Friendly fascism

[Mythsaje]

You know, I find it amusing how "freedom loving liberals" often seem to only want freedom when it comes to things THEY approve of. They seem quite happy to ban, restrict, or otherwise impede the use of anything THEY deem unacceptable.

I believe in freedom. I believe in penalizing people for screwing up, not for having the potential to screw up. I oppose anything that gets people to accept or grow accustomed to following arbitrary rules just for the sake of convenience or "for their own good."

If you ask me, this sort of rule-mongering simply feeds the beast. Restriction of freedom based upon liberal values is JUST as bad as restriction of freedom based on "conservative" values. In a word--people need to quit thinking they have the right to tell other people what to do. If it doesn't directly harm anyone, or create a measurable danger to society as a whole, people REALLY need to learn to mind their own goddam business.

You can't rail against conservatives trying to engineer society in the way THEY think is right and turn around and do the same goddam thing.

I think it's hypocritical and find it annoying as hell.

Rant off.

[originalpckelly]

1. I think you're right with the idea of your post, but

what exactly to consider to be fascist in liberal principles?

[Mythsaje]

4. What set me off about this

was a ban on cellphones in NY schools and how some parents are lobbying the lawmakers to put pressure on the schools to allow them. This is met with a great deal of criticism from posters here and this is the kind of thing that just gets under my skin. "WE don't like cellphones, so the ban is appropriate."

I don't like the meme that seems to say it's okay to force people to comply based upon "progressive" principles yet somehow this is different from forcing people to comply with "conservative" principles.

I'm pretty much opposed to forcing compliance to ANY principles except in the circumstances I described in my OP.

[originalpckelly]

9. Are we going libertarian?

Actually that is what Democrats were originally about. We used to a have a weird party, we actually were left and right. When the Southern Democrats left in the '60s that's when things changed. It is actually kind of funny because the "libertarian" Republicans are actually liberals. I have no freakin' clue why they have stayed with the other party, after Darth Stupidass and Emperor Pacemaker started getting tyrannical.

I think of our philiosophy:
1. We try to be a free as possible
2. We tend to start grassroots up, not top down
3. We make exceptions to the previous if it is in the interest of all

Libertarians never make any exceptions, and that may be why they don't like us.

[Mythsaje]

12. My wife's a libertarian, though she's been voting Dem...

I'm a social libertarian, though I'm definitely a Dem fiscally. Reasonable expectations of common interest decisions that serve the greater good. Restrict corporations (which aren't people, despite convenient legal fictions), but leave the people alone except when it's absolutely necessary.

[Minnesota Libra]

29. Hey, I've definitely got to look into this Libertarian thing because......

...on the surface it sounds like my beliefs. The strange thing is that these days I get accused by liberals :spank: of being a "lite-neocon":grr: and yet by the neocons/fundies themselves I'm a "bleeding heart liberal".:shrug: Go figure.

[Mythsaje]

30. The Libertarians tend to be FAR right

economically. They believe in privatizing everything (pretty loony to me). But they also believe in leaving people alone. That's the part I can agree with. It's the leaving corporations alone part I have issues with.

[Asgaya Dihi]

31. I'd tend to agree

There are aspects of the libertarian idea that I like but it's the business angle that kills it for me. On the personal level we could do with a lot less of a nanny state, but where it comes to business the constant urge for deregulation has just lead to too many mergers and near monopolies. It sounds like freedom at first, but it ended up at corporate control.

Personally I'd rather take the best from each party. A good respect for personal freedoms, a good respect for the idea of regulation where a person or business does infringe on others and care for the poor, and a sound economy and military. Too much of a focus on any one just hurts the others, what we lack today most of all is balance.

[zanne]

151. If big business has its hands wrapped around our throats....

Freedom is impossible. I think the Libertarian argument is crap.

[Mythsaje]

154. Freedom is EQUALLY impossible

if the state claims ownership of us too. Blind obedience to rules and regulations just serve to increase corporate control hold on us. We're hemmed in as much by corporate "policies" as we are by laws and regulations. They want people (employees and consumers) to grow accustomed to follow along and not think for themselves. It's good for business.

Not only that--but there are a lot of laws that are never voted on by anyone--they're instituted by government agencies under the auspices of their organizing authorities. Administrative Code.

The vast majority of Americans probably break AT LEAST one law a day. Even if it's a small law. Still makes us ALL criminals, in a manner of speaking.

[Minnesota Libra]

37. Well, then I'm apparently not Libertarian because I'd like to see.........

...the "corporate veil" to be destroyed so corporations as well as their officers could be sued as a business and as individuals for the harm they do to people and the environment.

OK, back to the drawing board for me.:shrug:

[benEzra]

157. There are libertarians and there are Libertarians...

the Libertarian Party (capital L) is as you describe; however, libertarian (small L) can also describe a person who takes a high view of individual liberties--"live and let live" and all that. I am not a Libertarian, but I am very libertarian in the civil-liberties sense; I believe very strongly in individual freedom, and believe it needs to be vigorously defended against busybodies of all political stripes.

[Mythsaje]

164. I'll occasionally refer to myself as a "civil libertarian," which,

in my opinion, is a horse of a completely differently color than the big 'L' Libertarians.

[Greyhound]

87. Welcome to the club, I figure if my liberal friends think I'm too

conservative because I'm in favor of the unrestricted private ownership of firearms, and the government living within its means, and my conservative friends think I'm too liberal because I believe in the socialization of the Justice, Medical, and Educational systems, and strict regulation of any essential industry (like energy), I must be pretty close to the truth.

[Mythsaje]

138. I mistrust corporate AND government authority equally...

People don't know WHAT to make of me. LOL

[Minnesota Libra]

27. "Darth Stupidass and Emperor Pacemaker" OMFG, I love this, I'm...........

....officially stealing:shrug: this for future use.:applause: I'm still chuckling :rofl: over this one!!:rofl:

[valerief]

11. I'm sure there was a good reason for the ban. Do you know what

it was? Do you know what the official reason was (may be different from the real reason)?

[Mythsaje]

13. The road to hell and all that... n/t

[valerief]

14. I would guess it was something like they were disruptive and

could be used as tools for cheating. Maybe even an invasion of privacy (picture phones).

[Mythsaje]

18. Then you punish the offenders.

Seems pretty simple to me.

It's counter-productive to penalize those who follow the rules because of those who don't.

[treestar]

38. This is the mentality of this country, liberal and conservative

In the interest of preventing any evil by the few, everyone has to submit to supervision.

Maybe OK to a point, but we've got it to the point where it is choking us. It isn't freedom. Freedom accepts that some will do wrong, and they have to be caught. Tyranny assumes everyone will do wrong unless overlooked and supervised. Both sides have that element in them.

[Protagoras]

84. As far as unrestricted freedom goes

and autonomy it all sounds great, but do you distinguish between absolute freedom of choice for adults as opposed to children toward which there is a dependent/caretaker relationship? Are children entitled to absolute personal freedom? Or are there lines you draw so that they can reach a point where they have enough maturity to make such decisions?

I'm just curious because it seems like there is a slope that such things exist on...not everything is a Right...some things are privileges, and some things are earned...and we often distinguish between which applies to adults and which apply to minors.

[Mythsaje]

89. I'm touchy about the concept of "privileges..."

I don't remember that particular term used in the Constitution. We should be very careful how we allow this particular division to be defined.

As for the rest--it's the parents' jobs to make decisions pertaining to their own children, assuming that those decisions aren't completely irresponsible and lead to harmful consequences.

[Protagoras]

99. Many things aren't mentioned in the constitution

and it's deliberately unclear in areas in order to allow for discussion and evolving concepts.., at least if you view it as a living/evolving document.

As far as things being the "the parents job" what about when the children are out of the parent's view? i.e. at a school? I think determining what is irresponsible and what leads to harmful consequences is exactly what this discussion is really about. Unless those kids are home schooled it seems like adults other than the parent have to take occassional responsibility for the children.

The crux of the problem here is that there hasn't been much data provided. There are anecdotal arguments on both sides of the "cell phone" issue...so perhaps we should be looking at what our criteria for "consesequences" as sell as expectations for public conduct, and parental responsibility are. Where is the cost/benefit calculus?

[kestrel91316]

105. They are just practicing preventive "medicine" by prohibiting them

in the first place.

Sort of like gun control - restrict them right off the bat, rather than just punishing killers after-the-fact.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. - Benjamin Franklin (remember HIM??)

[Nadienne]

52. Uh, while I agree that imposing rules on others

while rebelling against rules "they" oppose on us is hypocritical...

Why would you need a cell phone at school, anyway?

[Mythsaje]

55. Maybe not AT school...

but on your way to school, during lunch (especially when allowed off-campus) and after school.

[Nadienne]

57. I guess I don't understand why it's such a huge deal.

While I was in college, it seemed like everyone in all my classes had a cell phone... except me. They didn't usually talk on their phones during class. What's the difference between college and high school? Do seniors in high school magically grow mature after they graduate? I think, for the most part, you could probably trust high school students to follow the rules, as long as they think the rules are reasonable.

But, at the same time, my ten year old neice is pressuring her mom to buy her a cell phone. Her real reason for wanting one is that her friends have one. It's "cool" to have a cell phone. It's up to her mom to say yes or no. The decision should rest with those who are affected by it. I'm not in favor of a ban per se, but I do think that students and their parents ought to know that one should not define themselves by what they have, be it cell phones or brand name clothing.

[Mythsaje]

59. This is true...

And I'm not sure a 10 year old needs a cell phone--though I suppose the argument could be made for getting her one of those limited ones--that can only call a few different numbers. A way for a parent to keep track of a kid, and for a kid to call for help if it becomes necessary. Not a bad thing in this day and age.

[kestrel91316]

106. A 10-yr-old DOESN'T need a cell phone. If s/he needs to "call for help"

s/he can go to the nearest adult and ask for help. You know, like in the olden days for thousands of years before cell phones?

Oh, wait. Maybe that would be ICKY because who wants to talk to someone who might not be of the same social class???

[Mythsaje]

136. "Don't talk to strangers...well, SOMETIMES talk to strangers."

How is a child going to know which stranger is safe? They're not. Frying pan, fire. Fire, frying pan.

[entanglement]

70. Oh, I see

For a minute I thought you were pissed because someone was out to get your porn stash

:spray: :spray:

[Gabi Hayes]

77. uhhhh .... I work in a school, and cellphones are bad news, for several

reasons....kids use them ALL the TIME, when they're allowed to have them...give an inch?

they CHEAT with them....text messaging, taking PICTURES of tests

need I go on?

why not CD players, Playstations, too?

jesus

this thread, give me a break

libertarians....jesus

[Mythsaje]

80. I don't CARE if you work at a school...

There are plenty of places where the kids are made to leave their cell phones off during the school day and it appears to work just fine.

Punish those who break the rules and leave the rest of them alone.

I realize this is pretty damn hard for schools to manage--remembering from MY childhood--but it's worth a try.

[Gabi Hayes]

81. and I don't CARE how ignorant you are...jesus

you apparently don't know much about kids today, do you?

cite your "plenty of places" that allow cell phones, for starters. be specific. I don't know a single school that allows them inside the building anymore

kids take advantage at every opportunity; we USED to allow kids cellphones, but they used them all the time, and it got to be a complete distraction. confiscate each phone used inside, and make the parents come pick them up.

try living in the real world: spend a day in an urban junior high school, then perhaps you won't be such a know it all


get over yourself and your omniscient pronuciamentos

[Mythsaje]

91. Read the thread...

You'll have your answers there.

Setting aside that schools are often breeding grounds for petty tyrants (I remember some of MY teachers and some of the administrators QUITE well, thank you), I believe that you would be well within your rights to say "no cell phones during class or during other scheduled events" and leave it at that. Confiscate the phones of the offenders.

It's possible to teach responsible behavior to kids. It takes effort and a willingness to make judgement calls. If you think it's okay to penalize ALL kids for the misbehavior of some of them, then you're part of the problem.

[Klukie]

111. I agree with your OP.... however,

I think using this particular issue as an example doesn't work. In theory, what you propose is the best way to teach a child responsibility but in reality it wouldn't be effective in a school setting. The problem lies with the numbers of children in the public school system and the number of them with cellphones. Teachers could spend all day penalizing the offenders but I don't think it would ever stop the problem. Especially when you have 52 children to one teacher. These type of rules don't offend me in the least beacause I would much rather a teacher be fully focused on teaching. I don't think it is okay to penalize all kids for the misbehavior of some of them but I don't think that banning cellphones is a penalty either. A penalty to me is detention, suspension, or expulsion.

[kestrel91316]

108. If them come with mom or dad to my office they are most certainly NOT

allowed to use them. They can step outside if they have some f---ing emergency that requires them to yell on the damned thing.

[kestrel91316]

107. Of COURSE they cheat with them. I betcha that's the whole point of

having them.

