4 ms·

> The problem is Big Brother government Regulations exist to protect people not to impose their will on you. Fireworks is a good example: some people are quali

by i386 6y ago

> The problem is Big Brother government Regulations exist to protect people not to impose their will on you. Fireworks is a good example: some people are qualified to operate and many are not. Countries with lax fireworks regulations (big surprise here) have lots of fireworks injuries. The problem with libertarian values is that they assume that all people within society are rational, capable of making their own decisions or ones that don’t harm or adversely impact other people. Want to listen to loud music? No one is going to stop you. In fact, go do it now! But don’t create a political or legal framework where a child or unsuspecting adult could permanently damage their hearing. Or blow their hands off with a firework. Or accidentally kill themselves with a weapon you’re using to live out a constitutional fantasy.

anon9001 6y ago
> The problem with libertarian values is that they assume that all people within society are rational, capable of making their own decisions or ones that don’t harm or adversely impact other people. Internet libertarian here. That's not the argument at all. We could prevent tons of harm by tightly regulating all aspects of life. Banning fast food or cigarettes would undeniably be a public health win, and I don't think many libertarians would disagree with that. The argument is that it's simply not the government's job to prevent people from hurting themselves, even if it could be done at scale and effectively. It's a question of the role of government, not so much about whether loud music or fireworks cause harm (they do) or if it's enforceable (it is). If you ban everything that's dangerous or unhealthy, I'm not sure you'd be happy with the culture that results. Humans are experimental by nature, even if sometimes that results in harm. These types of restrictions that can't be bypassed hurt our experimental nature. In the beginning of the pandemic, and even now, a lot of attitudes were shaped by the lack of government regulation. If the president isn't wearing a mask, and there's no legal requirement for me to wear a mask, then it must be safe to not wear masks... right? That's the kind of thinking that a highly regulated society produces because we've insulated people from danger for so long. At this point, it seems most people feel that if you can do something, it must be safe, otherwise it wouldn't be available for you to do. That's even more dangerous than loud music or fireworks.
- i386 6y ago
  > The argument is that it's simply not the government's job to prevent people from hurting themselves That is a very American point of view and look where that’s got you so far.
  - derrick_jensen 6y ago
    Highest GDP in the world?
    - i386 6y ago
      At incredible human cost to your own people and to others. If GDP is your end goal you are lost.
  - LocalH 6y ago
    You don’t seem to understand how dangerous concentrated authority can be
    - i386 6y ago
      Your president can and does anything he likes. That’s what happens when you borrow a bad constitution from the French that swapped the King for president and scratch in that you can only be king for 4 years.

by i386 6y ago

anon9001 6y ago

> The problem with libertarian values is that they assume that all people within society are rational, capable of making their own decisions or ones that don’t harm or adversely impact other people. Internet libertarian here. That's not the argument at all. We could prevent tons of harm by tightly regulating all aspects of life. Banning fast food or cigarettes would undeniably be a public health win, and I don't think many libertarians would disagree with that. The argument is that it's simply not the government's job to prevent people from hurting themselves, even if it could be done at scale and effectively. It's a question of the role of government, not so much about whether loud music or fireworks cause harm (they do) or if it's enforceable (it is). If you ban everything that's dangerous or unhealthy, I'm not sure you'd be happy with the culture that results. Humans are experimental by nature, even if sometimes that results in harm. These types of restrictions that can't be bypassed hurt our experimental nature. In the beginning of the pandemic, and even now, a lot of attitudes were shaped by the lack of government regulation. If the president isn't wearing a mask, and there's no legal requirement for me to wear a mask, then it must be safe to not wear masks... right? That's the kind of thinking that a highly regulated society produces because we've insulated people from danger for so long. At this point, it seems most people feel that if you can do something, it must be safe, otherwise it wouldn't be available for you to do. That's even more dangerous than loud music or fireworks.

i386 6y ago
> The argument is that it's simply not the government's job to prevent people from hurting themselves That is a very American point of view and look where that’s got you so far.
- derrick_jensen 6y ago
  Highest GDP in the world?
  - i386 6y ago
    At incredible human cost to your own people and to others. If GDP is your end goal you are lost.
- LocalH 6y ago
  You don’t seem to understand how dangerous concentrated authority can be
  - i386 6y ago
    Your president can and does anything he likes. That’s what happens when you borrow a bad constitution from the French that swapped the King for president and scratch in that you can only be king for 4 years.