4 ms·

> Most “bag bans” are a propaganda campaign to frame the last participant in the supply chain as the culprit of everything. I doubt you meant it this way, but

> Most “bag bans” are a propaganda campaign to frame the last participant in the supply chain as the culprit of everything. I doubt you meant it this way, but this is the thing that peeves me most about the Republican party continuing to spout on about local control, small government, and personal freedoms. As soon as a locality makes a choice they don't like (bag bans), or a person uses their freedom in a way they don't like (marrying the wrong person, consuming the wrong plant), suddenly the same people are scrambling to explain why those things are exceptions to their principles, because, well they're bad. There's never a stronger argument for why it should be an exception just "we think it's bad". Yet the whole point of these supposed principles is that these decisions should be made locally or personally. Otherwise it's just as valid for someone to say <Republican pet issue> should be decided locally because it's bad.

TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
Very well put.
avgcorrection 3y ago
You’re right that I meant none of those things since I didn’t mention them. An aside.
- Volundr 3y ago
  Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). Yet one can easily find them advocating for local control as a reason why <issue not going their way> shouldn't be decided at the federal/state level. Local control, until "local" does something they don't like.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). They would say something similar to me. Except the reasoning would be very different. So the only similarity is that they would say that it is “bad” (I would say that the ban is pointless per se). So they wouldn’t say something similar to what I said. Next up: “Wars are bad”. Did avgcorrection say that? Or a Libertarian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
    - Volundr 3y ago
      sigh my point was that they would happily use the reasoning "it's bad" as a reason for overriding local government, despite having a long history of preaching about the importance of local government, and using that importance to try to shut down discussion of other issues, as something that should be handled "locally". Call it an aside to your aside if you want.
jfengel 3y ago
It has never been about local control. They've been quite explicit about it: they want state control. That means not federal, not local, and certainly not individual. The state is the unit of decision making where they can exert maximum power. They're perfectly happy to exert federal control as well, when they can get it. But when they can't, they'll protest that they want state control. They want you to hear it as if that was moving power closer to the individual, but it's diametrically opposed to that. "States' rights" means "not your rights".

TheNewsIsHere 3y ago

Very well put.

avgcorrection 3y ago

You’re right that I meant none of those things since I didn’t mention them. An aside.

Volundr 3y ago
Yep, I assumed you didn't, which is why I said it. My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). Yet one can easily find them advocating for local control as a reason why <issue not going their way> shouldn't be decided at the federal/state level. Local control, until "local" does something they don't like.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > My point was that if pressed, the lawmakers responsible for overriding these "bag bans" would say something similar to you, essentially that bag bans are bad (though I suspect their reasoning would look very different). They would say something similar to me. Except the reasoning would be very different. So the only similarity is that they would say that it is “bad” (I would say that the ban is pointless per se). So they wouldn’t say something similar to what I said. Next up: “Wars are bad”. Did avgcorrection say that? Or a Libertarian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ
  - Volundr 3y ago
    sigh my point was that they would happily use the reasoning "it's bad" as a reason for overriding local government, despite having a long history of preaching about the importance of local government, and using that importance to try to shut down discussion of other issues, as something that should be handled "locally". Call it an aside to your aside if you want.

jfengel 3y ago

It has never been about local control. They've been quite explicit about it: they want state control. That means not federal, not local, and certainly not individual. The state is the unit of decision making where they can exert maximum power. They're perfectly happy to exert federal control as well, when they can get it. But when they can't, they'll protest that they want state control. They want you to hear it as if that was moving power closer to the individual, but it's diametrically opposed to that. "States' rights" means "not your rights".