When I was in college we were allowed to use pencil, paper, and slide rule (and you better know how to use it). When the HP-45 came out, there was a big fuss because only the RICH had them, and it gave them an unfair advantage.

[davekriss]

143. My father gave me...

...an HP-45 when I was in high school as a reward for academic excellence. I still have the darn thing, though I haven't turned it on in 30+ years!!! (...now I feel old!)

Had to use slide rules in my high school, though; I didn't need the calculator as I was already wicked with the rule in those days.

(You bring back memories!)

[kestrel91316]

148. Hey, put some new batteries in that thing. If it still works, I betcha you

could sell it on ebay for a pretty penny - especially if you still have the box/instruction manual!

[frazzledmom]

112. So are you saying that a teacher can't tell

when a kid is cheating on a test with a cell phone?

[Mr_Spock]

120. I agree with you in principal - bugs me too - but disrupting school...

is a problem that goes beyond libertarian principals.

I consider myself a libertarian liberal and I don't think we should have rules nazi's in either party making up stupid rules and castigating or worse punishing people who don't want to follow one particular way of life. OTOH, I think your example pushes the limit as to freedoms acceptable for students in an already hectic school environment. What do we allow next, Game Boy's in the classroom?

[BoneDaddy]

171. YOu are really oversimplifying it.

I work in a high school. Cellphones are banned because if they were not, every freaking kid would be on it, or texting or otherwise disrupting the learning process. The same thing applies to any other electronic device like Ipods, headphones, gameboys etc...

You have to draw the line somewhere. Every student has one, we are not naive, and if there was ever a real emergency, use of it wouldn't end in a consequence, but sitting on your cellphone during school hours is not only unnecessary it is rude, disruptive and not acceptable for a learning environment. I mean give me a break here.

So what it really comes down to is that you don't want to comply with any rules for any reason because you don't want to, regardless of how it may affect anyone else. Talk about narcissism

[6000eliot]

233. I'm a teacher, and cell phones are disruptive in the classroom.

So, I don't have a problem with banning them on that basis.

[mongo]

2. Thanks

I get tired of the nanny-stater's too.

[Terran1212]

3. Regulating things is just good sociology

Any liberal who believes in science and public service believes in a fair amount of that.

[Mythsaje]

6. Do as we say, not as we do.

I get it.

OUR social engineering and forced compliance is MUCH better than that of conservatives who like to ban sex toys and such.

[Terran1212]

10. No social engineering = fantasy land

You have to have some, to a reasonable degree. We had it with Civil Rights. Why FORCE white and black children to be in the same school?! THAT'S SO FASCIST!

[Mythsaje]

17. Apples, meet oranges.

Nice smokescreen, but totally misses the point. And smells WAY too much like a suggestion of racism, which seems to be a pretty common method used around here to obscure the issue. I live on Tacoma's hilltop. By choice.

I don't need to justify anything in that regard.

Segregation was detrimental to society as a whole.

That has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. I'm talking about restricting individual freedoms for nothing more than the convenience of the authorities.

I think some of the arguments I see are very hypocritical. And I get the feeling I'm not the only one.

[Terran1212]

19. Well I already gave you a type of example

Of social engineering that is healthy and necessary. Take from it what you will.

[Mythsaje]

23. I'm not saying it's never healthy and necessary...

but we should be very careful how we implement it, and not get carried away just because we can.

[Greyhound]

88. and what is the result of that so far? n/t

[Asgaya Dihi]

5. There is a point to that

A lot of times liberals are reluctant to admit that they've caused damage, the drug war would be a good example. It seemed like a good idea so trying to get through to some the damage caused can be a tough sell at times.

Another example would be one I offered to my son once. We were talking about the differences between the parties and I offered a little experiment to him to try if he had the courage for it. Stand in a group of supposedly open minded liberals and just suggest that he's not against abortion, but that his understanding of DNA and life gives him some doubts, see what happens.

Sometimes the open minded side can be a bit closed minded as well. It's a hell of a lot better than the other option these days, but there are some things to work on here too.

[readmoreoften]

15. Since when are "the liberals" responsible for the drug war?

That war began under Reagan & Bush 1. The "war on drugs" is your typical "war against sin" proferred by the Republican party.

And your comment about telling your son to say he's pro-forced-birth is beside point. Liberal/Progressive doesn't mean "I have to listen to any bullshit that comes down the pike." The point is that my right to abort a fetus trumps your son's right to have his beliefs about fetuses imposed on my body. There are plenty of progressives who have the same beliefs about fetuses as your son, and they choose not to have abortions. But when it comes to the bodies of other women they are pro-CHOICE.

[Asgaya Dihi]

21. Hmmm

First of all I didn't say there were "responsible" for the drug war, they aren't. It is true though that the pace of it increased rather than decreased under Clinton. Check the rate of prison growth for yourself at the following. A chart showing the growth (jail and prison) from 1925 to 2002 is less than 1/4 way down the page.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

Now that doesn't make them "responsible", but it does make both parties a part of it. I believe that's what I said, we need to wake both up to fix it. Blaming one won't do.

On to my son, I don't believe that's what was said either. Read it again. It was in a conversation explaining the difference between the parties, a thought experiment to test the idea of being open minded about others feeling, doubts, or concerns. Nothing more or less.

Your reaction proves my point more than argues it. Where a constructive comment was intended you read attack. The open minded side could be a little more open minded, it'll take fixing two parties to fix the system.

[readmoreoften]

32. Sorry, I'm progressive. I'm not open minded to every argument possible.

There's a difference. The reason why so many progressives respond badly to a pro-life argument isn't because they "aren't listening" but because they've heard it all before. If your son came up to me with general concerns about abortion, I would calmly explain my point. But if he was "testing my open-mindedness", I would most likely walk away. These days we don't need to become more sensitive and gentle towards our opposition, we need to stand firm about our basic priniciples. We are talking about survival here.

I am not open-minded when it comes to basic rights. No one should be. Without abortion, all women are potential murderers and many will be victims of the system. There is no room for open-mindedness. I am also not open-minded about racial injustice or hate crimes. I am not open-minded about GLBT rights. Only a person who is detached from the realities of these situations can be "open-minded."

I agree that the Democrats were party to the "War on Drugs" insanity. They've been a party to many bad Republican ideas over the last 20 years. I think this might have something to do with being "open-minded" on issues they should stand firm on. I'm not saying that we shouldn't analyze the evidence, but once we do there is no shame in being resolute. Particularly about human rights issues and government intrusion.

[Asgaya Dihi]

36. When it comes to basic rights, I agree

When it comes to basic rights, I agree, there's no room to give them up. How do we come to solutions though if we don't talk about concerns with each other?

Abortion isn't my issue, the drug war is a bit closer to it so I'll make my examples there. I talk to cops all the time, any chance I get to. Not because I've got some love of them, I spent much of my life hating them, but because that's where the work needs to be done and I've recently realized that many are decent guys who just don't know what else to do. If I or someone like me doesn't talk to them then their minds will never change and we'll do this from now till the end of time.

You might look at the abortion debate the same way. No, don't give up your beliefs. Might help to talk with people about them though, recognize that not everyone is driven by a need to dominate others. Some just believe they are talking about a life, and it is an issue they can't comfortably get past.

Now what's your better hope for a solution? Shut them down and make them sorry they ever brought it up, or listen to them and try to explain the other side so you can reach an eventually workable solution?

I don't have time for blame, either I'm working on a solution or I don't have time to deal with the person. Blame doesn't solve a thing, understanding does.

[readmoreoften]

40. I agree, the drug war is more fertile ground for discussion, though.

The drug war is complicated. I'm curious about how you feel about Michael Ruppert's "from the wilderness" website (ex-LAPD officer who charges the CIA with drug trafficking.) Not to mention Celerino "Cele" Castillo, an ex-DEA agent who testifies to massive government drug trafficking.

I don't blame the police either. They're just working joes.

I think abortion is a different kind of issue. Most of the opposition have very hardened positions rooted in religion. You just can't talk reason with that kind of irrationality. I think that photographic evidence of unviable fetuses in the womb are a good start towards getting them to see. But I see America moving towards an irrational religious insanity, and no amount of open-mindedness on our side is going to protect us from people who believe that babies are God's punishment for sexual impurity, or gay people should expect to be bashed a little.

How do you stop mass hallucination? I don't know. I think hard evidence is the best way to deal with it. Apologetics won't get us very far. I'm not sure evidence will do well either in a country where 2/3s of the people believe Jesus will return in our lifetime, and 1/3 of the citizens think God planted dinosaur bones as a way to test the creationists' faith.

[Asgaya Dihi]

41. Similar, and different.

Abortion is a different topic, but not as much as you would think. Drug war has become a religion of sorts, there's an old comment in reform circles about that. A policy is evaluated and adjusted, a Crusade is beyond question. Which do we have here? It hasn't worked in almost 100 years of being illegal and over 30 years of drug war, but it's an article of faith that all we need to do is be a little tougher. Same mindset applies to both more than you'd think, results don't matter so much as how drug war makes them feel about things, and that's been the case for decades. A simple look at the stats would have told anyone who cared where we really stood.

I've visited Michael Ruppert's web pages and they look interesting, but to tell the truth I haven't read most of what's there. Not that it isn't possibly useful to someone, it just wasn't to me. If I started going on about the CIA, about corrupt cops and officials, or any of that other stuff I'd lose half of my audience before I got through the first lines of a post. I tend to stick as much as I can to the basic facts, what we're doing now doesn't work and this is why, and these are our options.

The rest while it is a real issue and a big part of the damage caused it just isn't as useful for what I need to know, so I leave that angle to others.

In any case while I agree about the worst of the ones we face, in either debate, I don't think it should stop us from trying. We don't need to change everyones minds, or even most of them. Just enough to shift the balance, or to make it a legitimate subject for debate. In the case of the drug war I'm fairly convinced that once we make it a legitimate topic for debate instead of being read as just the tool of users who just want to get high it's all but over, the real results don't support it but most people just don't know. The only way to do that is to get out there and work on it, deal with the opposition. Some are thinking, even if many aren't yet.

[Mythsaje]

22. The Dems sure as hell haven't helped...

Like Clinton's parting statement "Marijuana should be legalized."

Great job, Bill. Thanks for helping to incarcerate thousands of non-violent "offenders" during your administration.

The Dems are JUST as responsible for the drug war as the Repugs. They bought into the rhetoric and allowed it to continue during their reign as well.

Keep in mind the Repugs didn't take back Congress until '94. You can't place the blame on the Repugs alone.

[Greyhound]

90. Sorry, but you need to check your facts,

as much as I loathed the idiot, raygun did not start the "war on drugs". The first "war on drugs" was declared in the early 20th century and has been re-declared, in one form or another, by every administration since. Sadly the whole thing has been used to prop up, or ensure the success of, various business interests.

[converted_democrat]

100. What?

"A lot of times liberals are reluctant to admit that they've caused damage, the drug war would be a good example."

Why would that be a good example?

[Asgaya Dihi]

101. Because both need to change the approach

It's not a matter of one being more or less responsible than the other, even if one is both have taken turns at drug war and as long as all we want to do is to blame the other side neither will evaluate what they've done. Sometimes people get defensive and blame the other side rather than accepting that both have at times contributed to the problem.

I was in the system myself as a kid and there's millions more affected by it today by being in custody, on probation or parole, having voting rights removed, having parents removed from their kids and funding stripped from already troubled neighborhoods, and so on. We really don't have time for blame, it's real people and it needs to be worked on as soon as possible.

[SmokingJacket]

7. Specifics?

Sweeping statements rub me the wrong way.

[Mythsaje]

8. Well, let's see...

Bans in schools...Pop machines, Cell phones, etc...

Sweeping smoking bans that even restrict the ability to smoke outside.

There's a few.

[SmokingJacket]

16. Yeah, but you're jumbling different kinds of cases together...

Bans in schools effect children, and schools are acting in loco parentis -- I would be hard pressed to say that soda shouldn't be sold in schools is even the tiniest bit "fascistic," especially since it's the beverage companies themselves who are agreeing to do this. There are good reasons for banning cell phones, but also good reasons for keeping them -- but again, it's hardly fascist. Now, if the GOVT banned soda or cell phones in SHOPPING MALLS, that would a whole different matter.

Bans on smoking I'm more ambivalent about. Personally, I think bars and other entertainment establishments should be able to allow smoking -- no one HAS to go into a bar if they don't want to. Still, I understand the concerns about workers being exposed to second hand smoke... so I don't know. IMHO smoking bans have gone a bit too far.

The difference between liberal attempts to control behavior and conservative ones are that, in general, liberals want to protect the "innocent," like children and allergic people, while conservatives want to keep people from "sinning."

I don't think they're the same thing, though sometimes they appear that way on the surface.

[Mythsaje]

25. The soda companies were pressured into it...

but I'm not sure I worry too much about that. My issue is that we cheer the restriction of choice as long as it's OUR axe we're grinding. I'm rarely happy about any of it. I don't like the idea of getting our kids accustomed to obeying arbitrary rules. Sets a bad example, making conformity an automatic reaction that I think the Repugs get way too much mileage out of.

