4 ms·

What is a socially regressive policy and why are Libertarian candidates prone to them?

lukevdp 13y ago
A socially regressive policy is something like making abortions illegal. Libertarians aren't socially regressive, it's the conservative part that is
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- tesmar2 13y ago
  Outlawing murder would be something I consider moving in the right direction (pun intended)
  - lukevdp 13y ago
    I wasn't making a point on either side of the issue, just giving an example of a socially regressive policy
- crusso 13y ago
  I do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. We have a government that is consuming massively more of the GDP than ever, is grabbing more and more power at every turn, is subsidizing every kind of bad behavior from international banks to a horribly corrupt food stamp program of epic proportions. Even if you hate the idea of illegal abortions, aligning yourself with "big government" in any way would seem to be a foolish move. Every day, you're building a government that's powerful enough to do whatever it wants. That means that when the right christian republican is in the White House with Congressional support who decides to make illegalizing abortion his issue... he/she does it. Just like Progressives have wanted government healthcare for the last century and then when they had a slim majority in Congress for 2 years with the presidency, they rammed through Obamacare and now we're all stuck with it.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. Legalized abortion, allowing half the species agency over a basic biological function central to their ability to equally participate in society, is the single most important human rights issue since the outlawing of slavery. Of course it rises to the level of "audibleness." It should be deafening!
    - crusso 13y ago
      You completely missed the point. When you give so much power to the government, it doesn't matter what your individual opinion is on abortion or any other noise issue. You have given your opponent a checkmate because you allowed that opponent to take your queen earlier thinking that he was somehow your friend.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Your language of "audibleness" clearly refers to the importance of abortion versus privacy as issues, not any sort of long-term tactical battle. I'm not addressing the rest of your post, just the first sentence.
        crusso 13y ago
        > sort I think that a bubble sort can be effective in that it's easy to write and does the job. I'm not addressing the rest of your post, just the one part that has nothing to do with what you were really saying.
        rayiner 13y ago
        I addressed the part that I most cared about. In privacy discussions like these, it's often the case that people lament the fact that the public cares more about things like abortion than the NSA collecting call metadata. My point is that the legal status of abortion (or gay rights, etc) is not the kind of minor issue that some people like to dismiss as merely "wedge issues." On the list of things that aren't in the Constitution, abortion rights are far more important than "privacy."

A socially regressive policy is something like making abortions illegal. Libertarians aren't socially regressive, it's the conservative part that is

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tesmar2 13y ago
Outlawing murder would be something I consider moving in the right direction (pun intended)
- lukevdp 13y ago
  I wasn't making a point on either side of the issue, just giving an example of a socially regressive policy
crusso 13y ago
I do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. We have a government that is consuming massively more of the GDP than ever, is grabbing more and more power at every turn, is subsidizing every kind of bad behavior from international banks to a horribly corrupt food stamp program of epic proportions. Even if you hate the idea of illegal abortions, aligning yourself with "big government" in any way would seem to be a foolish move. Every day, you're building a government that's powerful enough to do whatever it wants. That means that when the right christian republican is in the White House with Congressional support who decides to make illegalizing abortion his issue... he/she does it. Just like Progressives have wanted government healthcare for the last century and then when they had a slim majority in Congress for 2 years with the presidency, they rammed through Obamacare and now we're all stuck with it.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > do find it funny how abortion even rises to the level of audibleness in the conversation. Legalized abortion, allowing half the species agency over a basic biological function central to their ability to equally participate in society, is the single most important human rights issue since the outlawing of slavery. Of course it rises to the level of "audibleness." It should be deafening!
  - crusso 13y ago
    You completely missed the point. When you give so much power to the government, it doesn't matter what your individual opinion is on abortion or any other noise issue. You have given your opponent a checkmate because you allowed that opponent to take your queen earlier thinking that he was somehow your friend.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Your language of "audibleness" clearly refers to the importance of abortion versus privacy as issues, not any sort of long-term tactical battle. I'm not addressing the rest of your post, just the first sentence.
      - crusso 13y ago
        > sort I think that a bubble sort can be effective in that it's easy to write and does the job. I'm not addressing the rest of your post, just the one part that has nothing to do with what you were really saying.
        rayiner 13y ago
        I addressed the part that I most cared about. In privacy discussions like these, it's often the case that people lament the fact that the public cares more about things like abortion than the NSA collecting call metadata. My point is that the legal status of abortion (or gay rights, etc) is not the kind of minor issue that some people like to dismiss as merely "wedge issues." On the list of things that aren't in the Constitution, abortion rights are far more important than "privacy."