5 ms·

Bad food causes actual physical harm to people. This is violence. Bringing in state violence to prevent this actual physical harm makes all the sense in the wor

Bad food causes actual physical harm to people. This is violence. Bringing in state violence to prevent this actual physical harm makes all the sense in the world. Making a choice to buy a shitty phone with a glued in battery is not being harmed. There's no violence being done in this context. And there's no coercion involved. As for, "What violence?", how do you think laws are enforced? I hope this helps you better understand my "stupid take".

kaba0 3y ago
Ok, let’s look at another example: gambling being illegal for kids. There is no physical harm being done in any way here, yet the “bad, evil EU” disallows it. And sure, there is the enforcement part of each governing agency. Calling it “violence” is just click-bait headline level nonsense.
- superkuh 3y ago
  There are many regulations for minors that could never be applied to adults. Minors are not citizens with full rights; their activities are decided by their guardians and laws regulated minors infringe upon this lack of rights more often than not. That said, many governments and the DSM 5 do push the idea that gambling somehow invokes a lack of agency and control for the individual. In fact gambling disorder is the only medically recognized behavioral addiction (though it shouldn't be, this old wives tale is grandfathered in). It shows just how dangerous this kind of "they can't help themselves" thinking is in justifying bad laws that hurt people. Pretending that laws aren't enforced with physical force just because it is abstracted away from your daily life and experience doesn't change that it is violence. The use of physical force is the one thing governments have a monopoly over and it is what makes them governments.
oefnak 3y ago
But it is bad for people... How can you not see that the government is protecting them from having to buy a new phone earlier, and the environment from easier separation of the different components? If it is a rule for all companies, it doesn't matter either way, economically speaking.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Your implicit assumption here, a very dangerous one, is that people cannot make their own choices and need coercion backed by government violence to make the right choices of phone to buy. I acknowledge that shitty phones are shitty phones. That's why I personally have never and will not buy one. Other people's choices to buy shitty phones does not justify bringing in the government no matter how much it reduces waste. I'd love if people made that choice themselves but having the government force it is quite evil.

kaba0 3y ago

Ok, let’s look at another example: gambling being illegal for kids. There is no physical harm being done in any way here, yet the “bad, evil EU” disallows it. And sure, there is the enforcement part of each governing agency. Calling it “violence” is just click-bait headline level nonsense.

superkuh 3y ago
There are many regulations for minors that could never be applied to adults. Minors are not citizens with full rights; their activities are decided by their guardians and laws regulated minors infringe upon this lack of rights more often than not. That said, many governments and the DSM 5 do push the idea that gambling somehow invokes a lack of agency and control for the individual. In fact gambling disorder is the only medically recognized behavioral addiction (though it shouldn't be, this old wives tale is grandfathered in). It shows just how dangerous this kind of "they can't help themselves" thinking is in justifying bad laws that hurt people. Pretending that laws aren't enforced with physical force just because it is abstracted away from your daily life and experience doesn't change that it is violence. The use of physical force is the one thing governments have a monopoly over and it is what makes them governments.

oefnak 3y ago

But it is bad for people... How can you not see that the government is protecting them from having to buy a new phone earlier, and the environment from easier separation of the different components? If it is a rule for all companies, it doesn't matter either way, economically speaking.

superkuh 3y ago
Your implicit assumption here, a very dangerous one, is that people cannot make their own choices and need coercion backed by government violence to make the right choices of phone to buy. I acknowledge that shitty phones are shitty phones. That's why I personally have never and will not buy one. Other people's choices to buy shitty phones does not justify bringing in the government no matter how much it reduces waste. I'd love if people made that choice themselves but having the government force it is quite evil.