[Klukie]

113. Very well stated...

I couldn't agree more.

[The Straight Story]

123. You say:

Bans on smoking I'm more ambivalent about. Personally, I think bars and other entertainment establishments should be able to allow smoking -- no one HAS to go into a bar if they don't want to. Still, I understand the concerns about workers being exposed to second hand smoke... so I don't know. IMHO smoking bans have gone a bit too far.

And I think you hit on exactly what the OP was talking about.
There are conflicts in values we have within the party, and obviously conflicts outside the party on values. When they are trying to force theirs, or we ours we are both doing at the core the same thing - thrusting our beliefs down someone else's throat because we think we know best for them (which is odd since we are a big tent party).

Smoking in bars is one such example. People choose to go there, people choose to work there, and if people wanted they could choose to open smoke free bars and people could choose to work at those ones instead. There were choices for all. Now...well not many choices - and I can tell you from personal experience people still smoke in bars here (they give you an empty bottle) and the cops don't enforce it around my area at all (in fact, they were in the bar one night over a theft and people just kept smoking). All it has done is made more criminals :)

[readmoreoften]

24. I'm with you on most of those. Maybe even all.

I hate smoking bans and I'm a non-smoker. I understand where the ban on soda in schools comes from, though. (At least in some cases)

In NYC, about 10 years ago, there was a school district that was funded by Cola-Cola. Coke gave billions of dollars to the schools, but the schools had to make a sales quota of the product. The kids had to sit through Coke ads in the morning, and they were encouraged to drink Coke all day long. They were even allowed to leave in the middle of a teacher's lecture to buy Coke.

I don't think schools should be product placement prisons, either.

I know that NYU now has a school-wide ban of selling Coke products (not drinking, but selling) because of their murder of a labor activist in South America and their horrific human rights abuses. That sort of ban (a selling ban, not a prohibition) is just voting with your dollars.

I don't think we should go crazy about sugar in schools, either, though.

[Mythsaje]

26. I'm boycotting Coke right now because of that stuff myself...

LOL

Personal choice. :shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

33. There's an even better reason to boycott Coke

Their anti union actions in South America.

[Mythsaje]

43. That's part of it too...n/t

[rucky]

46. Pop and smoking are public health issues

just as much as personal freedom issues. That's a legit debate. definately doesn't warrant name-calling.

as for cell-phones: if you were a teacher, would you want them ringing in your classroom? wouldn't that affect the rest of the class' right to learn?

[Mythsaje]

47. I'm tired of all this arm-twisting...

Society doesn't own people. People own themselves and I think some people would like to forget that.

[rucky]

58. Libertarian may be the party for you.

But many Dems believe that there should be laws designed to protect people when the actions of others (and corporations) affect their health and well-being. How that plays out in practice is an entirely different ball of wax, but that should be your source of frustration. That's a matter of equal protection under the law, which we're all fighting for, here.

There are a fair share of uptight nannies on our side of the fence, and I agree that most disputes can and should be resolved interpersonally. BUT, with all your examples, the issues have been decided upon locally - (smoking bans, pop bans). These are things you can debate face-to-face about, and deals with the reality that we all have to live here together. I think once the federal government starts interfering in these community decisions is when we start crying for our freedom.

[Mythsaje]

60. I think the Libertarians are way extreme...

I don't consider corporations to be "people." I believe in regulating corporations but leaving people to live their lives with as little interference as possible.

[readmoreoften]

109. Smoking bans don't send people to the libertarian party.

The Libertarian Party are center-right libertarians. That means they believe in unchecked capitalist expansion. No democrat is going to go libertarian because they don't like smoking bans.

The OP's post comes from a solid left-libertarian leaning, which is best expressed by the Democrats or Green party. Just because you don't like cellphone bans doesn't mean you like flat taxes or unionbusting.

[devilgrrl]

63. And it's liberals that are responsible????

WTF are talking about?

BTW, I truly resent the title of this thread. Because Friendly Fascism has NOTHING to do with what you're talking about.

[Mythsaje]

64. I resent the attempt

to exchange one set of arbitrary rules based on one set of values for another set of arbitrary rules based upon another set of values.

It's the ultimate in irony to say "we're for freedom" if that's just code for "we want OUR rules to be implemented, not yours. WE want to say what people can and cannot do based on what WE think is right."

[devilgrrl]

65. Who's WE?

You're making shit up.

BTW, I'm up 4 hours earlier than normal, I highly suggest that you completely ignore me.

[Protagoras]

85. What counts as a *Non-arbitrary rule or value in your view?

I'm just curious. Most ethnographers, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists have been hard pressed to find any substantially sized society that functioned without some rules...and "arbitrary" rules do seem rather absurd and oppressive (Thou shalt not wear YELLOW!) etc. So what are some acceptable non-arbitrary rules so we can all be clear on what the philosophical underpinnings of our society should be?

[Mythsaje]

92. I already covered this in my OP. n/t

[benEzra]

115. Restrictions on actions that directly infringe the rights of others...

are OK.

Restrictions on actions "for your own good" are NOT ok. The government is not my mother. If you want someone to make your life choices for you, fine--go sign up with the cult of your choice and do what your leader says. But don't take away MY choices just because you don't think I might choose the same as you would. If an adult wants to occasionally ride a bike without a helmet, FINE. They want to smoke (or attend a bar that allows it), FINE. They want to drink, FINE (just don't drive while impaired). They even want to smoke cannabis plants instead of tobacco plants, FINE. I wouldn't choose to do so, but I am quite busy running my own life and don't see that I should be trying to meddle in someone else's.

One of my pet peeves is the "public health" bishops who want to force everyone to live THEIR way, thereby trashing the entire concept of post-Enlightenment individual freedom. Rewind the whole concept of individual rights back to pre-Enlightenment times, except with THEM in charge instead of the Pope, of course... Spare me.

Abortion is NOT the only issue that people have the right to choose, dammit. If you believe a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion, does she not also have the right to choose to ride a motorcycle with the wind in her hair? Or to smoke a cigarette? Or to drink alcohol? Or to responsibly own a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out (heresy, heresy)?

People who want the government to stay out of THEIR choices, but want to order it into the choices of those whom they disagree with, are hypocrites of the first order, whether they are a freeper or a progressive.

In a free country, I shouldn't be forced to live by Jerry Falwell's dictates. But neither should I be forced to live as Ralph Nader or Dianne Feinstein dictates, either. I have the right as a free individual to live as *I* choose, as long as I don't deny anyone else their rights in doing so.

[Mythsaje]

125. You hit it right on the head

and did a better job than I did. Thank you.

[Phx_Dem]

188. restrictions on behavior

like substance abuse, suicide, self mutilation are all things that no gov. should regulate?

[Mythsaje]

190. Here the real question is whether

government CAN regulate these things? Substance abuse? Oh, yeah, we've got a handle on that one. NOT.

Self-mutilation? Some people consider a multitude of piercings to be a form of self-mutilation. Should we legislate their prejudices into law?

We can arrest and charge people for attempting suicide--if they succeed, they're pretty much past our rules and regulations.

[Gabi Hayes]

78. thank you....ridiculous conceptualizing going on here

damn liberals

SO fricking powerful

it's time to LET CORPORATIONS be CORPORATIONS, dammit!

[Mythsaje]

79. My position has NOTHING to do with corporations...

Not about this topic. But I will say that I resent corporations being given MORE freedoms while ours are being taken away.

Corporations are NOT people, and should not have the same rights people do.

[Gabi Hayes]

82. hey! good for you!

but those damn liberals and all their nasty, fascist rulemaking, y'know?

where will it end?

it's called inference

[Mythsaje]

95. ANYONE who believes the answer to everything

is in creating more rules is going to be the target of my ire. I don't give a rat's ass what their ideology is.

You might consider reading my journal if you're confused about my own ideology...such as it is. I paint a pretty clear picture of where I'm coming from.

[readmoreoften]

110. it's not called inference. it's called reading the OP. /nt

[Solon]

67. I don't understand your argument in regards to soda in school...

Its a regulation on BUSINESSES that are trying to form up local "monopolies" within enviroments that, until you are 16 in most states, are NOT optional for most people. Kids could still bring sodas to school if they want, but why not have the standard fare that all schools used to have, milk and various juices. Banning a business from selling stuff on Government property should be a given, and not necessarily a bad thing. We don't allow McDonald's to open up a restaurant in there, why are soda machines "required" or even perferable? The Government is also free to restict what businesses can sell on any government property, let Coca Cola on schools, tell them low fat/low sugar products only is also a reasonable restriction on a business.

As far as the smoking bans, I agree, it should be left up to individual establishments, and the biggest reason is because it regulates a behavior for individuals, or restricts where they could smoke. We already have littering laws for butts of cigs, and businesses are free to ban smoking as much as they want, if they want, there is no NEED to legislate it.

As far as cellphones in school, common sense should rule the day, if a student disrupts class due to the use of a cellphone, displine them, as appropriate, detention or in-school suspension should suffice, and possibly ban them from having cellphones on school property at all. But that is it, not an outright ban, but schools suffer from CYA(Cover Your Ass) syndrom, and its neither a liberal or conservative thing, and usually restricted to the Administrators. Zero tolerance policies are an example of that shit gone wrong.

I agree on the drug war and other Stupid Shit the Government Does(TM), deplorable and an workaround of the Constitution is all that is.

[Mythsaje]

73. To tell the truth, I don't care about the pop machines, really...

It was just another example of what I'm trying to say. My wife and I talked about that one last night. She made money by buying candy off campus and selling it at a markup to kids who didn't live close to the one store in the area that sold that particular type of candy.

The administration was not amused.

And they're not going to be amused by the kids who bring and sell pop at a profit because it's not available through the school anymore.

[DrunkenMaster]

139. Yeah!

Damn those "liberal fascists" who ban cell phone use in the classrooms! How dare they!

[BoneDaddy]

176. Pop machines?

Like I want some corporation making money off our kids as well as making them sick with the absolute crap sodas have in them. Soda has NO redeeming social or nutritional value other than it tasts good. I am anti-soda due to nutrition and the corporate windfall they make off of poisoning kids with the sugar and caffeine.

No one is saying that they can't drink it, we are saying it should not be prostituted in public schools by corporations.

[BillZBubb]

20. Well, then we certainly disagree.

I am not a conservative, libertarian, or anarchist. Maybe you are one of the latter. I firmly believe in government regulation of business. I also believe most freedoms have limits. You cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded place, you cannot dump whatever you want on land you own, etc. I also think your "directly harm" and "measurable danger" milestones set the bar too high in many cases. A lot of indirect, yet very real harm, is done in the name of freedom. A lot of latent danger too.

There is nothing wrong with railing against a conservative approach to societal problems. That is sensible since they are almost always wrong. There is also nothing hypocritical about then proposing an alternative set of ideas based on liberal values, even if those ideas encroach on absolute freedoms.

[Mythsaje]

28. Hey, conformity is GOOD, right?

As long as it's US who're forcing people to conform.

I'm no anarchist. But I believe in personal choice. And I detest hypocrisy. Freedom isn't a sometimes thing. It either is or isn't. Every arbitrary rule, be it cast by the left or the right, is another restriction placed upon us. Just more pressure to conform, just another tie that binds.

I don't think we should be raising our kids to believe rules are the end-all to everything. This feeds the Repug agenda.

[davekriss]

144. Not Friendly Fascism, but Rational Cooperation

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there
government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and
life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson

I am an anarchist, Mythsaje, an anarcho-syndicalist, to be precise. That latter half of the label means I believe it is a shared good to come together and collectively solve problems as, for some matters, we are stronger and more effective together than we are individually. That means we can agree to limit freedoms. And that means we form "rules". Let me explain.

Liberty is a funny animal. We are all always and absolutely "free" -- but "freedom" is illusory. I am free, for example, to stand in the middle of the highway during the height of rush hour. But the freedom of others to drive home will quickly negate my freedom (think roadkill). On the other hand, I am free to drop a giant barricade up the road to secure my freedom to stand in the middle of the road. This "freedom", it turns out, appears to be a Schopenhaurean Will to Power and is the final adjudication of many competing freedoms. Thus one person's "liberty" can be another person's "tyranny". So something else needs to factor into the equation before "liberty" is a good in itself. What can that be?

It is in our mutual self-interest to come together and agree to exercise our freedoms cooperatively. Using the example above, we can agree to take turns. Perhaps tax ourselves to construct and install a traffic light that alternately stops traffic to allow pedestrians to cross the road and then stops pedestrians so traffic can freely flow. Such is the basis for the Liberal State. But as soon as the rights of one party supercede the rights of another, we introduce strife. For example, if drivers are allowed to speed through a red light without consequences if they feel they need to hurry. Pedestrians will plan sit-ins and obstruct traffic! Even throw rocks through windshields of passing cars! Revolution!!! Instead, to secure the highest liberty for all, a sense of justice and fairness must prevail. Otherwise the system will break down and instead open all up to possible dangers of tyranny. Equality, as in reciprocal fairness and justice for all, serves as the foundation for Liberty -- Equality thus precedes Liberty, is a higher good, something we all should strive for.

