3 ms·

> But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. Where is the line? I don't like murder. Is banning murder totalitarian? I d

> But banning something because you don't like it is nothing short of totalitarian. Where is the line? I don't like murder. Is banning murder totalitarian? I don't like unfair elections. Is banning election tampering totalitarian? Every law and rule in all of society exists to prevent something that someone (or lots of people) don't like. We usually draw abstractions on top of these likes and dislikes - things like "rights" and "morals". Everyone has to draw the line somewhere, so deriding someone for drawing that line "because you don't like it" is reductionist and silly.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Typically you place the line at hurting someone else. If your own personal choice only affects you then that's a you problem. To go the next step and take freedoms away from people that are able to handle themselves. The two examples you gave directly affect others. One exception might be children since they aren't developed enough to make logical decisions on their own. IMO government restrictions should be a last resort, not the first option you consider. Additionally, they tend not to work as well as you might think on many things (e.g. drug war, prohibition)
bloqs 5y ago
The line is: what does societies weakest member look like. How do we stop those people being exploited. You then apply the action to everyone above that point.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  That's your line. Clearly this is not universally accepted as the best way to form a society.
  - billiam 5y ago
    I think we have a lot of examples of what happens when the wealthy and powerful get anything they want (see the right of kings, predestination, Social Darwinism, fascism, etc) and we blame the poor and weak for all their problems and victimize them. There is a big difference between making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness available to most vulnerable and disadvantaged in your society and "forming" your society around it. In the US we only made basic rights we take for granted available under law to gay and disabled people in the last two of three decades.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Typically you place the line at hurting someone else. If your own personal choice only affects you then that's a you problem. To go the next step and take freedoms away from people that are able to handle themselves. The two examples you gave directly affect others. One exception might be children since they aren't developed enough to make logical decisions on their own. IMO government restrictions should be a last resort, not the first option you consider. Additionally, they tend not to work as well as you might think on many things (e.g. drug war, prohibition)

bloqs 5y ago

The line is: what does societies weakest member look like. How do we stop those people being exploited. You then apply the action to everyone above that point.

dahfizz 5y ago
That's your line. Clearly this is not universally accepted as the best way to form a society.
- billiam 5y ago
  I think we have a lot of examples of what happens when the wealthy and powerful get anything they want (see the right of kings, predestination, Social Darwinism, fascism, etc) and we blame the poor and weak for all their problems and victimize them. There is a big difference between making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness available to most vulnerable and disadvantaged in your society and "forming" your society around it. In the US we only made basic rights we take for granted available under law to gay and disabled people in the last two of three decades.