You must log in or register to comment.
This is extremely vague with zero context.
This also works as a corporate excuse to do whatever the hell they want to a community and the environment.
This is the huge problem with the optics of Libertarianism as a whole. Thats why Liberal Progressive is a more common term because the right wing co-opts libertarian arguments in a pro-corporate way.
DAMNIT THIS IS MERIKA I SHOULD HAVE A MISSILE LAUNCHER ON THE FRONT YARD BEN WASHINGTON WROTE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION
Don’t forget James Hancock, Thomas Madison, and John Jefferson!
Dude, I’m pretty sure it’s Steve Madison.
founding randos
I’m quite sure it was George Jefferson…
Laws against victimless crimes come to mind.
How far down before you don’t care about victims.
Technically running red lights are victimless
Running red lights has a victim when someone gets hit in an intersection.
I’m talking about shit like laws against cannabis, where there are no victims at all, or against prostitution, where the presumed victims are the ones who get prosecuted.
So then why am I charged if I haven’t hit anyone
Because by running a red light you endanger other road users because you’re acting unpredictability and you disrupt the flow of traffic which ultimately creates congestion (more hazardous plus wastes time and resources).
So its a crime to increase risk to society?
There isn’t a victim. Just the possible increased risk.
Is it a crime to fire a legally owned gun in a built up neighborhood, even if it doesn’t harm or otherwise interfere with anyone? Is it a crime to to drive above the posted speed limit even if you’re the only person on the road?
Obviously it is currently illegal to expose bystanders to risk, and in the eyes of the law those exposed bystanders are the victims.
You can argue semantics and say that there’s no victim if they’re just being exposed to risk, but that’s contrary to the logic on which the rest of society functions.
Equally obvious, no such bystander is exposed to risk due to an individuals choice to smoke weed, ergo there is no victim (nor any argument presented that there is).
I get the feeling you just want to argue.
But assuming you’re serious, consider the question of what would happen if everyone did it: traffic would be severely impacted all the time, and/or a lot of accidents would happen, resulting in lots of victims. Contrast that with smoking weed: we’ve seen what happens when it’s made legal, and it turns out nobody gets hurt as a result except when the people smoking weed are committing some other crime, like DWI.
If I shoot you with a gun but fail, why do I get arrested if I haven’t hit anyone?
Intent?
I haven’t attempted to kill anyone running a red light. So where is the harm
The harm is that you can seriously harm someone. Like driving drunk.
Are you for real?? Does this not make sense in your head?
You find the right argument but you failed to make the right conclusion.
Running a red light you are intentionally putting others lives at risk. If you run a red light on accident and you kill someone, it’s manslaughter. If you intentionally run a red light and kill someone its murder 2.
It’s called risk, look it up.
🤗 hugs bro
In general, traffic violations are not technically crimes, they’re civil matters, therefore there doesn’t have to be a victim. Also burden of proof is much lower.
Take cannabis for instance. They’ve ‘justified’ why it has been illegal, it’s just all the reasons were manipulated science and moral bullshit.
Normal people have their behavior regulated by family, partners, and work. It’s only the ownership class and psychopaths who worry about being reined in by the government. Libertarians have spiders in their brains.
Miscegny, abortion, sodomy, war on drugs…
There’s plenty of things the government has (and it’s trying to have) blocked that “normal” people should worry about
Have you ever noticed the people who don’t want lead in the gasoline are not the same people who are trying to ban abortion?
Regulations on business and production of resources don’t infringe on my personal liberties.
So you’d fear a government that has banned abortion? Damn, you must be a psychopath or part of the ruling class or something.
Some states making it illegal to be homeless. I’m sure the 14th amendment won’t be used for nefarious purposes… /s
Hey this is the “I have nothing to hide” argument for privacy. I think wanting people to have freedom from suspicion by the government is based. You’re not gonna find me agreeing with any right wing “libertarian” positions like low taxes. My libertarianism is more about… Policing.
I agree. I’ve been listening to behind the bastards a lot, and the host is basically a pretty radical dude in favor of maximizing personal and civic freedoms and social safety nets.
At this point I feel like we should be called the neo-libroanarchists or something. It seems like every political faction in the US is trying to restrict something just because.
Social libertarians is what you’re looking for.
Thats a good term! Thanks
The right wing think tanks have a deliberate strategy of stealing leftist words.
It’s only the ownership class and psychopaths who worry about being reined in by the government.
I guess you forgot the badge-wearing fascists with itchy trigger fingers stalking your neck of the woods with the express purpose of visiting violence upon you if you step out of line.
Who uses the badge wearing fascists to control you? The ownership class. Guess who is the ownership class? Not you and I.
Username applies.
Human nature is determined by material conditionsss
Wow cool the most dystopian sentiment possible!
This is deep. I’m 14 though fyi.
All base no substance
It’s quite literally a founding principle of most modern legal systems but okay.
We’re being sarcastic here right?
The government does justify its prohibitions.
They’re just sometimes good justifications (like protecting drinking water supplies) or shitty justifications (like staying in power with Gerrymandering).
Sometimes it’s even as weak as “putting forward laws Senator John looks like he’s doing something (so he can stay visible and get reelected. Not about power, but just keeping a cushy job)”
But there’s always a justification.
This is stupid.
Btw, I don’t hate nazis
Tolerance is just an extension of the social contract. Intolerant people are actively violating the social contract and, as such, are not eligible for the benefits such a contract provides. This has been settled law for millennia. Live and let live… or else.
Grade 9 level understanding of anthropology right here
deleted by creator
The problem is ppl disagree on what represents tolerance. i.e: letting a trans compete in sport can be tolerance of gender diversity, while at the same time intolerance of competition rules.