Like all good libertarians (and an "anarcho-syndicalist" is a good social-libertarian), I think there is value in rule-making at the border where one individual's liberty begins to infringe on the next. There is no greater example of that than the "marketplace". There is much value to me as an individual, and to you and others here, to agree to rules that create a geniune equality of opportunity, that flatten peaks and valleys of boom-bust capitalism, that ensure fair trade and fair distribution of the value we collectively create, and more. These rules do not represent "friendly fascism", but rational cooperative action. The alternative is the tyranny that Jefferson speaks to in the quote above, a tyranny where "the law of the strongest" is in place "and life and property are his who can take them". We can choose better than surrender to those who don't value equality, which is what abandoning the "rule making" of democracy amounts to, despite our current problems.

[benEzra]

159. That's the way it SHOULD be...

the problem comes when rule-making leaves the domain of actions that infringe the rights/choices of others, and rules begin to be made that force people to live what the elites think are "best practice" lives. The "it's for your own good" motive for rulemaking is at its heart an antiprogressive and anti-Enlightenment position, yet it sometimes masquerades as a progressive one.

[Bridget Burke]

183. Thank you for the thoughtful explanation.

Some people who talk about "liberty" are really seething about those high school rules that were so, like, unfair! Many of us have been out of high school for some time.

Do people consider you a radical? "Rational cooperative action"--sounds so, um, rational.

[porphyrian]

34. Rules are for people that need them.

I'm sure most people would not agree with this statement.

[davekriss]

145. Yes, I would not agree...

...however, a Strassarian neo-con would say yes, rules are for people that need them, but not for the ruling elite, who are above all rules.

[mdmc]

35. I'm down with social regulation

:shrug:
We need to regulate shiite. For instance, kids should not be able to buy soda in school. Kids should not be able to buy smokes.

[Mythsaje]

42. And then some enterprising kid

starts bringing soda and selling it out of the trunk of his car, or out of his backpack. Then another level of control has to be instituted and we find ourselves in the middle of a War on Pop.

[mdmc]

94. there will always be crime

:shrug:

[Mythsaje]

96. That's NOT a crime...

But, hey, we can always pass a law to MAKE it a crime. Don't you LOVE how that works?

I don't.

[mdmc]

98. Selling cigarettes to kids is a crime

selling pretty much anything without a permit is a crime.

I have no problem with regulation. Of course, I am a liberal, and believe in big government.

[Mythsaje]

126. Who was talking about cigarettes?

And this is the sort of thinking that makes kids with lemonade stands into "criminals."

Hell, yeah. That's the America I want to live in! Woo-hoo! Sign me up.

[mdmc]

131. i am

regulation is good. anarchy is better. :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

133. Uh-huh

To quote:

"Sign, Sign, everywhere a sign,
blocking up the scenery
breaking my mind.
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

Get the people accustomed to being good little compliant worker-citizens, obeying as many rules and regulations as we can devise. That's what it's all about, right? As long as it's OUR rules they're obeying. Ignore those other guys. They're bastards.

Opposing rampant micro-management of human behavior is NOT the same thing as promoting anarchy. Why in the hell do you really think the Repugs have been so successful at controlling the country? It's not just the complicit and compliant media. It's because we're raising our kids to respect and obey authority--follow the rules, go along to get along. Do this, don't do that. Can't you read the sign?

If they don't, well, we can always slap a psychological label on them (ADD, ADHD, ODD, etc...) and medicate them into compliance.

[mdmc]

137. don't give me rules.... all I got is rules

i hear you.

peace.

The lost verse:

As I was walking, I saw a sign hangin
a sign sayin, "No Trespassing"
but on the other side, it said nothin'
that side is made for you and me....

This land is your land! This land is my land!

Peace!

[Ciggies and coffee]

132. Individuals practicing free-market capitalism tend to be frowned upon

If you are a huge company, not only will the government look the other way, they will run interference on your competition.

[GoneOffShore]

39. I find myself in favor of "civil liberties"

But not so much "Libertarian".

More thoughts on this later.

[rucky]

44. Like what? n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. So, you're ranting against people telling others what to do,.....

...by telling others what to do?

Interesting approach.

Good luck, and good night.

[Mythsaje]

48. There are many different types of fundy...

And they all piss me off.

[EstimatedProphet]

49. Agreed

We have to learn that other people's lives are other people's lives, and so long as what they do doesn't adversely affect other people, then leave them be.

[JackDragna]

50. Your argument doesn't fly.

To me, a liberal believes in individuals making whatever choices they want so long as those choices do not hurt other people. Second-hand smoke causes significant health problems. Soda in schools contributes to making our children unhealthy. Like it or not, every society in existence has had rules of conduct, rules society must live by. Liberals simply err on the side of making rules that favor the interest of the many while at the same time preserving as much liberty as possible.

I see no equivocation between, say, banning smoking in public places and forcing religion in our public schools. Forcing religion in our schools ruins our secular institutions and forces a worldview on students. Banning smoking in public places merely prevents others from harming society through their habits.

[Mythsaje]

51. Not to the conservatives it doesn't...

They believe that gays harm people by THEIR habits. And we, rightfully, find that sort of thing unacceptable.

It doesn't hurt anyone if someone's smoking outside in a park, yet people find it acceptable to ban such things. You, and others like you, don't have the right to tell my kids what they can and cannot drink. That's MY job, and their mother's job.

[JackDragna]

53. Their argument is flawed, too.

Consenting adults harm no one by engaging in sex acts. You can try to say each side has its own viewpoints, but theirs is in error. There is no similarity between the actions of homosexuals and, say, second-hand smoke.

As for your kids, schools surely have the right to tell your children what they can and cannot drink, insofar as the schools can choose to remove vending machines selling unhealthy food. Perhaps schools cannot prevent kids from bringing their own sodas, but schools can still do everything in their power to promote healthy living among their student body.

[Mythsaje]

54. Second hand smoke outside

is no more dangerous to someone nearby than exhaust from passing automobiles. So that argument is a bit flawed as well.

And you know as well as I do that the pressure from outside will convince the schools to come up with a way to ban "unacceptable" drinks from the school grounds completely. It's a natural extention of existing policies. First it'll be the enterprising kid who brings a half rack of pop and sells it out of the trunk of his car, or out of his backpack. Then, in response to this, they'll ban pop completely.

And the friendly fascists will cheer. After all, it's for their own good.

[JackDragna]

56. I'm not so sure about the pop thing.

I'm not so sure if banning smokes in the park is more about the butts left behind than the smoke. Certainly, in wide open areas, I think most people would favor allowing smoking to continue.

Your argument about the soda, however, is a flawed "slippery slope" argument. Until it happens, you're simply using it as a red herring to prove your point.

I'm sorry, but it's not fascism to have rules governing the conduct of certain segments of our society. Like it or not, we have rules about certain things, about what people can and cannot do. As a liberal, I am not being a "fascist" when I believe in laws designed to encourage the safety of others. I suppose I am for the "fascism" of requiring labels on food products, making people pay their taxes, not yelling "fire!" as a prank in crowded theaters, making those under the employ of public institutions use non-discriminatory hiring policies and so on. In each case, the freedom, in some sense, of an individual or an entity is limited from a pure state of unfettered freedom. I accept these laws as necessary, however, for the proper and equitable functioning of a civilized society. What separates me from the right is that they have little interest in an equitable society: their laws are designed to shape the intellectual and political will of others, usually with the result of protecting reactionary societal forces.

[Mythsaje]

66. I'm wary of the slippery slope

because when it comes to regulating stuff, there are too many people all too happy to grease that slope. Take the seatbelt law here in Washington State. I'm all for seatbelts, and believe that everyone should wear them, and there should be a penalty for those who don't use them to keep their kids secure.

But when the law first passed it was passed under the notion that an adult without a seatbelt would be a "secondary" offense, and that they had to first pull you over for another infraction before it would be possible to cite you for it.

I thought they were full of shit then, misrepresenting their intentions just to get it on the books. And, lo and behold, some years later, they decided to make it a primary infraction and had a huge "click it or ticket" drive to advertise their new feel-good policy that they arrived at through the back door.

Now this isn't a personal issue with me. I always wear my seatbelts. I think it's just good sense.

And I know all the arguments for it--how it costs the taxpayers, saves lives, yada-yada-yada. So basically the idea is that society OWNS me and my body because it has some financial or emotional investment in my well-being. How's that again?

It saves lives. Well, no duh. But in what way is mandatory seatbelt usage a justifiable use of state authority, enforced by threat of physical force in the person of armed peace officers? They may not shoot me for not wearing my seatbelt, but they put the authority to enforce the law in the hands of people who COULD shoot me and probably get away with it should they see a reason to do so.

I really don't trust authority not to get carried away. That's what authority does. Just one more thing the state can require me to do, as if the whole host of things it already requires me to do aren't enough. "Do what we tell you to, or else."

I really don't want ANYONE trying to pass laws to push their agenda on me. I don't like it when the Christians try it, and I'm not real thrilled when anyone else does it either. I'm not a big fan of the "implied social contract" if it means that other people get to make decisions for me with ever increasing frequency. That isn't even a distant cousin to freedom.

[JackDragna]

69. You can be wary of the slope..

..but invoking it as a means to proving an argument is not sound. As to people pushing their agendas on you, I'm sorry, but this is part of a Westernized democracy. The people do have the right to pass laws that regulate society. There is a marked difference, in my mind, between those who pass laws for the benefit of the general welfare of people and those who pass it with the welfare of themselves or a specific group in mind. That people may pass such laws is not fascism.

[Mythsaje]

72. I know what the "slippery slope" fallacy is...

I'm just not sure when it comes to this particular argument, it's a fallacy at all. It WILL get worse. It always does. Would it have been a fallacy to point out that if we gave Bush any room at all, he'd run with it and run rough-shod over the Constitution?

No. We did point it out, and he DID run rough-shod over the Constitution. And in the beginning people DID call my warnings a "slippery slope" fallacy. Who was right?

I'm opposed to authoritarianism in general. I don't care WHO'S shoving their ideology down my throat. There should be very strict limits on what we'll accept. What the hell difference does it make if it's the rabid right or the rabid left determining which set of rules we'll have to follow?

And the only reason it's "part of a Westernized democracy" is there are FAR too many people who LIKE being told what to do, and will make excuses for it as long as it's not their ox being gored. Most people are followers. They'll do what they're told without thinking too much about it.

I'm not one of those people.

[JackDragna]

102. Is it the "rabid left"..

..when people pass laws regulating certain elements of society for the benefit of all? And the reason it's part of westernized democracy is because we cannot live without rules regulating certain parts of our economy. Put rather bluntly, your own personal safety, security and liberty requires laws that occasionally prevent others from infringing upon them. There is no lawless utopia where people can simply act without being under the influence of some laws.

As far as being told people like to be told what to do, I doubt the smokers, soda drinkers or anyone else much likes being told "X will no longer happen." These things, however, do happen because of the general benefit to society as a whole. It has nothing to do with enforcing some kind of rigid doctrine upon these people strictly out of ideological reasons.

You also continue to make a slippery slope fallacy in this instance. You can keep claiming things will get worse, but until they actually do, your argument is fallacious. Granted, that does not mean people shouldn't be on their guard, particularly when it comes to the president, but that's a big leap from expecting that schools are all of a sudden about to turn into the "soda police" and prevent children from bringing the stuff to school.

[benEzra]

117. The freepers argue that banning sex toys and porn...

are for the general benefit of society as a whole...

The Comstock Law was justified on that basis. So was Prohibition.

[Mythsaje]

127. Just wait.

People get infected by a "let's fix THIS problem next" mentality, thinking that rules and regulations are some sort of magic bullet for society's problems. They're not. They simply result in criminalizing behavior that wasn't previously a crime, and turning MORE people into "criminals."

Whatever.

[rucky]

61. The outdoor smoking bans are over the top.

but in a democratic society, how do you prevent ridiculous, knee-jerk decisions from being made democratically?

[Mythsaje]

62. Now there's the crux of the problem...

Where do you draw the line? What's acceptable and what's NOT acceptable?

It isn't supposed to be mob rule. The majority doesn't get to make ALL the rules and expect everyone else to blithely follow along. Doesn't matter if it's done on a federal level, or on the local level.

I got a chuckle out of some documentary I saw once that explained how confused the Hopi were about our notion of democracy. "The majority wins? How is that fair for the minority? That just creates a disenfranchised faction. We don't leave council until we have a suitable compromise."

[davekriss]

146. The Bill of Rights

I think that is what our forefathers meant to use to "draw the line" on what a majority can impose.

