I would love to kill off gerrymandering, because it’s anti-freedom and is only a tool for those in power to contradict the vote of the people. District lines should be drawn by neighborhood, without regard for the resulting vote mix.
And if you think me a Republican you are quite incorrect. I’m a registered Democrat, politically I consider myself liberal-libertarian- I think the married gay couple should have guns to defend their adopted children and their pot farm, knowing that single payer health care is there if they get hurt.
However this means I don’t fit squarely into either the red or the blue camp. I align with Republicans on issues like personal freedom and gun ownership, I align with Democrats on issues like reducing corruption (they’re not great but better than GOP at least) and environmental protection. And I’m quite unhappy with both of them as I think both separately and together they do a piss poor job of representing the interests of the American people.
As for nicotine- I don’t defend addiction, I defend freedom and a person’s right to choose what they put in their own body without excess government interference. If people make bad choices, that is their right and I reject the idea that the government should play ‘nanny state’ and save people from themselves. So for the government to say ‘you can have this flavor vape but not that flavor’ is to me no different than saying ‘you can have vanilla ice cream but not chocolate as it’s too tasty and too likely to make you fat’.
If people are making harmful bad choices, then the solution is to improve education so people grow up with the tools and the practice to make better choices, not to restrict the choices available.
I dunno man. You may be some flavour of libertarian, but not me. I am aware of the libertarian philosophy, and it is particularly an American following.
Freedom has many meanings to many people. But a free society also imposes restrictions on people’s freedom. You just can’t kill someone who annoys you. You need a proper licence in order to drive on public thoroughfares. You can’t take something that doesn’t belong to you, just because you want it. Living in a free society also imposes obligations. Other people must be taken into consideration.
In the case of vapes, and other poisons, it’s not good enough to just yell freedom and allow corporations to to sell dangerous products. Kids consume these products and their health can be affected. In a free society public health considerations will probably impact on people’s freedom. After all, seatbelts continue to save thousands and thousands of lives despite some folks feeling salty about wearing them. At least they are breathing and feeling salty.
None of this will convince you, and that’s ok. I don’t have skin in your game anyway because I don’t live in your country and therefore accept normal restrictions. If I want to live in a society and change the rules, I’ll vote for a person who will do that. Gerrymandering is illegal in my country and fair voting is the norm. I’m also glad that I don’t live in a community where individuals get to decide what rules they should follow on the basis of some nebulous concept of personal freedom.
Living in a free society also imposes obligations. Other people must be taken into consideration.
I’m also glad that I don’t live in a community where individuals get to decide what rules they should follow on the basis of some nebulous concept of personal freedom.
There’s nothing nebulous here. I offer perhaps you are arguing against a ‘stereotypical American’ who wants ‘muh Freedom!’ and then votes for people who restrict freedom. That is not me.
I like freedom, but sometimes those obligations are part of freedom. There’s a famous quote- “My right to swing my face ends where the other man’s face begins.” I believe this a good underpinning for a free society.
For example if I want to buy an apartment building, I should be able to do that. If I want to store explosives in the basement of that building, I shouldn’t be able to do that- yes it restricts my freedom to use my building’s basement as I see fit, but storing explosives in an apartment also somewhat takes away the freedom of the people living in it to life and safety.
And I can’t take something that doesn’t belong to me, because that takes away the freedom of the person who owns it.
Or take seatbelts. I agree with the regulation that cars are required to have seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, and a bunch of other safety equipment. I don’t believe that people should be required to wear seatbelts (or helmets on bikes/motorcycles), because that’s their body their choice. HOWEVER, I also believe that if there are multiple occupants in the car, all should be required to wear seatbelts, because in a crash their body could become a projectile that’d injure the other occupants of the vehicle.
Point is- restrict people from doing things that unreasonably endanger others, but permit people to endanger themselves if they choose.
I’m also STRONGLY against gerrymandering, because that takes away the freedom of the people to choose leaders who accurately represent them and their interests, and instead allows whoever’s drawing the map to determine or significantly increase the election’s outcome, a power that ideally nobody would have. I would argue if you claim to love freedom, but you have no problem with gerrymandering, then you don’t really understand the meaning of freedom and you are not a patriot, you are a parrot repeating what the teevee told you to say.
Anyway- applied here.
I believe if an ADULT chooses to consume a potentially harmful product, knowing the risks of it, they should be allowed to. That is how free society works with things like alcohol, caffeine, and anything else that can be psychologically addictive like marijuana, pornography, sex, video games, TV, lottery tickets, etc. Any attempt to draw a line in here is simple hypocrisy- if you can drink alcohol and trash your liver, but not smoke and trash your lungs, why? Etc.
