4 ms·

Don't be ridiculous. This is America, the land of the free, by which we mean the land where practically everyone wants to stick their nose in your business and

Don't be ridiculous. This is America, the land of the free, by which we mean the land where practically everyone wants to stick their nose in your business and try to change the way you live your life. There are a few people who advocate generally leaving others alone to do what they want, but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe.

remarkEon 12y ago
...but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.
- lepht 12y ago
  Thanks for a more optimistic view
- tsotha 12y ago
  Prison reform, drug policy, foreign policy... there are lots of areas of overlap. But these are groups with who have diametrically opposite views regarding the basis of society. I don't know if and how long they'll be able to work together.
  - remarkEon 12y ago
    Yeah I'll for sure concede that point about how long they're gonna work together. In some respects, I wonder if the GOP is supporting some of the more populist agendas just to win elections and not necessarily because they actually believe in the principle. I'm just trying to be more of an indeterminate optimist for some issues. But you're right, the point remains.
- mwfunk 12y ago
  Years ago I remember reading an article claiming that, according to some Pew research poll or another, the most common (maybe not a plurality) political disposition among Americans was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, neither party caters to this segment. The Democrats are socially liberal and (historically, at least) fiscally liberal; the Republicans tend to be socially conservative and (based on the last couple of decades at least) fiscally batshit crazy liberal, despite having a platform calling for the exact opposite of that. The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat. Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    It is important to distinguish between libertarians who are fiscally conservative (spend money on necessities, not foreign wars, etc.), and libertarians like the Koch brothers, for whom libertarianism is a way to get the government off their businesses' backs. I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone. Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
- Centreal 12y ago
  Confusing pattern recognition is a fast pain. Slowing social scaling sense to account for trauma/error combinators is about literacy.
- stcredzero 12y ago
  >> being on the lunatic fringe. > I think this is (slowly) starting to change. Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values. However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.
ssalazar 12y ago
> they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. Yeah contradicting 100 years of development of economic theory, i.e. proposing to return to the gold standard, will have that effect.
datashovel 12y ago
For the most part I would guess that laws that are perceived as an attempt to restrict people from doing what they want, are in fact meant to protect innocent people from becoming victims of crimes. A lot of these laws, no doubt, if executed more thoughtfully, would bring us far more reasonable laws. Ultimately I think it boils down to being able to (a) convince citizens they need to make thoughtful consideration when voting for their representatives, and (b) convince qualified people that they should run for office.

remarkEon 12y ago

...but they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. I think this is (slowly) starting to change. There seems to be a weird nexus on the other side between the libertarian right and the populist left. Prison reform is one example. Perhaps a slow acknowledgement that some of the laws governing social policy just don't make sense in the 21st century.

lepht 12y ago
Thanks for a more optimistic view
tsotha 12y ago
Prison reform, drug policy, foreign policy... there are lots of areas of overlap. But these are groups with who have diametrically opposite views regarding the basis of society. I don't know if and how long they'll be able to work together.
- remarkEon 12y ago
  Yeah I'll for sure concede that point about how long they're gonna work together. In some respects, I wonder if the GOP is supporting some of the more populist agendas just to win elections and not necessarily because they actually believe in the principle. I'm just trying to be more of an indeterminate optimist for some issues. But you're right, the point remains.
mwfunk 12y ago
Years ago I remember reading an article claiming that, according to some Pew research poll or another, the most common (maybe not a plurality) political disposition among Americans was socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, neither party caters to this segment. The Democrats are socially liberal and (historically, at least) fiscally liberal; the Republicans tend to be socially conservative and (based on the last couple of decades at least) fiscally batshit crazy liberal, despite having a platform calling for the exact opposite of that. The libertarians might be the Republicans' salvation, in that many of them actually do resemble the mythical socially liberal/fiscally conservative politicians, at least if you squint hard enough. While I don't agree with them 100%, I would definitely rather have the libertarianish Republicans being the dominant force in the party than theocons, who just seem utterly repugnant to me. On the other hand, the Democrats could benefit hugely if any disaffected libertarians switch parties. I don't see any more cognitive dissonance between libertarians and Democrats than I do libertarians and Republicans, honestly. For whatever reason people think of the Republican party as being the natural home for people with libertarian tendencies, but that doesn't seem any more set in stone than the South voting solid Democrat. Most people don't remember this, but the South voted Democrat consistently prior to 1964. When the Democratic party supported the Civil Rights Act, the evangelical voters switched en masse from Democrat to Republican. The evangelicals weren't any more married to the Democrats than the libertarians are to the Republicans, IMO. In both cases, neither party really represents the values that the voting bloc really care about, so their loyalty is more based on expediency than alignment of political principles.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  It is important to distinguish between libertarians who are fiscally conservative (spend money on necessities, not foreign wars, etc.), and libertarians like the Koch brothers, for whom libertarianism is a way to get the government off their businesses' backs. I am still trying to find an "ism" that resembles my views: spend money on roads, borders, police, education, social services, and healthcare; cut spending on the military, drop the second amendment, and step away from being the world police. Oh, and in the next 10-20 years spend about $500b/year on solving global warming. Then leave social issues the hell alone, such that as long as people are not directly harming each other, leave them the hell alone. Sort of a mix of libertarian (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), with democratic ideas for healthcare (100% covered single payer, very good safety net for poor, unemployed), and the green party's concern for the environment. Oh and find me a politician brave enough to say something about the gun situation in the US.
Centreal 12y ago
Confusing pattern recognition is a fast pain. Slowing social scaling sense to account for trauma/error combinators is about literacy.
stcredzero 12y ago
>> being on the lunatic fringe. > I think this is (slowly) starting to change. Abolitionists were once thought of as being on the lunatic fringe. Now we accept their position as philosophically correct. As for libertarians, I entirely agree with those that point out national sovereignty as being inconsistent with humanist values. However, just because you are philosophically correct, that doesn't mean you aren't part of a lunatic fringe. The differentiating factor is how you interact and propose to interact with society at large.

ssalazar 12y ago

> they are universally derided as being on the lunatic fringe. Yeah contradicting 100 years of development of economic theory, i.e. proposing to return to the gold standard, will have that effect.

datashovel 12y ago

For the most part I would guess that laws that are perceived as an attempt to restrict people from doing what they want, are in fact meant to protect innocent people from becoming victims of crimes. A lot of these laws, no doubt, if executed more thoughtfully, would bring us far more reasonable laws. Ultimately I think it boils down to being able to (a) convince citizens they need to make thoughtful consideration when voting for their representatives, and (b) convince qualified people that they should run for office.