6 ms·

"Chasing liberty". Given recent events, I'm not sure that US citizens possess the personal responsibility necessary to avoid self-harm. To anyone who disagrees

"Chasing liberty". Given recent events, I'm not sure that US citizens possess the personal responsibility necessary to avoid self-harm. To anyone who disagrees: how do you square this with calls for censorship on "dangerous information"? Essentially, it seems the "average American" can no longer be trusted with rope - they're liable to hang themselves. I don't remember this as a child. I don't know what's happened to us. See: riots, obesity epidemic, texting while driving, et al

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Well, we didn't have texting while driving when I was a kid, because we didn't have texting. We sure had drunk driving, though. I don't think it's more irresponsibility. I think it's a much greater number of ways that you can be irresponsible.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  That's a good point, drunk driving is still very popular in Portland among the 40+ crowd (source: anytime I'm at an event with people over 40, they slam 3-4 drinks, and drive home like it's nothing) But a long time ago, drunk driving wasn't really known to be a bad thing. And nowadays it has a pretty bad social stigma.
whalesalad 6y ago
I cannot argue against this sentiment, you are correct. The question though is - how do we fix it? How can we get back on the right track without taking away civil liberties. How can we lead and inspire instead of command or dictate? I am really surprised by the reactions you are receiving. I think this is a very important topic of discussion to try and approach without bias.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  Not sure about that... I think it's the culture. We used to have a monoculture in the US (basically whatever the TV told us). Nowadays we have an almost uncountable number of subcultures operating independently, and many of them despise each other. I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. As long as we allow people to worship themselves without thinking about external costs, this will probably continue. Another factor is that technology tends to centralize control. And the people running the technology want us to be like this. Medical costs skyrocket, they make money. Smartphone use skyrockets, they make money. etc.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. From an outside perspective the US looks incredibly individualistic. Even from a UK perspective, which is individualistic on a European scale. Which is itself individualistic compared to some Asian cultures.
h2odragon 6y ago
So, who do you trust to run your life, if not yourself? Are you really ready to force that choice on others? What's happened to the ability to say "that guy's an idiot and he can go to hell his own way, I don't have to follow him down"?
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  I trust myself plenty. But having drug addicts rot in the street hurts everyone. Texting while driving is another clear-cut example where their indiscretions literally could kill me. I'm into personal liberty. But I do think we need to figure out this problem of antisocial behavior.
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > "that guy's an idiot and he can go to hell his own way, I don't have to follow him down"? doesn't work when we basically live in a hive-mind
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I trust myself to run my life. I don't trust others to run theirs. I know there is one obvious mechanism to ensure that I have liberty while others do not: to require great discretion of things that require personal liberty, and to harshly prosecute those incapable of that discretion. So, for instance, as someone who uses substantial amounts of drugs, I support extensive prosecution of drug users - not because I don't think people should be able to use drugs but because I think there is a threshold of responsibility for drug use. People are unable to accept that this threshold exists, but absent that threshold, many will fall into the thrall of the drug-induced haze. I have tested my own abilities here, having used drugs extensively, then abstained for half a decade as a test, and then used again. But most have not. They are not as capable as I am. Given that, and given that people will not accept a test of their abilities, there is one surefire way to enforce the threshold: make it illegal and then permit use among those capable. This is the status quo. Walk around any tech office and point in any direction. A ray projected from your finger will likely hit someone who has used cocaine, MDMA, LSD, Shrooms, or some other Schedule I substance that is not marijuana.
- jjj123 6y ago
jimbob45 6y ago
I think the bar is generally when people cross from hurting just themselves to hurting uninvolved others. Underage drinking: illegal because you can drunk drive into someone else. Underage drinking with parents at home: totally legal because you can’t affect others. Weed: (mostly) legal, small consequences otherwise, non-addictive Heroin: totally illegal because addiction can bring someone to harm others to get their fix.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Clearly that isn't it all because then millionaires would be legally permitted to use drugs under controlled circumstances. About $200k is sufficient to hire full-time staff for a month to ensure you do not harm anyone. No, there's a great moral panic around many of these things just like rock and roll.
nostromo 6y ago
Absurd. The world is the wealthiest it's ever been. The world is more peaceful now than it's ever been. People are healthier now then they have ever been. This pervasive myth of decline is completely refuted by all available evidence.
- ndiscussion 6y ago
  Any thoughts on obesity? This article claims the current costs of obesity are $2 trillion: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/041715/economic-cost-obese-society.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04171...
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Obesity is primarily a result of corporations not being adequately regulated, and government incentives driving down the price of particularly unhealthy additives. In short, high fructose corn syrup leads to obesity.
    - ndiscussion 6y ago
      That's exactly what I'm saying here. The availability of drugs will not lead to a libertarian utopia, but a decaying rot like we see in my home city (Portland).
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Obesity is primarily a result of corporations not being adequately regulated What would such regulations look like? >In short, high fructose corn syrup leads to obesity. Is HFCS a worldwide phenomenon? US isn't the only country with obesity problems. eg. kuwait, egypt, UAE, jordan [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass...
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        I'd be curious about food/health laws in other countries high on that scale... the US is definitely one of the largest countries high on the list, and while the US sits at 28.5, most EU countries, where vastly better food regulation is in place, the average tends to be 25-26. (Several countries with major hunger issues sit towards the very low end, I wouldn't use as a picture of health.) HFCS may be a uniquely US problem, but foods with it are also exported, which explains why countries like Canada sit relatively high as well. It was a life-changing experience for me to visit EU countries, where orange Fanta contains 11% orange juice (and vaguely looks like orange juice), compared to the dark orange nearly-pure-sugar soda we drink here. Even McDonald's food was leaner, less greasy, and closer to what you'd get at a quality restaurant.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Well, we didn't have texting while driving when I was a kid, because we didn't have texting. We sure had drunk driving, though. I don't think it's more irresponsibility. I think it's a much greater number of ways that you can be irresponsible.