So if you can get mesquite vapes, but not cherry vapes or menthol vapes, why? Because some asshat regulator said these flavors might appeal more to kids? Even though it’s already illegal to sell them to kids?
No, that is denying the freedom of adults to vape the flavors they want, based on a nebulous idea that kids might get them. That’s not freedom, that’s arbitrary restriction.
I like your nuanced position, but I completely disagree with it, and have already articulated as to why.
I don’t believe that you are a stereotypical American, but the whole “freedom thing” is a stereotypical American thing. I’m Australian and I believe that I have many more freedoms than most Americans. For instance, your country puts traval restrictions on you that we would never tolerate. I can travel to Cuba, or just about any country in the world freely. Same as most other Western countries. But we don’t claim to have special freedom privileges. On the other hand, Australia has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the world. Lots of red tape and lots of regulation. However, by and large nobody minds because the trade-off is a mostly one of safety. The US has a gun homicide rate of about 50 times more than Australia, per capita. The US has 17 times Australia’s gun deaths over all. So, trading off some freedoms has a community benefit and we believe it is worth it. No Australian government has ever won office with a policy of undoing gun laws. Some freedoms are just not worth it. As to your seatbelt example, you deciding not to wear one might impact upon people other than yourself. Someone has to endure the trauma of scraping your body off the road. Someone has to cart your broken arse off to hospital. Someone might have to care for you for years. Possibly forever. Your freedom to not wear a seatbelt will probably impact on others freedom not to have to deal with your silly decision. And so it goes. As I said, the only country in the world who constantly bangs on about freedom, forbids what can be read in so many schools, the right of women to control their bodies, how a president who fails to garner a majority of the popular votes can still get ‘elected’, and so many more anti-freedoms. Your country also imposes it’s will on so many other countries. That’s freedom US style.
To me the Libertarian position is fundamentally selfish. It pretends to be one of freedom, but if you live in a society one must tolerate restrictions, large and small. Or, go live a hermit existence somewhere so whatever folly you choose to celebrate has zero impact upon your fellow citizens.
That’s just my opinion, of course, you are free to disagree.
Defending addiction in the name of freedom is a silly hill to die on.
How about killing off gerrymandering in the name of freedom?
I would love to kill off gerrymandering, because it’s anti-freedom and is only a tool for those in power to contradict the vote of the people. District lines should be drawn by neighborhood, without regard for the resulting vote mix.
And if you think me a Republican you are quite incorrect. I’m a registered Democrat, politically I consider myself liberal-libertarian- I think the married gay couple should have guns to defend their adopted children and their pot farm, knowing that single payer health care is there if they get hurt.
However this means I don’t fit squarely into either the red or the blue camp. I align with Republicans on issues like personal freedom and gun ownership, I align with Democrats on issues like reducing corruption (they’re not great but better than GOP at least) and environmental protection. And I’m quite unhappy with both of them as I think both separately and together they do a piss poor job of representing the interests of the American people.
As for nicotine- I don’t defend addiction, I defend freedom and a person’s right to choose what they put in their own body without excess government interference. If people make bad choices, that is their right and I reject the idea that the government should play ‘nanny state’ and save people from themselves. So for the government to say ‘you can have this flavor vape but not that flavor’ is to me no different than saying ‘you can have vanilla ice cream but not chocolate as it’s too tasty and too likely to make you fat’.
If people are making harmful bad choices, then the solution is to improve education so people grow up with the tools and the practice to make better choices, not to restrict the choices available.
I dunno man. You may be some flavour of libertarian, but not me. I am aware of the libertarian philosophy, and it is particularly an American following.
Freedom has many meanings to many people. But a free society also imposes restrictions on people’s freedom. You just can’t kill someone who annoys you. You need a proper licence in order to drive on public thoroughfares. You can’t take something that doesn’t belong to you, just because you want it. Living in a free society also imposes obligations. Other people must be taken into consideration.
In the case of vapes, and other poisons, it’s not good enough to just yell freedom and allow corporations to to sell dangerous products. Kids consume these products and their health can be affected. In a free society public health considerations will probably impact on people’s freedom. After all, seatbelts continue to save thousands and thousands of lives despite some folks feeling salty about wearing them. At least they are breathing and feeling salty.