[rman]

173. Smoke ban in public places not the same as smoke ban outside.

Smoking ban in not a black-and-white issue. It is exactly because liberals prefer rules that "favor the interest of the many while at the same time preserving as much liberty as possible" that many do support smoking ban in public places, but not "outside in a park". Also most progressives i know do not support an all out smoking ban for restaurants and bars.

Yet you seem to be trying to create the impression that all smoking bans are the same and that it is supported by progressives.

[Mythsaje]

179. SOME so-called progressives support ALL bans...

because they hate smoking. Period.

And if they can get the law to force the issue on their behalf, they're fine with it.

THESE are the people I'm talking about...

[rman]

192. emphasis on "some" - you're making a huge issue

out of something that isn't.

[Mythsaje]

194. And yet somewhere near half the replies on this thread

suggest that others understand EXACTLY what I'm getting at here.

[rman]

199. logical fallacy - Ad Populum

The fact that "others" agree with you has no bearing on our discussion.

[Mythsaje]

202. The fuck it doesn't.

It means that I'm not standing here by myself pointing out that there are those self-described "liberals" who believe it's perfectly okay to tell others what to do even if they've no right to do so, and there are those of us who think it's bullshit. It's a dividing line between two different types of "progressive" that people on YOUR side don't even want to admit exists.

[rman]

204. You seriously think i should be convinced to agree with you

because others agree with you?

[Mythsaje]

208. Oh, no...

I'm pretty certain it's not going to happen no matter what. You don't CARE what any of us think about the subject.

[rman]

68. ban, restrict, impede use of anything they deem unacceptable - SUCH AS?

Don't say "guns" because libs generally don't want to ban but to regulate gun ownership.

In the mean time it's W's neocon gang who are all about penalizing people for having the potential to screw up - it's called pre-emption aka precautionary principle aka preventative paradigm.

Lastly, i take it you don't consider yourself to be one of "THEY" (liberals) - so basically you're a RW-er who comes here to spout RW talking points. Accusing the opposition of exactly that which the RW is guilty of is a common RW tactic. It's called projection.

[Mythsaje]

74. If you think I'm a RWer, you're not paying attention.

I'm an anti-authoritarian. I don't like being pushed around by either the left OR the right. And I'm a liberal, but I'm referring to the liberals who want to restrict freedom. A sub-group, if you will.

[rman]

118. Must be a very small subgroup

In your OP you did not specify that it's just a subgroup - you indentified this group as "freedom loving liberals".

And you have yet to mention any actual examples of what this subgroup wants to ban, restrict, and impede.

[Mythsaje]

128. See the quotations?

I'm referring to people who would define themselves in this manner, and yet act in a totally different manner.

Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans, etc... These aren't "conservative" deals. They're pure "liberal." It's just exchanging one set of masters for another.

[rman]

149. How are Helmet laws, seatbelt laws "penalizing" people?

Even smoking bans - although i do think it's being taken to far in several instances - are not "penalizing" people.

[Mythsaje]

152. They're taking away individual choice and responsibility...

and replacing them with a paternalistic (maternalistic) government authority that presumes to have the right to make decisions on their behalf regarding their own safety and well-being. More rules to live by do NOT make a person more free. This sort of thing makes the citizen the SUBJECT of the government and simply gives more power to the idea that the government has not only the right, but the responsibility, to demand obedience from the people.

Plenty of people get exactly what I'm saying. And those that don't, well, they're part of the problem.

[Phx_Dem]

189. helmet laws protect

the rider and everyone else they may come in "contact" with.

[Mythsaje]

191. I can see protecting the rider...but everyone else? n/t

[Phx_Dem]

205. My point was that helmet laws

(bike or moto) protect the rider as well as the motorist and the community. Consider an accident between a motorcycle and car. If the rider is not wearing a helmet then there is a huge increase in the likelihood that cranial damage could occur. If the person dies, then the person who was driving the auto has to deal with that, and the insurance company has to pay on a claim involving a fatality as opposed to injury.

On the surface it might seem as though helmet laws are only concerned with the rider, but as I have pointed out, other drivers, and the community at large all can be impacted by this "so called" personal choice.

[Mythsaje]

209. You know ER workers refer to motorcycles

as "donor cycles?" There's a reason for this. You have to wonder whether we should just ban anything that's less safe than a car.

Oh, wait. We've got fuel efficiency to think about.

What a puzzler.

[Phx_Dem]

215. I ride a motorcycle..

not as much as I used to. I have never liked helmet laws, in fact I did not wear one most of the time, though I do understand the reasoning behind them.

"You have to wonder whether we should just ban anything that's less safe than a car."

I realize you are being glib, but you have hit on the main issue, whether the community interest is greater that the individuals rights. A few years back for example, congress considered HP limits on motorcycles, you can make good arguments either way.

[benEzra]

225. That argument can be used to ban ANYTHING

that is risky to the individual.

The guy who sits on his butt watching TV and doesn't exercise is going to rack up health care costs that the other people on his insurance plan are going to pay. JUST LIKE the helmetless motorcyclist in your example. Would that make it right to legislate diet and exercise?

I would say the "indirect financial harm" argument is absolutely and completely bogus when used to justify restrictions on individual, personal choice.

[benEzra]

155. I don't own a motorcycle...

but if I did, I'd usually wear a helmet, and would ALWAYS wear one if commuting or riding where there's traffic.

BUT, if I wish to occasionally ride without a helmet in a place where there is little to no traffic, say a scenic road somewhere, and feel the wind in my hair, it's MY choice to weigh that risk/benefit ratio and make the choice. "My body, my choice," dammit!

If you think helmet wearing should be mandatory all the time, everywhere (instead of letting the rider make the choice), do you believe that failing to exercise should be a crime? It's more likely to kill you, and the cost to society of people who don't get off their duffs is much greater than the cost of people injured in motorcycle accidents...

How about eating Ben & Jerry's if your BMI is over 25? Should that be a crime, too?

The problem is, there are more people who eat Ben & Jerry's than there are people who like to ride motorcycles recreationally, so the Ben & Jerry's eaters get to keep their choice, while the recreational motorcycle riders often get their choice piously taken away.

FWIW, I DO own a 10-speed road bike (the pedal-powered, skinny-tired, drop-handlebar kind). I have a helmet, and wear one when riding in traffic. I choose NOT wear one when riding around the neighborhood streets (very low traffic). My body, my choice. If you don't like it, YOU get a bike and ride around your neighborhood while wearing a helmet, but don't try to compel me by force of law to live by YOUR choices.

I'm a human being and a free citizen of a free country; you are NOT my mother, and neither are your representatives in the legislature. Is that really such a radical concept?

[Mythsaje]

165. To some people it's so radical as to be inconceivable.

We can do little more than keep trying, though.

[benEzra]

119. Sure...and the repubs don't want to ban abortion, either...

ban, restrict, impede use of anything they deem unacceptable - SUCH AS?

Don't say "guns" because libs generally don't want to ban but to regulate gun ownership.

Sure, and the repubs don't want to ban abortion, either--they just want to regulate it in such a way that the only allowed abortions are those to save the life of the mother...

The Moral Majority doesn't want to ban books, they just want to regulate them...meaning not allowing the sale or possession of books they disapprove of...

How is that different from those who wish to ban all guns except those useful for hunting?

Whether you agree or disagree with Senator Feinstein et al on the desirability of gun bans, the fact remains that a lot of gun owners were alarmed by Gore and Kerry's promises to outlaw and confiscate rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds, and rifles and handguns that hold more than 10 rounds. Maybe that's not "banning all guns," but it sure as heck would ban half the guns in our gun safe...

[rman]

121. Car ownership and use is regulated.

You make it sound as though any form of regulation is bad.

[benEzra]

122. I'm not opposed to regulation...

I support the huge array of restrictions embodied in the National Firearms Act as amended, the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, the "cop-killer bullet ban of 1986, the NCIS background check system, prohibitions on possession and use by criminals, and so on. Many people actually think you can go buy a military AK-47 and cop-killer bullets at a gun store, for example, which demonstrates total ignorance of U.S. firearms law...

Guns are already regulated more tightly than cars.

What I am opposed to is banning law-abiding adults with clean records from owning nonhunting style guns, such as the various proposals to ban civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, aka "assault weapons." We do NOT ban cars with spoilers and alloy wheels, because most Americans understand enough about cars to know that spoilers, air dams, shiny wheels, and levitation lights do not turn an ordinary car into a "race car" with "no legitimate transportation purpose," designed only to "out-run police and run down children." Yet many people do fall for such lines when applied to guns.

[davekriss]

147. Actually the ReThugs don't want to ban abortion...

...it would take away a rallying point around which they can win elections. If it were otherwise the Bush Regime and its henchmen in Congress would long ago have challenged Roe v. Wade with new legislation.

[WilliamPitt]

71. Too many progressives

are, in the words of Frank Herbert, "secret aristocrats," yearning for the same kind of power over their fellow citizens as those they oppose.

They want to do good for people. So ban hamburgers because of the methane produced by cows. Ban all meat, because of the treatment of animals. Ban cars to save the air. Ban cellphones. Ban God.

Anyone, of any political stripe, can go too far.

[Mythsaje]

75. Thank you, Will...

That's what I'm trying to get at. And love the Frank Herbert quote.

What's that line from Demolition Man? Something about anything not good for you being illegal? It was, mostly, a nice, peaceful society. But a far cry from free.

[Greyhound]

93. When did liberal come to mean "we know better than you"? When I

was growing up "liberals" were for expanding individual freedoms, somewhere along the line the liberal-conservative debate has morphed into "what kind of police state do we want?".

[JackDragna]

103. Give me a break.

Too many progressives? How many is that? Half? A quarter? I doubt there's even a double-digit percentage of progressives who call for outright bans on any of these things. Many progressives may want people to eat less meat, drive hybrid cars or whatnot, but there are few progressive organizations out there with any strength that call for the complete banning of these things. Sounds like a red herring to me.

[Greyhound]

141. I take it you don't live in CA. All of the nanny-state laws

seem to originate there.

[rman]

170. Questions: how many, how do you know (given they are "secret")...

I may be mistaken but i seem to remember that you do support banning/restricting violent computer games.

Last time i checked i was the RW reli-fundies who claim that liberals/progressives want to "ban God" - you know, "the war on Christmas" and all that.

[leftofthedial]

76. I think you've been sucked into the whirlpool

of style's triumph over substance

after the revolution, we'll silence all the "conservatives" and then we'll come make you shut up

:sarcasm: :shrug:

[Odin2005]

83. Some degree of social engineering in neccissary in any society.

The problem is when the social engineering goes so far that it conflicts with human nature.

[Mythsaje]

97. I agree...

a certain amount is inevitable and arguably necessary. But I'm wondering if some people recognize that there should be limits. I get the feeling that some believe the only restrictions should be the ideology behind it--and THAT'S what I have an issue with.

[benEzra]

116. I would say the problem occurs when it conflicts with human RIGHTS...

"liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...I seem to have heard those words somewhere, jog my memory...

Society is not a construct where sociology grads, legislators, and epidemiologists get to run other people's lives for them. Real life is not Sim City or Civilization III. Society is a group of INDIVIDUALS that all have the right to make their own choices. Yes, social policies have social impacts (tax structure, economic structure, social safety nets, etc. etc. etc.), and social engineering has a place there. But you do NOT have the right to force me to live according to your ideal of a healthy, idyllic life, any more than I have the right to force you to live by my own choices.

"Live and let live" and all that...

[Greyhound]

86. Hear, hear, brother, rant on!

This is the single most significant reason so many amerikans don't like the Democratic Party.

[JackDragna]

104. And yet another "give me a break?"

Do you think the major reason people don't like the Democratic party is because of the fringe? You've drunk the Republican kool-aid that the extremists represent the majority of the party. The majority of Americans identify themselves as Democrats, yet we let ourselves get cast as commie-pinko, atheist homosexual moonbats because the party (and progressives in general) don't fight back hard enough and let the Republicans spin their lines about us in the media. I am disturbed that there seems to be so much sentiment on this board that the reason our party is in trouble is because people with views to the left of yours, who maybe don't do quite as good a job of brushing their hair or their teeth get the rest of us cast as extremists. Utter bilge.

[Greyhound]

140. No I don't. I think the reason so many people dislike The Democratic Party

is, as the OP stated, is that The Party advocates a nanny-state. "We know better than you" could well become the official motto of The Party. Now finally, they're waking up to the fact that the re:puke:s are even worse. However, this didn't change their opinion of the Democrats, and that is the only job they have this cycle, to build a realistic picture of what they want to do in order to change peoples impression of The Party.
I've lived in the bluest states we have (CA and NY) and worked in all of the others, I now live and work in the dark red belly of the beast, so I think I have gathered a pretty representative picture of the sheeple over the years. They primarily want to be left alone. Next, they want to be able to provide for their families and themselves. Finally, they want to feel safe, and this is where the re:puke:s keep killing the Dems. The Democratic candidate can always be counted on to provide 20 pages of political analysis, describing in excruciating detail, the problem from several POV, the most popular opinions as to what should be done about it, the domestic and international ramifications of each of the proposed courses of action including in-depth analysis of the estimated costs and potential liabilities of implementing said proposals. OTOH, the re:puke: lies "I'll get government off your back", "I'll let you keep more of your $", and "we'll keep you safe".

