4 ms·

Yes, it would be cheaper if we didn't have to drag half the country into modern society. Imagine all the money we could have saved had we not needed court cases

by midev 5y ago

Yes, it would be cheaper if we didn't have to drag half the country into modern society. Imagine all the money we could have saved had we not needed court cases to establish LGBT rights, for example.

giantg2 5y ago
"if we didn't have to drag half the country into modern society." That seems a little inflammatory. It depends on the issue which subsets of the country are being dragged.
- myko 5y ago
  This might've been true years ago but in the US lately that does not seem to be the case. Nuclear energy and vaccines are the main things that comes to mind with the left, but lately I think both of those are more likely to be rejected by the American right than the left.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Don't forget guns. The left doesn't accept many of those pro-gun laws or newer technologies.
    - myko 5y ago
      I'd argue that the proliferation of guns in the US is an example of the opposite of "modern society". I think politicians in general have trouble with newer technologies and seems to have more to do with the age of the average person in Congress than political leanings (e.g.: Al Franken's questioning of Eric Schmidt years ago and not understanding how Amazon could run Android on their own devices without Google's input).
      - giantg2 5y ago
        What I mean is that there are well established laws and case law but they consistently introduce contradicting laws rather than change the law at the higher level (similar to abortion restrictions for other groups). For example, things like cities ignoring state level preemption. Or using the Trayvon Martin case as a talking point against stand your ground laws even though that law was not invoked as his defense (just standard self defense). On a side note, why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? There are other modern countries with firearms. And by proliferation do you mean simply higher total numbers or more widespread?
        myko 5y ago
        > why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? In the past, guns and weapons generally were required to survive for folks outside of cities. That is not the case today. I see this as a move towards the modern - a society that can solve problems without the use of guns. I mean a combination of both higher numbers and how widespread guns are. That said, I think the case law supporting the 2nd amendment to the level it is today is flawed, but I understand that given past rulings the only legal things to do are: a) allow basically any and all guns with no restrictions or b) overturn past decisions on the matter. Even with all of that the cat is out of the bag in the US - there are too many guns to remove. Beyond the US, 3D printing will make creating a gun at home somewhat trivial in the near future. I don't know how we dig out of that hole societally.

by midev 5y ago

Yes, it would be cheaper if we didn't have to drag half the country into modern society. Imagine all the money we could have saved had we not needed court cases to establish LGBT rights, for example.

giantg2 5y ago

"if we didn't have to drag half the country into modern society." That seems a little inflammatory. It depends on the issue which subsets of the country are being dragged.

myko 5y ago
This might've been true years ago but in the US lately that does not seem to be the case. Nuclear energy and vaccines are the main things that comes to mind with the left, but lately I think both of those are more likely to be rejected by the American right than the left.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Don't forget guns. The left doesn't accept many of those pro-gun laws or newer technologies.
  - myko 5y ago
    I'd argue that the proliferation of guns in the US is an example of the opposite of "modern society". I think politicians in general have trouble with newer technologies and seems to have more to do with the age of the average person in Congress than political leanings (e.g.: Al Franken's questioning of Eric Schmidt years ago and not understanding how Amazon could run Android on their own devices without Google's input).
    - giantg2 5y ago
      What I mean is that there are well established laws and case law but they consistently introduce contradicting laws rather than change the law at the higher level (similar to abortion restrictions for other groups). For example, things like cities ignoring state level preemption. Or using the Trayvon Martin case as a talking point against stand your ground laws even though that law was not invoked as his defense (just standard self defense). On a side note, why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? There are other modern countries with firearms. And by proliferation do you mean simply higher total numbers or more widespread?
      - myko 5y ago
        > why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? In the past, guns and weapons generally were required to survive for folks outside of cities. That is not the case today. I see this as a move towards the modern - a society that can solve problems without the use of guns. I mean a combination of both higher numbers and how widespread guns are. That said, I think the case law supporting the 2nd amendment to the level it is today is flawed, but I understand that given past rulings the only legal things to do are: a) allow basically any and all guns with no restrictions or b) overturn past decisions on the matter. Even with all of that the cat is out of the bag in the US - there are too many guns to remove. Beyond the US, 3D printing will make creating a gun at home somewhat trivial in the near future. I don't know how we dig out of that hole societally.