facets of true “libertarian” ideology. These needs/wants within a demographic can be quelled by passing legislature without resorting to a true libertarian government/society.
The Netherlands (a country I speak of oh so offen) aren’t a “libertarian” society. They’ve merely passed some legislature pertaining to societal reform that is unorthodox. They still have rules, laws and regulations just like (if not moreso) any other first world, secular country.
Libertarianism is flawed in that we share many resources, and it offers no solution on how to keep some from impacting others in regard to those resources (mining, fishing, ag). There are also some things that we want as a society, but would be almost impossible to charge people to use. How do you get only the people who paid for the tornado siren to hear it?
I think being libertarian towards social liberties is sensible (if they don’t harm others). In regards, to industry and the economy, I don’t think it makes a lot of sense.
Agreed, however it’s a very fine line as to what constitutes only harming the individual and harming others. What downstream ramification does each individualistic act have on ones family, loved ones, friends etc. Is the alternative any better, or does punishment incurred induce even more severe detriment?
The purge allowed for a one night “free for all” scenario wherein actions had no consequence. I only saw the first film, wasn’t a fan.
Not sure I agree on the impoverishment standpoint. I agree there would be a large wealth gap (already the case) and a lack of buffers would be set up to help the disadvantaged. At the same time it isn’t as if those excising economic control won’t be employing others to complete mundane, entry level tasks.
Mass discrepancies regarding wealth/socioeconomic status is already somewhat a byproduct within a purely capitalistic society. I’m not going to go into that though
Can’t sleep dammit… my room has transformed into a mosquito den. I can feel/hear them landing on me… so itchy…
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that @Iron_Condor was not referring to pure libertarianism by definition, but as a matter of colloquialism. Correct me if I am wrong, but I inferred he meant he was more oriented toward liberty over excessive government overreach, but that covid had ‘changed his calculus’ so to speak, on the matter.
The terrifying assault on freedom of speech has me very worried. twitter gave a voice to stupidity and stupidity became fashionable. Now there is a giant push towards censorship because very high, establishment types, like Obama, are pushing censorship to exclude “false” information, in favor of what is “true”. It’s a framing device, of course. Because everybody already knows, that nobody agrees on what “truth” is. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if we only got “true” information. And we all know that this is a move to ram left-wing opinions, which may or may not be true, over center to right-wing opinions. But that’s only true right now. If you imbue censorship for the ‘other’ it always comes back for you. And what is true?
Well if we reduce it and distill only what is true all we could come up with is ‘Cogito, ergo sum’. And there is debate as to whether even that is true. ‘Cogito, ergo dicendum’ is probably the only thing you could say and know it to be true.
Actually it is. That’s why people climb fences and risk dying in deserts just to come here. That’s not saying we’re perfect. And I already explained the pressure building on opposing sides which, if unrelieved will eventually blow. But you aren’t going to run into a road block where police are checking to see if you have even seen what cocaine looks like in the past week. There are still places here where you can live with virtually no government intervention outside of taxation. You buy a plot of land in the middle of Wyoming or South Dakota, you have complete liberty within that plot. Perhaps not totally by the book, but practically there is no enforcement in the middle of no where. And when you do step outside that zone, you are not frequently going to encounter police, just checking you out for the hell of it.
The drug stops in Australia have me really concerned. That they test you for trace amounts of drugs in your system and will arrest you for a crime, even if you are not committing one at that moment is scary to me.
So as explained by @unreal24278, if you did a drug a couple of days ago and you are caught in a road block. They can test you on the side of the road and arrest you even if you don’t have any drugs on you and you are not currently high, you just present trace amounts of an inert chemical and you can go to jail. And subsequently have all the life ruining benefits that go along with jail time. That sounds crazy to me. Absolutely bonkers. We have our problems, but you have to be caught actaully committing a crime to be prosecuted. You cannot be arrested for a crime you may or may not have committed in the past.
Those are the types of draconian measures that would cause me to seriously consider leaving a place for good. What are they going to do next? Prosecute you for eating illegal avocados?
I don’t know what it is about cocaine, but Australia really hates that shit. When I went there, they pulled me aside and searched all through my luggage. Pulled everything thing out and seached every article I had. They made a mess of my nicely packed luggage. When I asked them what they were looking for, they told me cocaine. To which I laughed and told them that when they get to the bottle with the red pills, to hand it to me because it was time for me to take it. I had a sinus infection and those were my antibiotics.
In customs, they had these trash cans with signs on them that said something to the effect of ‘If you have any illegal contraband, this is your last chance to ditch it without being subject to prosecution’. I was fascinated with those cans. I thought it was a good idea, give someone a last chance to ditch their illegal shit and save them from prosecution. So while I was waiting, I kept staring at those cans and wondering what the hell kind of goodies may be in them if any. I am guessing that’s why they searched me, because I was staring at those cans. I was the only one they searched, said they were having a big problem with coke coming in from New Zealand.
It was pointless. It just takes one oversensitive person to make spoil everything when it comes to a topic as sensitive as that. Who was going to dare post their opinions, let alone get into any form of meaningful discussion after that exchange I had with him?
I was discriminated as a CATHOLIC from young where I lived. Maybe I should start calling people out for anything said in a derogatory manner to anyone of the Christian faith since my family and I, including relatives and friends I knew may potentially be offended by that because of our experiences.
While I am not familiar with the laws of the US, I found it unusual for any developed country in this day and age to not have laws similar to “drink driving” and “drug driving” so I did a quick google search.