"they drink the sand, not because they don't know the difference, but because they are desperate."

[rman]

172. In spite of the fact that Repubs are much more restrictive then Dems?

That's odd.

It's true though that the RW does everything it can to create the impression that Liberals are "ban happy". But we do know that this "liberals are out to get you" is just propaganda, don't we?

[Mythsaje]

180. I think some self-described "progressives" or "liberals"

would be just as bad as the cons if given the chance.

If I hear "there should be a law," I flinch. Should there? Really?

[rman]

197. What are you saying - that there should be no law?

[woo me with science]

114. Eminent Domain against Walmart?

How about that?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/HERCULES.TMP

[The Straight Story]

124. It's all about faith/religion and spreading your own values

Let me start by saying that I think Jesus had the right idea - don't focus on changing the government and laws, change the hearts and minds of people instead.

That said: Liberalism, conservatism, etc are (to me) all belief systems. Religion is different in that there is someone else in the mix - but the dynamics are the same:
1. You believe something is right/good
2. You evangelize others - you attempt to sway people to your beliefs and ideals
3. When you get enough people you make your idea a law and punish those who do not follow it
4. The cycle repeats and changes as new beliefs and people over time start at step 1.

Then too, the constitution is like the bible - most have read it and yet they come away with a different view of things (like, oh, the 2nd amendent perhaps). We have attorney's and judges, whereas the church has ministers, pastors, cardinals, et al.

So someone comes up with an idea about cell phones in school and decides their idea is superior and they ram it through while not really giving a whit about it's effects (because they believe it is right it must be).

So yeah, I agree with your OP :)

[Mythsaje]

129. I'm affected by my wife's view of things sometimes...

She leans Libertarian, but, for the moment, votes Dem because it's our best bet to get the country out of the hands of the rabid right. We disagree on economic principles as a matter of course, but we tend to agree with one another re: personal liberty. There's a point where government micro-management of the citizens goes too far even on the "left." She finds the seatbelt laws repulsive to the extreme, for example.

Mandatory auto insurance, while a good idea on the surface, ended up coupled with rampant deregulation and resulted in near obscene profits for the insurance companies and almost no real benefit for the citizenry. In fact, the insurance companies will go to nearly any length to avoid paying out anything near the amount that they should to those who have been feeding them for years. Insurance rates certainly haven't gone down much, if at all, which, if I remember correctly, was one of the selling points for the original legislation.

There's a quote, and I'll be damned if I can remember who it's from, that says something to the effect that we should consider not only the good that might come out of any given legislation, but the bad as well. It's probably a good idea to consider how the law might be twisted to the detriment of society as well as how it may be used to its advantage.

[Ciggies and coffee]

130. If you look underneath, you will usually find money and/or power

To be made on any move to tell us how to live. Regardless of how they label themselves, or are labeled by others.

A real "freedom loving liberal" is known as a classical liberal. Sadly, they are missing from the popular discussion, although quite many in the population are, once they see through the misconceptions and fear they have unwittingly picked up. A good portion of non-voters are in this camp, I would bet.

Today's political labels are nothing but a creation we have learned from decades of media and other education.

[Mythsaje]

135. I think you're right about the non-voters.

They just want to be left alone. They see Dems and Repugs as two sides of the same coin--people who want to tell them what to do.

[Beelzebud]

134. Agreed 110%.

I'm a non-smoker, and I swear the more anti-smoking crap I hear, the more tempted I am to START smoking in spite of the nanny-staters.

:D

[ComerPerro]

142. Oh, Jesus Christ, is this about smoking?

[rman]

150. We can only guess what it's about,

the OP wasn't being very specific...

[Mythsaje]

153. Funny...

About half the people who responded to the thread "got it."

I'd say that those who didn't will NEVER get it.

[rman]

161. Fact is in your OP you gave no examples

All you did was make a broad sweeping statement, making it sound as though "freedom loving liberals" (and you won't find many liberals who'll claim they don't love freedom) are as bad as Bush (calling it fascism). I mean, there is a difference between banning certain kinds of sex on the one hand and seat belt laws on the other hand.

[Mythsaje]

162. Why?

Because you SAY there's a difference?

[rman]

163. you mean you think there is no difference?

[Mythsaje]

166. Semantics...little more.

THEY believe that certain forms of sex are bad for society, so they want to ban them. YOU believe that driving without a seatbelt (for some reason) is bad for society, so you want to ban IT.

I think BOTH positions are wrong.

[rman]

167. I think one is far more restrictive then the other

[Mythsaje]

168. Which is easier to enforce?

Am I mistaken in thinking that all real crime has been curtailed to the point that our police officers have nothing better to do than drive around looking for people not wearing their seatbelts? Or is it simply another way to force people to become more accustomed to being told what to do?

We're creating a nation of sheep who can't survive without the intercession of government appointed shepherds.

"Don't wear your seatbelt because it's fucking stupid NOT to wear one, but because we'll punish you if you don't. That's right. Obey. Just shut the hell up and do what you're told. No, you're not smart enough to figure this out on your own, even with a diagram and public service announcements. Seatbelts save lives, but you're too stupid to recognize that fact. So we're forced to pass a law. Wear your seatbelt or give us 101 dollars every time we catch you without it."

No wonder so many Americans are so willing to go along with what they're told without questioning it. They're losing the ability to think for themselves, to make judgments concerning their own well-being. Think for themselves? Nonsense. They're used to being told what to think and what to do. They sit in front of the TV, absorbing psychologically crafted advertising--told what to buy, when to buy it, where to find it, and why they need it. They go to work and do their jobs, following all pertinent rules and regulations, based upon either company policies or government regulation, or some combination thereof. It's all laid out for them. Why bother to think about it? Do the government approved drug (as long as you don't drive while consuming it) and eat government-approved food (regardless of how healthy it is). If you must smoke, make sure to pay the government its kickback for tolerating your addiction, but don't smoke any place other than where the sign says it's okay.

Is it about public health, or fostering unthinking obedience?

I wonder. Course, I'm not real good at obedience. Particularly the unthinking kind. I'm not the last rational human being on the planet. I'm sure other folks can make intelligent decisions without some gun-toting blue suit making sure they do.

Such laws as the mandatory seatbelt law may be well intentioned, but I'm not sure it's a good thing for us to grow so accustomed to being micro-managed by outside agencies. If we're so far gone we need constant supervision, maybe we should just hang it up. I can't imagine what humans did before modern technology made us so dependent on our neighbors and the authorities to tell us what we should and should not being doing.

I don't care if my neighbor is gay. I also don't care if he's smoking pot, or sniffing glue, for that matter. Whatever floats his boat.

My nose ends at the end of my face. If I see someone doing something astoundingly stupid, I might, in the interest of humanity, suggest he NOT be a moron, but I'm not about to screw with MY world by working to pass a law to make his particular brand of stupidity illegal when there are thousands of stupid things people do every day that could, conceivably, be made illegal.

It's heinously stupid to drive two blocks in decent weather to buy something from the convenience store.

It's hideously stupid not to socialize your dog, especially if it's one of the bully breeds.

It's pathetically stupid to chop down blackberry bushes wearing gym shorts. Or climb a tree while drunk. Or stand in front of the big speakers at a rock concert.

But should these things be illegal?

You tell me.

[rman]

169. My point is that it's a gross exaggeration to call seatbelt laws "fascism"

Yes you call it "friendly fascism" but you don't really seem to think it is very friendly.

[benEzra]

175. Seatbelt laws themselves do not constitute fascism...

but the view that the State exists to tell you how to live your life does reflect a fascist mentality, IMO. Definitely a softer variety than the 1930's/1940's version (even in its Italian and Spanish manifestations), and the goals are non-nationalistic, but it's still about CONTROL.

It just bothers some people to no end that others don't make the same wise choices they do, and they think it is a legitimate function of the State to force people into those choices that are wise in their eyes. Of course, the definition of a "wise choice" will be different from individual to individual, and there's the rub...

[Mythsaje]

178. Right.

It's the mentality to which I'm referring. The specific laws aren't the point. It's what's behind the laws and where it could lead us if we don't pay attention.

[rman]

195. Seatbelt law is hardly "telling people how to live their lives"

The fascists are in the WH, their supporters are the far-right.
Progressives are their opponents, and we've got a few people trying to tell us a small minority of liberals (and according to some, to many progressives to) are fascists...

[Mythsaje]

198. Fascist-enablers, perhaps...n/t

[rman]

201. So now it's "perhaps".

Backtracking?

[Mythsaje]

203. No...

Looking for a more concise term to define what I'm talking about.

[rman]

206. Well it doesn't look like these fascist enablers support the fascists

in the WH. So they're not that enabling.

[Mythsaje]

210. As long as people know which set of rules they should have to obey

I suppose it's all good.

[rman]

211. what's that supposed to mean?

[Mythsaje]

213. I think we're going around in circles here...

I don't think you'll EVER get my point.

[rman]

216. Is your point to make people question whether or not there should be laws?

As in: "If I hear "there should be a law," I flinch. Should there? Really?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1119788&mesg_id=1148913

[Mythsaje]

217. Yes, of course. That's my point.

There should be NO laws and everyone should go around doing whatever makes them feel good, no matter what effect their actions have on everybody else. I LOVE chaos. :sarcasm:

Very few rules and laws ever go away. So, in the end, we're faced with a veritable maze of (sometimes contradictory) rules, laws, and obligations that increases with just about every passing day. If Congress isn't passing a law, then it's a state legislature, or some petty administrator of a government agency rubber stamping a piece of Administrative Code that will have an effect on us down the line that none of us know about until we're staring it the face. We, as citizens, have very little say in the matter when it's all said and done.

My wife spent several years in Germany and said she suffered culture shock when she came back here. We, here in America, have a tendency to allow government to micro-manage us. It's all the piddling little rules that I'm objecting to. Do this, don't do that. If we don't like something, we'll come up with another rule to bring people into line.

We object when the Righties do it, but too many of us can't look in the mirror and recognize when we're contributing to the problem. Trying to establish control of other people whether we have the right to or not.

I've explained this whole thing so many times in this thread I'm to the point I have only one thing to add. If you persist on being deliberately obtuse, I will no longer feel an obligation to respond.

[benEzra]

224. I think the question is whether there should be laws regarding behaviors

that put at risk no one but the person choosing to behave that way.

Of course laws are necessary--laws against theft, rape, murder, fraud, and so on stop people from infringing on the rights of others. But laws prohibiting consenting adults from engaging in "unhealthy" activities are NOT in that category, and that seems to me to be where the disagreement lies...

[davekriss]

218. Albeit their's some controversy...

...Mythsaje, respectfully, I think you ought to look more closely at what "fascism" generally means to most of us.

You conflate a sprinkling of condescending authoritarianism found in some people's "liberalism" with the marriage of corporate and state power meant to serve the needs of the few (and that's just from the tamer meaning associated with Mussolini). That bird has no wings.

Then there's the widely read book by Bertram Gross, Friendly Fascism, which by no means comes close to defining the phrase in the (ahem) casual manner in which you do here. Bertram refers to the trend (observed in 1980) toward collusion between Big Business and Big Government for the benefit of the few. There's a vast difference between managing society in the interests of the rich and powerful and rationally managing our communities in shared self-interest.

From your OP:

You know, I find it amusing how "freedom loving liberals" often seem to only want freedom when it comes to things THEY approve of. They seem quite happy to ban, restrict, or otherwise impede the use of anything THEY deem unacceptable.

I am quite happy to ban, restrict, and otherwise impede murder, rape, and torture. Do you feel the same? If so, on what basis do you "ban, restrict, and otherwise impede"?

Let me assume our basis for agreement is that these things -- murder, rape, and torture -- impede in some way on their victims. So we might agree that it's OK to create laws that extract an unattractive cost from those who victimize others. Good enough.

However, there are many ways the behavior of one person can victimize another. Observe that a population of drunk drivers will plow their cars into innocent bystanders with predictable regularity. I know, I know, you would say you are free to drink and drive; when you kill, then others can deal with you, but not until then.

But what if every time you drink and drive the empirically observed probability is that 1% of the time you will kill someone? 1 out of 100 times. If 100 drunk drivers hit the road tonight, then one innocent will almost certainly die. Do we "others" not have a right to curtail your freedom to drive drunk in order to knowingly save one life? Why does your right to drive drunk supercede the rights of innocent bystanders?

The principle underlying pre-emptive restriction of drunk driving is open to abuse, of course. Bush would tell us that if you let a nation acquire weapons of mass destruction, then we are certain to 0.1% probability (I make this up) that another nation will resort to box cutters and crash jets into buildings, therefore let's protect our freedom to consume a third of the world's resources while representing just 5% of its population and bomb _____ (fill in the blank with the nation du jour).