ndiscussion 6y ago
That's a good point, drunk driving is still very popular in Portland among the 40+ crowd (source: anytime I'm at an event with people over 40, they slam 3-4 drinks, and drive home like it's nothing) But a long time ago, drunk driving wasn't really known to be a bad thing. And nowadays it has a pretty bad social stigma.

whalesalad 6y ago

I cannot argue against this sentiment, you are correct. The question though is - how do we fix it? How can we get back on the right track without taking away civil liberties. How can we lead and inspire instead of command or dictate? I am really surprised by the reactions you are receiving. I think this is a very important topic of discussion to try and approach without bias.

ndiscussion 6y ago
Not sure about that... I think it's the culture. We used to have a monoculture in the US (basically whatever the TV told us). Nowadays we have an almost uncountable number of subcultures operating independently, and many of them despise each other. I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. As long as we allow people to worship themselves without thinking about external costs, this will probably continue. Another factor is that technology tends to centralize control. And the people running the technology want us to be like this. Medical costs skyrocket, they make money. Smartphone use skyrockets, they make money. etc.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > I do think that many of the new subcultures in the US praise personal hedonism over any kind of collective responsibility. From an outside perspective the US looks incredibly individualistic. Even from a UK perspective, which is individualistic on a European scale. Which is itself individualistic compared to some Asian cultures.

h2odragon 6y ago

So, who do you trust to run your life, if not yourself? Are you really ready to force that choice on others? What's happened to the ability to say "that guy's an idiot and he can go to hell his own way, I don't have to follow him down"?

ndiscussion 6y ago
I trust myself plenty. But having drug addicts rot in the street hurts everyone. Texting while driving is another clear-cut example where their indiscretions literally could kill me. I'm into personal liberty. But I do think we need to figure out this problem of antisocial behavior.
jcelerier 6y ago
> "that guy's an idiot and he can go to hell his own way, I don't have to follow him down"? doesn't work when we basically live in a hive-mind
renewiltord 6y ago
I trust myself to run my life. I don't trust others to run theirs. I know there is one obvious mechanism to ensure that I have liberty while others do not: to require great discretion of things that require personal liberty, and to harshly prosecute those incapable of that discretion. So, for instance, as someone who uses substantial amounts of drugs, I support extensive prosecution of drug users - not because I don't think people should be able to use drugs but because I think there is a threshold of responsibility for drug use. People are unable to accept that this threshold exists, but absent that threshold, many will fall into the thrall of the drug-induced haze. I have tested my own abilities here, having used drugs extensively, then abstained for half a decade as a test, and then used again. But most have not. They are not as capable as I am. Given that, and given that people will not accept a test of their abilities, there is one surefire way to enforce the threshold: make it illegal and then permit use among those capable. This is the status quo. Walk around any tech office and point in any direction. A ray projected from your finger will likely hit someone who has used cocaine, MDMA, LSD, Shrooms, or some other Schedule I substance that is not marijuana.
jjj123 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago

I think the bar is generally when people cross from hurting just themselves to hurting uninvolved others. Underage drinking: illegal because you can drunk drive into someone else. Underage drinking with parents at home: totally legal because you can’t affect others. Weed: (mostly) legal, small consequences otherwise, non-addictive Heroin: totally illegal because addiction can bring someone to harm others to get their fix.

renewiltord 6y ago
Clearly that isn't it all because then millionaires would be legally permitted to use drugs under controlled circumstances. About $200k is sufficient to hire full-time staff for a month to ensure you do not harm anyone. No, there's a great moral panic around many of these things just like rock and roll.

nostromo 6y ago

Absurd. The world is the wealthiest it's ever been. The world is more peaceful now than it's ever been. People are healthier now then they have ever been. This pervasive myth of decline is completely refuted by all available evidence.

ndiscussion 6y ago
Any thoughts on obesity? This article claims the current costs of obesity are $2 trillion: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/041715/economic-cost-obese-society.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04171...
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Obesity is primarily a result of corporations not being adequately regulated, and government incentives driving down the price of particularly unhealthy additives. In short, high fructose corn syrup leads to obesity.
  - ndiscussion 6y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying here. The availability of drugs will not lead to a libertarian utopia, but a decaying rot like we see in my home city (Portland).
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Obesity is primarily a result of corporations not being adequately regulated What would such regulations look like? >In short, high fructose corn syrup leads to obesity. Is HFCS a worldwide phenomenon? US isn't the only country with obesity problems. eg. kuwait, egypt, UAE, jordan [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_body_mass...
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      I'd be curious about food/health laws in other countries high on that scale... the US is definitely one of the largest countries high on the list, and while the US sits at 28.5, most EU countries, where vastly better food regulation is in place, the average tends to be 25-26. (Several countries with major hunger issues sit towards the very low end, I wouldn't use as a picture of health.) HFCS may be a uniquely US problem, but foods with it are also exported, which explains why countries like Canada sit relatively high as well. It was a life-changing experience for me to visit EU countries, where orange Fanta contains 11% orange juice (and vaguely looks like orange juice), compared to the dark orange nearly-pure-sugar soda we drink here. Even McDonald's food was leaner, less greasy, and closer to what you'd get at a quality restaurant.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]