Sometimes one cannot know what is someone fighting intolerance gonna end up doing. Germans had been too tolerant of jewish wealthy elite until nazis had enough of it. Hitler was democratically elected and crimes begun only after that.
This is a racist take that does not reflect historical facts.
So you think nazis decided to genocide out of the blue?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
This was before 1930 bud.
I didn’t know this specifics, but after reading that I’m still waiting further explanation. Each party had own guerilla and wikipedia didn’t mention especially bloody SA behaviour.
2000 SA vs 130 police = deads 15 vs 4 is a pretty normal protest clash outcome. I believe they killed also some more jews, but from that to a concentration camp there is a difference.
letting a trans compete in sport can be tolerance of gender diversity, while at the same time intolerance of competition rules.
Oh no! Won’t somebody think of the rules?!
Rules don’t have rights. People do. When the rules don’t respect people’s rights, then the rules have to change.
Meh, I’m not a Nazi so no offense taken.
How is this relevant to the post
It’s kind of like pest control. I don’t hate termites. I just can’t have them tearing up my home, so they have to be exterminated.
That’s just something the ignorant say
If you try to get rid of intolerance then you will find they out number you and it will lead to a more intolerant society
You have to limit the ability for it to spread by expanding education and publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic
The worst thing you can do is force them into their own communities, something social media promotes, because then intolerance grows
publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic
Yes, but you want to be careful you’re not lending legitimacy to their movement, either. If it’s a fringe, wacko idea, it shouldn’t be on NBC.
But yeah, inoculating people against the kinds of arguments they make is good work.
deleted by creator
You’re right of course. These people have one uniting feature and it is their utter lack of sophisticated emotional intelligence.
deleted by creator
This is actually what Karl Popper said if you read the entire quote. This comic cut out that part.
Isn’t it inherently cringe to claim your own things based?
I will do all that I can to crumple a world where “if it is not required it is forbidden” exists; this I swear to you all.
But black and white thinking is the only way my brain can work because
Sorry bro certain things need regulated
Regulation is not prohibition. Regulation and prohibition are at odds with each other.
But thank you for offering your fraternity to me.
Clothes. Done. You wear most of your clothes to be presentable according to regulation, or to be comfortable, ask yourself if anybody went to a gay bar or a sauna, would they not prefer a towel if it were not for pockets?
You can’t go running around with feces all over your body and hug strangers, OP, it’s not hygienic.
Boom. Justification. OP’s request is satisfied.
You fool, I’m not a representative of the government. Ha, request not satisfied.
Bioterrorism covers this pretty well.
Did you read the meme though?
Yes, and when you Google Bioterrorism you’ll get all the justifications as to why you shouldn’t.
Just existing is not a crime, even if you’re just casually spreading disease
Well that’s one hell of a joke alright. Hardly probable or even provable in today’s world.
Prove it
See also: the ninth amendment.
Uhhhh… isnt this how it already works?
Not with drugs. Does the drug look similar enough to something illegal? Well then it’s also illegal. Are there new, positive, revolutionary uses for those drugs? Who fucking knows, they’re illegal before they’re even made.
Yeah, there’s some truth in that. But there is also a justification (predicated on prior justification for existing hard drugs being made illegal). The justification is that it is not difficult to synthesize similar drugs that have similar effects. And very often, the differences in the effects are such that the new drug is more harmful than the drug it is copying. So rather than just automatically allowing every new drug and then playing an never-ending game of wack-a-mole with new and dangerous addictive drugs, they are just automatically banned.
There are a lot of arguments for why it might have been a mistake to make certain drugs illegal in the first place; but that’s a different issue. If certain drugs are harmful enough to be illegal, then it is definitely justifiable to make similar new drugs illegal by default.
A similar thing can apply to weapons. We don’t usually have laws against specific make and model of weapons. The laws are usually for entire categories, which include new versions are not yet created or tested.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Maybe this is just bait, but this is already how it works. I’ll go over US law, but other countries likely have similar processes.
Legislation needs to have justification for restricting people, or it gets overturned when challenged. This is because it would fail the strict scrutiny test, making it unconstitutional. It needs to be “narrowly tailored” to a “legitimate government interest” to pass. In other words, it needs to be focussed on addressing a problem the government acknowledges some responsibility to solve, and do so in a way that doesn’t cause undue restrictions beyond that goal.
Creating a law isn’t an easy process, so they are made with purpose. That doesn’t mean every law is a good law, but that’s why we have these processes for reform after all. Sometimes you have old nonesense laws remain, but that is typically because they are unenforced or too detached from modern life for anyone to care to remove them.
Justifications are easy, though.
Less so when you have to persuade other people that the justification is valid.
Isnt the meme basically “prove my justifications are invalid, cause I feel I’m always right and the government is always wrong” though?
Yes, government action needs to have publicly, rather than personally, justifiable reasons for their actions. But that’s just as true of people, most especially when their actions effect many others.
No, it’s not. At least not unless you’re taking a very uncharitable interpretation of what it’s saying and overlooking an obvious interpretation that’s much more reasonable. It’s saying the government shouldn’t be presumed right just because it’s the government. Governments are capable of being right, and they usually are right about a lot of things, but they need to be kept accountable in cases where they’re not.
And people for the most part don’t need to prove any justifications for their actions are valid, because most of their actions don’t require justifications in the first place. Like, what’s your justification for positing on Lemmy? Do you actually believe you need one?
Agreed. Sometimes the government simply oversteps the mark and just doesn’t understand what’s happening, just imagine how the USA got the crappy reputation of arms dealer, and consider that some people in Congress would probably ask not to look at the papers or the history because they know that it would make them feel dumber