When a people reify a "state" and it becomes something (a thing) on its own, some kind of incarnate "authority" demanding "obedience", then any tyrant can hitch his propoganda to state apparatus and use it for any crazy, self-serving reason. That's why, in a democracy, citizens need to be ever-vigilant and always suspicious of power (and you appear to be). But the answer is not to give up all kinds of collectivism, any possibility of restricting freedom, and revert to some raw Ayn Rand Libertarianism. We just need to be rational, careful, and aware about what we agree to do together and why. I'll venture further, we need to be conscious -- class conscious -- and act in our shared self-interest.

[benEzra]

220. Respecting individual choice is a progressive value...

...Mythsaje, respectfully, I think you ought to look more closely at what "fascism" generally means to most of us.

You conflate a sprinkling of condescending authoritarianism found in some people's "liberalism" with the marriage of corporate and state power meant to serve the needs of the few (and that's just from the tamer meaning associated with Mussolini). That bird has no wings.

"Condescending authoritarianism" is a good term for what we're talking about, I think. Some people want to run the government like a badly run homeowner's association...

There's a vast difference between managing society in the interests of the rich and powerful and rationally managing our communities in shared self-interest.

There is certainly a difference in goals. There is NOT much of a difference in means, if by "rationally managing our communities" you mean restricting or controlling behavior that affects primarily the one doing it, rather than infringing on someone else's choices.

I am quite happy to ban, restrict, and otherwise impede murder, rape, and torture. Do you feel the same? If so, on what basis do you "ban, restrict, and otherwise impede"?

Let me assume our basis for agreement is that these things -- murder, rape, and torture -- impede in some way on their victims. So we might agree that it's OK to create laws that extract an unattractive cost from those who victimize others. Good enough.

However, there are many ways the behavior of one person can victimize another. Observe that a population of drunk drivers will plow their cars into innocent bystanders with predictable regularity. I know, I know, you would say you are free to drink and drive; when you kill, then others can deal with you, but not until then.

But what if every time you drink and drive the empirically observed probability is that 1% of the time you will kill someone? 1 out of 100 times. If 100 drunk drivers hit the road tonight, then one innocent will almost certainly die. Do we "others" not have a right to curtail your freedom to drive drunk in order to knowingly save one life? Why does your right to drive drunk supercede the rights of innocent bystanders?

The principle underlying pre-emptive restriction of drunk driving is open to abuse, of course. Bush would tell us that if you let a nation acquire weapons of mass destruction, then we are certain to 0.1% probability (I make this up) that another nation will resort to box cutters and crash jets into buildings, therefore let's protect our freedom to consume a third of the world's resources while representing just 5% of its population and bomb _____ (fill in the blank with the nation du jour).

Drunk driving is willful negligence. It's outlawed on the same grounds that I'm not allowed to shoot a gun randomly in the air just because it might hit a person only 1% of the time. That's still reckless endangerment.

Banning the responsible consumption of alcohol because 10% of drinkers might drive drunk is NOT acceptable, however. Banning drunk driving is a ban on actual reckless endangerment, not a ban on "potential" behavior. The harassment of responsible drinkers using "drunk driving" as the justification, is not acceptable, however.

Then when you get into the realm of outlawing smoking sections in restaurants and bars, and treating smokers like lepers; requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets even when riding recreationally on low-traffic roads; requiring bicycle riders to wear helmets; banning responsible ownership of various firearms; restricting herbal supplements beyond "truth in labeling" requirements; pulling beneficial medications from the market because they pose a known risk to a minority of people; regulating books, magazines, videogames, TV and radio content, etc. in the name of "public morality"; driving Nyquil and Sudafed from the market to pretend to be doing something about meth; restricting and in general trying to make the whole world a padded room--you put a straitjacket on what the Declaration of Independence calls "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is the role of government to PROTECT individual choices that do not infringe the rights of others, NOT to stifle those choices that the ruling elite deems "unhealthy" or "antisocial."

When a people reify a "state" and it becomes something (a thing) on its own, some kind of incarnate "authority" demanding "obedience", then any tyrant can hitch his propoganda to state apparatus and use it for any crazy, self-serving reason. That's why, in a democracy, citizens need to be ever-vigilant and always suspicious of power (and you appear to be). But the answer is not to give up all kinds of collectivism, any possibility of restricting freedom, and revert to some raw Ayn Rand Libertarianism. We just need to be rational, careful, and aware about what we agree to do together and why. I'll venture further, we need to be conscious -- class conscious -- and act in our shared self-interest.

I don't give a damn what someone's motive is if they wish to restrict my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in pursuit of whatever agenda they are pushing.

You have NO right to barge into your neighbor's home and force him to make healthy and rational life choices "or else." It is no more right to have the government do so in your stead, even if your goal is the overall "good of society."

My body, my choice. Period. Regardless of what your "societal goals" are. If you want to influence my life choices, excercise your First Amendment rights and PERSUADE me why your suggestions are superior to mine. But keep your damn laws off my choices.

[davekriss]

231. Cooperation is a progressive value

"Condescending authoritarianism" is a good term for what we're talking about, I think. Some people want to run the government like a badly run homeowner's association...

LOL! Good one! :)

To be clear, I said nothing about banning the responsible consumption of alcohol. How could I? I have a bottle of 1990 La Mission Haut Brion next to me right now, and it's drinking very very well (a tear will come to my eye when I shake out the last drop). Make note that I was speaking only about driving while drunk, which you (correctly) characterize as wreckless endangerment and so is a curtailable freedom.

Yes, I agree that we can agree to make such protection a part of the role of government. See how it works? Two individuals get together and agree that a government should be formed to protect our individual rights from infringement by others. However, read my post above (#144) -- this can be taken only so far before one person's liberty becomes another person's tyranny. The limits imposed on freedoms, and the costs extracted when we don't comply, need to be reciprocally fair and just for either of us to continue the agreement.

Then when you get into the realm of outlawing smoking sections in restaurants and bars, and treating smokers like lepers; requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets even when riding recreationally on low-traffic roads...etc...

Well here we agree -- mythsaje would call it "friendly fascism", which I think is the wrong label; I'd call it "condescending authoritarianism", and it has no place on the progressive agenda.

I don't give a damn what someone's motive is if they wish to restrict my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in pursuit of whatever agenda they are pushing.

What if my program to restrict your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is to ensure my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Not right, we'd say, if your pursuit infringes on mine, nor my pursuit infringes on yours. It's at that boundary between that I claim we have rights to restrict freedoms and impose those restrictions on others who won't comply.

You have NO right to barge into your neighbor's home and force him to make healthy and rational life choices "or else." It is no more right to have the government do so in your stead, even if your goal is the overall "good of society."

I agree, of course, as you set it up. However, if my neighbor just drove home drunk and had a dead bystander impaled on his windshield, then yes I have a right to barge in the neighbor's house and force the extraction of an unattractive cost, something that would dissuade the drunkard, and other drunkards, from ever driving drunk again. And we do so for the "good of society" because each of us is that society, it is for our good to dissuade others from impinging on our own inalienable rights.

My body, my choice. Period. Regardless of what your "societal goals" are. If you want to influence my life choices, excercise your First Amendment rights and PERSUADE me why your suggestions are superior to mine. But keep your damn laws off my choices.

Well, let me take a different tangent here. You and I are absolutely and unequivocally free. We find ourselves endowed with consciousness and will; we've arrived at a certain space-time in a socio-historical sense and that means we experience differing constraints on our freedom; our free choices have consequences.

What evolves out of our respective freedoms and evolving choices is in a sense an adjudication of many competing choices -- the sum of many vectors of free will, those made by others before us, around us, and those we make within our own lives. Into this sticky net we throw our actions, we contribute to the tenor of the space around us. We can choose to do good, we can choose to do evil. The act brings with it its own reward.

We have nothing to appeal to; no God or gods will save us; no authoritative text frees us from our responsibility to act nor the consequences of our acts (no exit!). It is not a matter of reward and punishment. It's a matter of cultivating states of mind and behavior in a turbulent world of our free choosing.

If Joe Killer chooses to kill and rape and thereby engender misery all around him, then others around him (hell is other people!) will strive to induce misery in him by confining him in prison or worse. Joe Killer chooses; there are consequences. He'll have plenty of time in prison to decide if the state of mind he's cultivated -- exhausting, predatory, hyper-vigilant of attack, constrained by prison walls -- was worth the choices he's made.

Susie Saint, on the other hand, chooses to help the poor and love her neighbors as she would love herself. Many people will respond in kind, reaping peace and joy in her heart, and she'll have the freedom to sit in the park and watch the geese land on the lake. She, too, will have plenty of time to contemplate the value of her choices. Especially when the helped and healed run in to her years later and graciously thank her for helping them through some hardship or other. ben, has that ever happened to you? Trust me, your own inner being will glow with joy when someone from your past walks up to you out of a crowd to hug you with tears, whispering "thank you, thank you, thank you" into your ear for some small thing you did for her and long forgot.

Heaven and hell are here, now, on this earth and in this life. What you experience depends on what states of mind you choose to cultivate; and what you cultivate depends on choices you make throughout your life. Choose wisely, with eyes open. Remember, there are other people here too.

[benEzra]

232. I think we're in agreement on most issues here...

Cooperation is a progressive value

I would agree, with the only caveat being that cooperation is a voluntary state, not a coerced one. Some nanny-stater forcing me to live their way, or face the police power of the state, isn't cooperation in the sense that I would understand the word. Though I get the impression that this is not what you advocate. I'm sure we agree on more than we disagree.

To be clear, I said nothing about banning the responsible consumption of alcohol. How could I? I have a bottle of 1990 La Mission Haut Brion next to me right now, and it's drinking very very well (a tear will come to my eye when I shake out the last drop). Make note that I was speaking only about driving while drunk, which you (correctly) characterize as wreckless endangerment and so is a curtailable freedom.


Yes, I agree that we can agree to make such protection a part of the role of government. See how it works? Two individuals get together and agree that a government should be formed to protect our individual rights from infringement by others. However, read my post above (#144) -- this can be taken only so far before one person's liberty becomes another person's tyranny. The limits imposed on freedoms, and the costs extracted when we don't comply, need to be reciprocally fair and just for either of us to continue the agreement.

Agreed.

"Then when you get into the realm of outlawing smoking sections in restaurants and bars, and treating smokers like lepers; requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets even when riding recreationally on low-traffic roads...etc..."

Well here we agree -- mythsaje would call it "friendly fascism", which I think is the wrong label; I'd call it "condescending authoritarianism", and it has no place on the progressive agenda.

Agreed also.

What if my program to restrict your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is to ensure my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Not right, we'd say, if your pursuit infringes on mine, nor my pursuit infringes on yours. It's at that boundary between that I claim we have rights to restrict freedoms and impose those restrictions on others who won't comply.

Exactly. I would only say that we can only curtail freedoms when we are talking about actual endangerment, not theoretical endangerment open to great controversy, or indirect endangerment five steps removed. I.e., we can ban the act of driving while impaired, but we should NOT pass a law saying that no one who consumes alcohol can own a car, or that no one who owns a car can consume alcohol. Or pass laws outlawing the misuse of firearms, requiring background checks for purchase, no possession by criminals allowed, etc., but we should not pass laws banning their responsible ownership and use.

I agree, of course, as you set it up. However, if my neighbor just drove home drunk and had a dead bystander impaled on his windshield, then yes I have a right to barge in the neighbor's house and force the extraction of an unattractive cost, something that would dissuade the drunkard, and other drunkards, from ever driving drunk again. And we do so for the "good of society" because each of us is that society, it is for our good to dissuade others from impinging on our own inalienable rights.

Agree with you there also. The idealogies I have a problem with are the "preemptive restriction" idea (place barriers impeding all use of alcohol, even responsible use, to keep your neighbor from driving drunk, even though he's never driven drunk in his life) and the more common "it's for your own good" idea (place barriers to the use of alcohol/tobacco/etc. because they aren't the healthiest possible choice for the user). Idealogy #2 seems to be the more prevalent ("public health" types are notorious for it), but idealogy #1 occasionally crops up on some issues (gun ownership would be a good example, or restrictions on certain dog breeds).

Well, let me take a different tangent here. You and I are absolutely and unequivocally free. We find ourselves endowed with consciousness and will; we've arrived at a certain space-time in a socio-historical sense and that means we experience differing constraints on our freedom; our free choices have consequences.

What evolves out of our respective freedoms and evolving choices is in a sense an adjudication of many competing choices -- the sum of many vectors of free will, those made by others before us, around us, and those we make within our own lives. Into this sticky net we throw our actions, we contribute to the tenor of the space around us. We can choose to do good, we can choose to do evil. The act brings with it its own reward.