None of this will convince you, and that’s ok. I don’t have skin in your game anyway because I don’t live in your country and therefore accept normal restrictions. If I want to live in a society and change the rules, I’ll vote for a person who will do that. Gerrymandering is illegal in my country and fair voting is the norm. I’m also glad that I don’t live in a community where individuals get to decide what rules they should follow on the basis of some nebulous concept of personal freedom.
Thanks for the discussion, by the way.
There’s nothing nebulous here. I offer perhaps you are arguing against a ‘stereotypical American’ who wants ‘muh Freedom!’ and then votes for people who restrict freedom. That is not me.
I like freedom, but sometimes those obligations are part of freedom. There’s a famous quote- “My right to swing my face ends where the other man’s face begins.” I believe this a good underpinning for a free society.
For example if I want to buy an apartment building, I should be able to do that. If I want to store explosives in the basement of that building, I shouldn’t be able to do that- yes it restricts my freedom to use my building’s basement as I see fit, but storing explosives in an apartment also somewhat takes away the freedom of the people living in it to life and safety.
And I can’t take something that doesn’t belong to me, because that takes away the freedom of the person who owns it.
Or take seatbelts. I agree with the regulation that cars are required to have seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, and a bunch of other safety equipment. I don’t believe that people should be required to wear seatbelts (or helmets on bikes/motorcycles), because that’s their body their choice. HOWEVER, I also believe that if there are multiple occupants in the car, all should be required to wear seatbelts, because in a crash their body could become a projectile that’d injure the other occupants of the vehicle.
Point is- restrict people from doing things that unreasonably endanger others, but permit people to endanger themselves if they choose.
I’m also STRONGLY against gerrymandering, because that takes away the freedom of the people to choose leaders who accurately represent them and their interests, and instead allows whoever’s drawing the map to determine or significantly increase the election’s outcome, a power that ideally nobody would have. I would argue if you claim to love freedom, but you have no problem with gerrymandering, then you don’t really understand the meaning of freedom and you are not a patriot, you are a parrot repeating what the teevee told you to say.
Anyway- applied here.
I believe if an ADULT chooses to consume a potentially harmful product, knowing the risks of it, they should be allowed to. That is how free society works with things like alcohol, caffeine, and anything else that can be psychologically addictive like marijuana, pornography, sex, video games, TV, lottery tickets, etc. Any attempt to draw a line in here is simple hypocrisy- if you can drink alcohol and trash your liver, but not smoke and trash your lungs, why? Etc.
So if you can get mesquite vapes, but not cherry vapes or menthol vapes, why? Because some asshat regulator said these flavors might appeal more to kids? Even though it’s already illegal to sell them to kids?
No, that is denying the freedom of adults to vape the flavors they want, based on a nebulous idea that kids might get them. That’s not freedom, that’s arbitrary restriction.
I like your nuanced position, but I completely disagree with it, and have already articulated as to why.
I don’t believe that you are a stereotypical American, but the whole “freedom thing” is a stereotypical American thing. I’m Australian and I believe that I have many more freedoms than most Americans. For instance, your country puts traval restrictions on you that we would never tolerate. I can travel to Cuba, or just about any country in the world freely. Same as most other Western countries. But we don’t claim to have special freedom privileges. On the other hand, Australia has one of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the world. Lots of red tape and lots of regulation. However, by and large nobody minds because the trade-off is a mostly one of safety. The US has a gun homicide rate of about 50 times more than Australia, per capita. The US has 17 times Australia’s gun deaths over all. So, trading off some freedoms has a community benefit and we believe it is worth it. No Australian government has ever won office with a policy of undoing gun laws. Some freedoms are just not worth it. As to your seatbelt example, you deciding not to wear one might impact upon people other than yourself. Someone has to endure the trauma of scraping your body off the road. Someone has to cart your broken arse off to hospital. Someone might have to care for you for years. Possibly forever. Your freedom to not wear a seatbelt will probably impact on others freedom not to have to deal with your silly decision. And so it goes. As I said, the only country in the world who constantly bangs on about freedom, forbids what can be read in so many schools, the right of women to control their bodies, how a president who fails to garner a majority of the popular votes can still get ‘elected’, and so many more anti-freedoms. Your country also imposes it’s will on so many other countries. That’s freedom US style.
To me the Libertarian position is fundamentally selfish. It pretends to be one of freedom, but if you live in a society one must tolerate restrictions, large and small. Or, go live a hermit existence somewhere so whatever folly you choose to celebrate has zero impact upon your fellow citizens.
That’s just my opinion, of course, you are free to disagree.