4 ms·
Some peoole beat their wives when they drink, so the state has decided that it is in everyone's best interest for alcohol to become illegal. Some people become
by anonym29 1y ago
Some peoole beat their wives when they drink, so the state has decided that it is in everyone's best interest for alcohol to become illegal.
Some people become unproductive and hurt themselves when on drugs, so the state has decided to enact a war on drugs.
Some people injure themselves trying to procure abortions, so the state has decided no more abortions.
Some protesters cause war recruiting efforts to struggle during Vietnam, which hurts soldiers already deployed, so the state has decided no more anti-war protests.
Some people misuse privacy to commit crimes, so the state has decided that every citizen must be fingerprinted and put into a police database preemptively to prevent crime.
Some people aren't productive enough and others are forced to pick up the slack, so the state has decided to humanely euthanize the disabled to protect workers.
Trust the state, relinquish your freedoms, the state knows best and the state never makes mistakes!
- throw0101c 1y ago> Some peoole beat their wives when they drink, so the state has decided that it is in everyone's best interest for alcohol to become illegal. If anyone is curious about the history in the US, Ken Burns' doc (based on a book) is really good: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(miniseries)
- root_axis 1y agoThis is just half a dozen examples of the slippery slope fallacy. You could make identically generic arguments for every good law that we all agree on. The specifics of the law in question are a required component of the conversation. > the state knows best and the state never makes mistakes! Nobody believes this. Everyone is comfortable with the risks of the state when it comes to rights and laws they believe should be enforced.
- anonym29 1y agoNo, it's half a dozen examples that already happened in real life (5 quite literally, 1 with digital fingerprinting of network traffic instead of physical fingerprints). This isn't parody or satire, it's history. I am not comfortable with the risks of the state when it comes to my rights. It's fine to have an opinion, but don't think you speak for everyone.
- root_axis 1y ago> I am not comfortable with the risks of the state when it comes to my rights Without the state none of your rights are protected.
- anonym29 1y agoThe state is the only entity that infringes on my rights. Private parties have never tried to strip me of my right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, my right to privacy, my right to private property / the fruits of my labor, etc.
- root_axis 1y agoYou're literally quoting rights defined by a government charter. Without the state, those rights cease to exist.
- anonym29 1y agoNo, those are natural rights that governments wisely choose to recognize. I hold those rights, along with the right to life, liberty, and the peaceful pursuit of happiness. Whether or not one or more governments recognizes those rights has no bearing on whether I hold them.
- root_axis 1y ago"Natural rights" are a philosophical ideal, they don't exist in and of themselves. Without a state nobody needs to respect them.
- anonym29 1y agoYou don't stab and rob people daily, do you? Are you saying you would if there were no federal government? Nobody needs to respect your rights with government existing either, government just offers the possibility of consequences for people who violate the non-aggression principle.