We have nothing to appeal to; no God or gods will save us; no authoritative text frees us from our responsibility to act nor the consequences of our acts (no exit!). It is not a matter of reward and punishment. It's a matter of cultivating states of mind and behavior in a turbulent world of our free choosing.

If Joe Killer chooses to kill and rape and thereby engender misery all around him, then others around him (hell is other people!) will strive to induce misery in him by confining him in prison or worse. Joe Killer chooses; there are consequences. He'll have plenty of time in prison to decide if the state of mind he's cultivated -- exhausting, predatory, hyper-vigilant of attack, constrained by prison walls -- was worth the choices he's made.

Susie Saint, on the other hand, chooses to help the poor and love her neighbors as she would love herself. Many people will respond in kind, reaping peace and joy in her heart, and she'll have the freedom to sit in the park and watch the geese land on the lake. She, too, will have plenty of time to contemplate the value of her choices. Especially when the helped and healed run in to her years later and graciously thank her for helping them through some hardship or other. ben, has that ever happened to you? Trust me, your own inner being will glow with joy when someone from your past walks up to you out of a crowd to hug you with tears, whispering "thank you, thank you, thank you" into your ear for some small thing you did for her and long forgot.

Heaven and hell are here, now, on this earth and in this life. What you experience depends on what states of mind you choose to cultivate; and what you cultivate depends on choices you make throughout your life. Choose wisely, with eyes open. Remember, there are other people here too.

I think the outcome is the same whether one is a theist or not, as long as one still recognizes the rights of the individual; the atheist and the theist can agree on human rights even if they disagree philosophically concerning where rights come from. The Declaration of Independence seems to represent a pretty good consensus on the relationship between people and the State.

[tomp]

174. the dog example is interesting.

i happen to be someone who has developed something of a fear of dogs after many unfortunate run-ins with poorly socialized or poorly restrained dogs during my youth in the suburbs and in nyc now. i not only support but i demand laws against letting dogs run free off one's own land. i would actually support laws demanding OBEDIENCE training as a qualification for owning a dog. i absolutely do not want to be harassed by a dog. i demand that we have and enforce laws pertaining to dog behavior in society. in lieu of such laws and their enforcement, i demand the right to carry a gun and defend myself against the threat.

i might demand the same thing in regard to people but for now let's stick to the dog issue.

[Mythsaje]

181. Obedience training is no guarantee of anything.

It doesn't "take" in every dog. And some breeds respond better to it than others. Shibas, for example, can be taught to obey commands, but they generally reserve the right to ignore them whenever they think it's in their interest.

But people should NOT allow their dogs to run free, particularly in a city or suburban environment. It's not only dangerous for people, it's dangerous for the dogs.

Humans need a better understanding of dogs. I've commented on other threads that a canine behavior class should be offered in our schools, so people gain a better understanding of the creatures with which we share so much of our world.

[tomp]

228. it wasn't really about the dogs, it was about the restriction,

and that sometimes restrictions are reasonable in the interest of maintaining a stable society. the point is that i not only favor certain restrictions on human beings, to be enforced by governmental authority, but i demand them. failing that, i claim the right to handle it myself, and i don't think you'd like the results of that. in fact, i wouldn't like the results of that. better to agree as a society on what's aceptable and what's not.

[benEzra]

230. Your neighbor's dog being in your yard

is a DIRECT infringement of your rights as a homeowner. Not really what any of us are talking about, if I understand your argument correctly.

Your neighbor's dog being allowed to run wild is a DIRECT threat to the dog's life, to cyclists and runners, kids, pedestrians, and the poop-free status of your yard. Just as your neighbor is allowed to own a gun, but is not allowed to wave it around indiscriminately or point it at you, so also is she/he allowed to own a (potentially lethal) dog, but is not allowed to let it get in your face or let it pee/poop in your yard. Laws that address the direct violation of other's rights, we are all in full agreement on.

What we're objecting to isn't laws banning things that directly affect the rights of others, like letting your dog run loose in your neighbors' yards. It's laws banning things that affect no one but the individual doing it, generally behaviors considered "unhealthy" like hanging out with other smokers, getting lots of tattoos, or not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle recreationally.




(BTW, a neighbor's dog just pooped in our FENCED yard yesterday. Darn near ruined my wife's brand-new pair of Brooks running shoes, and she splattered dog feces all over both legs. She was NOT pleased... :grr:)

[Bridget Burke]

184. Police officers are usually "first on the scene" in car wrecks.

Reporting a death to the next of kin is also in their job description.

I don't blame them for getting tired of seeing deaths that could have been prevented.

[Mythsaje]

185. I don't blame them either...

But this still avoids the point.

[Bridget Burke]

186. I have no problem with seatbelt laws.

Or smoking bans.

Or poor little highschoolers who must forego their cell phones.

Of course, it's been many a year since I fumed about a mean principal.

[Mythsaje]

187. Yes, we are all long past having to deal with petty tyrants.

Now we get to deal with the real ones.

[benEzra]

229. Jerry Falwell has no problem with FCC content rules.

I have no problem with seatbelt laws.

Or smoking bans.

Or poor little highschoolers who must forego their cell phones.

Jerry Falwell has no problem with FCC content rules.

Or the Comstock law.

Or poor little highschoolers who must forgo learning about contraception.

All for the collective good of society, as he sees it.

Oh, wait, it's OK for you to force people to do things you think are reasonable, but it's not OK for him to do exactly the same thing. No?

[benEzra]

221. I'm sure doctors get tired of seeing people die from lack of exercise

and poor dietary choices, too. Let's ban them.

Let's ban alcohol, because it kills twice as many people annually as car accidents.

Let's ban tobacco, because it kills.

Let's ban abrasive, rude, and offensive speech, becuase it makes people's blood pressure go up and causes heart attacks.

And so on...


IMO it is dumb not to wear your seatbelt at all times. I ALWAYS wear one. But it is not the purview of the government to make me make wise choices. If the .gov has the authority to require you to wear a seatbelt, they have the authority to do other things in your "best interest" (exercise, avoid all alcohol and tobacco, don't engage in non-monogamous sex, don't hang glide or climb rocks, don't swim at non-guarded beaches, don't ad nauseaum...) that may conflict with your "liberty and pursuit of happiness." And there's the rub...

[Runcible Spoon]

193. I wouldn't feel comfortable with some jackass on the road

with so little regard for HIS life that I couldn't trust him with MINE. Jeebus. Like, looky here! I've gotta have my freedoms! I just gotta be free! Fucking idiots. We shouldn't even NEED to have seatbelt laws, we should be doing more to keep people like that OFF THE FUCKING ROAD

[sweetheart]

156. You're right, the drugs war is exemplary of this

... "hard patriarchy" where when you violate the rules, the police come around.

or.. soft patriarchy, where smoking is banned in public to improve public health.

"hard patriarchy" has always been a failure, will always be...

The FT is even realizing it:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/995a60ea-de2e-11da-af29-0000779e2340.html

[benEzra]

158. Soft patriarchy is also morally wrong...

if I weigh the risk/benefit ratio of a particular activity differently than someone else, it is IMMORAL for them to compel me by force of law to live by their choices.

Banning me from blowing smoke in your face (or polluting your airspace) is one thing. Banning restaurants and bars from having smoking sections is something else entirely. The former is defending your rights (by making it illegal to violate them); the latter is violating MY rights, the exercise of which absolutely do not infringe yours.

FWIW, I am not a smoker, have never been one, and never will be. BUT, I believe that an adult has the right to make the decision whether or not to smoke, and whether or not to associate with smokers in bars and restaurants, for herself or himself.

[sweetheart]

160. smoking sections

I am a libertarian. Sorry for any appearance of supporting ANY patriarchy.

I just wish their mother's had discovered birth control, and spared us..

177. what about ethics??

this sounds like relativism. You can't mind your own business when we are all connected.

[Mythsaje]

182. At what point do you say,

"okay, that's enough?" Is there any such point, or is it just a matter of where and when the majority thinks it's necessary?

edited because I forgot the last question mark.

207. I wouldn't leave things to the majority

the majority can be completely amoral and cruel, for example the civil rights of the 1960s was enforced by the courts. You have to be following some code of ethical behavior. The last word is left to the Federal Supreme Court at this point in time.

Of course technology as gotten ahead of our ability to try and decide if it is beneficial or not and how to regulate it, so we are facing problems as in the movie Jaws where the guy says "He won't face this problem (the shark), until it bites him right in the ass".

[Mythsaje]

212. Not like we can actually TRUST the Supreme Court at this point.

214. no - they are not forward thinking

and they favor Presidential power.

[Runcible Spoon]

196. I'm so glad that the Iraq invasion is over, and we have universal

healthcare, and college tuition is government-funded, and the Patriot Acts have expired, and gays can marry whomever they wish, and corporations aren't getting tax breaks, and Bush learned to chew pretzels and say "nuclear" and the immigration issue is solved, and the DNC has its head out of its collective ass, and the environment is healthy, and everyone has a well paying job and we have fair elections that we can sit around and listen to you bitch and moan about a bunch of privileged brats whining about being denied their fucking cell phones. God bless America, land of the Entitled

[Mythsaje]

200. Yawn...

It's nice to know that we've eliminated all real crime and now can pass laws to ensure conformity to "progressive" ideals.

[davekriss]

219. Nice post :) (eom)

[benEzra]

222. Well, the live-my-way-or-else mentality may have put W in the White House

after all, it was largely the attempt by DLC communitarians to ban people's nonhunting guns that cost Gore the election in 2000 (by costing him Tennessee and West Virginia) and Kerry the election in 2004 (by costing him close losses in many pro-gun swing states). Trying to run people's lives for them does have negative consequences for the party at large...

People are more easily motivated to vote against a candidate than for a candidate. Get in somebody's face and tell them that if you're elected, they will live as you see fit, or else is a pretty good way to alienate uncommitted voters. The repubs are trying hard to do that right now, but the DLC is also pretty darn bad about it...for some reason the "public health" types seem to have a lot more pull with the DLC'ers than with classical liberals, perhaps because of the strong communitarian influence on that body.

FWIW, if you have ever read the Communitarian Manifesto, that is one SCARY document from a civil-liberties perspective...nanny-state dystopia...

[Runcible Spoon]

226. well most of what you've said it true but forgive me if...

I don't equate cell phone entitlement with voting rights, reproductive freedom, etc. My only point is that such passion for individual freedom was misdirected and came off a bit like "how DARE you tell my kid he can't have his cell phone! I have rights dammit!" It's kinda like calling wolf when we really DO have many many threats against out civil liberties that are real and palpable. I also reject any simplified notion that hand guns cost Gore the election. On my dark days, I think sinister vote hacking, on my light days I think a whole meddly of mistakes and underhanded battle tactics by the Repukes...the truth is probably somewhere in there.

[benEzra]

227. Quite true...

I don't equate cell phone entitlement with voting rights, reproductive freedom, etc. My only point is that such passion for individual freedom was misdirected and came off a bit like "how DARE you tell my kid he can't have his cell phone! I have rights dammit!" It's kinda like calling wolf when we really DO have many many threats against out civil liberties that are real and palpable.

I see your point, and I do agree with you that they are of greatly differing degrees. However, I think the mentality behind absolute bans on cell phone possession, rather than merely saying "no use during school hours" or "no use on school property," do reflect an attitude of starting out with the most sweeping rule possible instead of trying to balance the rights of legitimate users with the need to restrict misuse.

I also reject any simplified notion that hand guns cost Gore the election. On my dark days, I think sinister vote hacking, on my light days I think a whole meddly of mistakes and underhanded battle tactics by the Repukes...the truth is probably somewhere in there.

Possibly. But W did swing over 50% of union members in TN and WV, even though a solid majority of union members in those states are Dems. Gun-owner rights were undoubtedly not the only reason for that, but they were a huge part of it. The party leadership simply did not comprehend how much of an issue gun-owner rights are in many swing states, including my own, and were somehow under the impression that most gun owners were hunters anyway (hence the endless camo-clad photo ops). FWIW, NC is solidly blue if you look at the state-level politicians--our pro-gun Dem governor won easily in 2004 (55/45) and we have a solidly Dem legislature--but Kerry/Edwards lost the state 45/55 even though Edwards is from here. There are lessons there.

The biggest issue in 2000 and 2004 wasn't handguns per se, it was the attempt by DLC-ers to ban civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, and all civilian guns that hold more than 10 rounds.

But IMHO the gun issue is just a microcosm of the whole Ban People From Disagreeing With Me mentality exhibited by many on both the right and the left. Those on the right want to force everybody to live like Jerry Falwell, and (some) on the left want to force everybody to live like Ralph Nader. I just wish that there were more people who were consistently pro-freedom across the board. "Live and let live" and all that.

When a majority of both parties believe the government exists to tell people how to live, it's no wonder that politics are so partisan and so personal. If we're all forced at gunpoint to ride the same bus to the same destination, it's inevitable that there will be fights over who gets to drive...

[Bridget Burke]

223. He probably still gets carded at bars....

It's, like, TOTALLY unfair.