This is for the state of Nevada:
"It is unlawful for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or on premises to which the public has access with an amount of a prohibited substance in their blood or urine that is equal to or greater than:
^I only posted this link to the specific statute because it was easy to find just from key words from the wiki page and I can’t be bothered to look up all your individual state laws so you can probably check them out yourself but I think the probability’s quite high that you’re gonna find they’re pretty similar.
Note that this provision does not state that one has to be mentally impaired by such substances for it to be an illegal act.
*As a disclaimer, I do not know how much these amounts compare to those of other countries, nor do I know how much one is impaired by such amounts, nor if there is even any actual impairment from such amounts. That’s a question for @unreal24278 .
Because it’s better than being stuck in a cartel warzone with minimal opportunities. How many Canadians are hopping the border?
You can do the same in Australia. In the USSR, you could move out into the middle of nowhere in Siberia and build a log cabin and no one would mess with you. There were groups of Old Believers scattered all over the USSR that had their own villages and avoided contact with everyone for decades (for example: Lykov family - Wikipedia). Some didn’t even know about the communist revolution or WW2 - they had been in hiding since imperial times. This doesn’t mean that the USSR was a libertarian paradise, it just means it’s not very difficult to break the law when your country stretches over 11 time zones and law enforcement in remote regions is difficult/impossible.
I’ve never had this happen to me, but in other states it may be different. I know they check for drugs a lot at music festivals and they have breath tests around nightclub areas on Friday/Saturday nights to stop people driving home drunk, but this isn’t some every day occurrence that you should be worried by. I work in a warehouse and half the people there are on drugs most of the time, even with the company running random drug tests. Getting pulled over and searched for drugs by the police is a very rare thing.
I keep telling people just looking at laws of individual countries are meaningless unless you know the degree to which they’re enforced. If I post a law of a certain country to make a point on something like authoritarianism, it’s because I know for a fact it’s being actively enforced.
Or sometimes it’s just in jest to show how preposterous some laws can be. Like:
You can’t even reincarnate without express permission from the authorities in China! This is totalitarianism that spans beyond the physical realm! The immortal plains are in crisis!
It’s not that rare. In NSW strip searches were/are relatively common. Sniffer dogs are employed in public streets, on trains/train stations etc. They have strip search booths set up in public areas.
The random drug testing (idk about WA) on the roadsides are common in Vic, NSW, SA… I think QLD just scrapped static roadside testing. These tests look for trace amounts as opposed to legitimate impairment and god forbid you’re actually caught. The statistics are fairly jarring, if I recall in NSW almost 1/10 of those tested come up positive for cannabis. This incurs instantaneous loss of license, a police record, a large fine etc.
This is an everyday occurance in Vic and ESPECIALLY NSW. I’ve been randomly drug tested on the roadside more than once, as has virtually everyone I know. Hell I remember seeing the booze/drug buses on practically every second road (exaggeration) within Sydney at night. Go to Nimbin, NSW. They set up roadblocks in and out of the town constantly as the area has a reputation for cannabis. It isn’t to weed out stoned drivers, it’s to raise revenue. Chances are if you’re going to Nimbin you’ve smoked a joint within the past 48 hours.
As to music festivals, I think it depends. I’ve never seen a sniffer dog within the confines of a music festival IN VICTORIA. I’ve seen them everywhere in NSW and I’ve seen them in QLD.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about NSW/Vic laws, but in WA it’s not so bad. I’ve been breathalyzed maybe a handful of times in 11 years of driving and been pulled over once when I was a passenger (driving out of a nightclub district on a Sat night, 6 of us squished into a 5 seat car, all drunk except for the driver, pulled over by unmarked cop car who just laughed it off and let us go).
But this is why it’s hard to label country A as free and country B as a nanny state. If you live on a remote ranch in Wyoming, of course you’ll have less police and government harassment compared to living in the middle of Melbourne. If you live on a giant cattle station in the Northern Territory (some of these stations are bigger than some European countries) you’ll have less government interference than if you lived in San Francisco. If you’re a Moscow billionaire you have quite a lot of freedom, despite what all the laws say. It’s all relative.
You could grow up in the US with shitty parents who home schooled you, taught you nothing, then kicked you out at 18 with no education, no skills and no money. Sure, you’re theoretically free to do whatever you want, but practically you’re limited to working in shitty jobs and your access to healthcare and education is extremely limited. In Australia and other nanny state countries, you’ll have some access to welfare and schooling if you’re disadvantaged (but the government wouldn’t even allow you to be home schooled in most cases anyway). If you’re a disadvantaged Aboriginal you basically have guaranteed entry to uni, and a lot of jobs hire only Aboriginals for certain positions.
What they have in Australia and do not have in the U.S. are check-points that do testing specifically for certain drugs like cocaine, specifically. And that they will arrest you for having the metabolites or trace amounts in your system, including being high at the time. We do have DUI checkpoints, which IMO are unconstitutional in themselves, but you have to be actively impaired, usually by alcohol to be arrested. I have known many people be high as a kite get through a DUI check point because they didn’t drink and didn’t give the appearance of being impaired.
So the difference is that apparently, in Australia (certain parts I reckon) they will have a check point that will test and arrest you even for inert, or trace amounts of, say coke that you may have done a couple of days ago, but are not actively impaired. Does that make sense? I don’t know if I explained it clearly.