4 ms·

I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal govern

I don’t think you understand a libertarian view. I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. You’re correct the federal government shouldn’t pass any law. The states probably shouldn’t either regarding this. Basically my view is that impositions of will is best served at the smallest possible unit. Hopefully, that’s at the individual level, ie I don’t want to hurt you so you don’t hurt me. But if a law must exist, do so locally. If it really must be broadened, then do so at a larger scale. If a town up the creek is poisoning a town down the creek, then at the very least you have to impose law between two said towns, else you risk violence. That would be the minimal range you could impose. The legal system is only there as an alternative to war. In this case, it seems rather obvious to me there should be no laws really. That said, If the majority of a region / town disagree who am I to impose my will from across the world? That vast majority is split on this issue globally, so I don’t think law is a good idea as it may lead to violence as it’s imposing will as opposed to resolving a conflict.

softcactus 4y ago
I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? Pretty much, yes. That’s not to say I think all the outcomes are bad. But by many measurements these acts had far reaching, catastrophic consequences that negatively impacted the United States. Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. Was it done with good intentions — perhaps. But the implementation caused impacts locally which had massive negative effects as well. Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Also as an aside, I’m always open to changing views. I don’t want to die on any hill. That said; I can acknowledge and entertain various views without degrading them or calling them ridiculous. People tend to have views for a reason so I tend to listen and discuss rather than degrade..
  - softcactus 4y ago
    > Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). This is like looking at the US before and after the civil war and pointing to inequality afterwards saying: "look how bad the inequality was after the civil war" due to slaves becoming sharecroppers. Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? > Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Second leap of logic. Localized governance would have had slavery and Jim Crow laws still enacted. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was implemented at the Federal level was because it WOULD NOT have ever been implemented at the state or local level. There is no "libertarian" solution when it comes to dealing with racism or similar conflicts. Consider any genocide, be it the Bosnian genocide or the Holocaust, etc. How do you combat that through a libertarian framework? "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to enforce segregation. Let the states decide." "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to do mass murder. Let the states decide." Finally, consider why the concept of libertarianism exists in the first place. It exists to maximize personal liberty. If one person is meaningfully limiting the liberty of another, be it through violence, or economic means, ostracization, or intimidation, then wouldn't that be the BEST time for government to intervene to maximize the overall liberty of the system? I think we can all agree that the freedom to not be oppressed is more valuable than the freedom to oppress others.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      > Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? I think a lot the changes are misattributed and it depends by what metric. To your point, > First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). We’re on the third generation since the act. If the act was effective we could argue systemic racism has been overcome. We could declare victory. If it was a success this wouldn’t be a discussion. You can’t legislate things better. What we can say is since the 60s, there are more drugs, more single parents, reduced cultural strength, and supposedly still lots of racism. It doesn’t seem better.

softcactus 4y ago

I don't really care about ideologies or hypotheticals. I understand the libertarian worldview but I'm more concerned about the real-world effects of policy than their theoretical underpinnings. The outcome of criminalizing abortion is higher mortality rates in childbirth, higher mortality rates of abortion (back-alley abortions), and higher rates of infanticide. Not to mention the destabilizing social effects of millions of unwanted young men entering adulthood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de... > I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws. This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.

lettergram 4y ago
> Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? Pretty much, yes. That’s not to say I think all the outcomes are bad. But by many measurements these acts had far reaching, catastrophic consequences that negatively impacted the United States. Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. Was it done with good intentions — perhaps. But the implementation caused impacts locally which had massive negative effects as well. Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Also as an aside, I’m always open to changing views. I don’t want to die on any hill. That said; I can acknowledge and entertain various views without degrading them or calling them ridiculous. People tend to have views for a reason so I tend to listen and discuss rather than degrade..
- softcactus 4y ago
  > Just look at the African American incarnation rate, single parent household rate, etc. look before and after the civil rights act. First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). This is like looking at the US before and after the civil war and pointing to inequality afterwards saying: "look how bad the inequality was after the civil war" due to slaves becoming sharecroppers. Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? > Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts. Second leap of logic. Localized governance would have had slavery and Jim Crow laws still enacted. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was implemented at the Federal level was because it WOULD NOT have ever been implemented at the state or local level. There is no "libertarian" solution when it comes to dealing with racism or similar conflicts. Consider any genocide, be it the Bosnian genocide or the Holocaust, etc. How do you combat that through a libertarian framework? "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to enforce segregation. Let the states decide." "Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to do mass murder. Let the states decide." Finally, consider why the concept of libertarianism exists in the first place. It exists to maximize personal liberty. If one person is meaningfully limiting the liberty of another, be it through violence, or economic means, ostracization, or intimidation, then wouldn't that be the BEST time for government to intervene to maximize the overall liberty of the system? I think we can all agree that the freedom to not be oppressed is more valuable than the freedom to oppress others.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964? I think a lot the changes are misattributed and it depends by what metric. To your point, > First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). We’re on the third generation since the act. If the act was effective we could argue systemic racism has been overcome. We could declare victory. If it was a success this wouldn’t be a discussion. You can’t legislate things better. What we can say is since the 60s, there are more drugs, more single parents, reduced cultural strength, and supposedly still lots of racism. It doesn’t seem better.