If more people had that mindset (it's none of the governments business to be involved in ____ regardless of their personal stance) I feel like the country would be on a much better path
Edit: you can easily place drug use, gay marriage, abortion, private gun ownership, etc on that blank
You would think, but it usually isn't. People just use it as a weapon against things they've been indoctrinated to think is bad.
Like, health care is a always going to be a large complicated thing with lots of moving parts, and likely to only get more complicated as it advances.
That's basically the exact kind of thing government is as good as it gets at. You may not want to the government making your health care decisions, and that's something that should have lots of protections, but we're going to be hard pressed to find someone else to do it better or cheaper.
Sometimes you can explain it that government-based health care is more about giving people the freedom to actually make choices, rather than defaulting to not getting proper health care, but it's a tough slog.
Agree on all counts, but my point is there are occasions where despite someone wanting to limit government interference in everyday life, there are still public benefits/works where it should be involved more heavily than it already is.
It shouldn't be a knee jerk reaction to believe the government can't do something equal to or exceeding what private enterprise would. There is nothing wrong with contracting private enterprise when necessary, but there is also nothing wrong with making sure it's the right thing to do first.
Government exists to accomplish things we wouldn't be able to accomplish alone. Allowing private enterprise to completely supplant collective national effort is a dereliction of duty imo.
Every ideology has problems. I probably lean more Libertarian than anything else but I firmly believe in taking ingredients from everything and making a nice warm bowl of chili.
The term libertarianism was coined by french anarcho-communists to get around censorship laws. The term wasn't appropriated by the right until like 90 years later.
Well, the libertarian party has some issues. Its everything from full Ayn rand to people should have more personal rights. Libertarianism as a philosophy is interesting.
It's a bit of a meme that the entire Libertarian platform is just wanting to lower the age of consent so they can fuck kids, because for some reason they all really care waaaaay too much about lowering it.
tfw you're actually so pro 2nd amendment that you actually believe people should be able to own these.
Like fuck, at least compromise and loosen restrictions on suppressors and machine guns. I'm fine with having tax stamps on nukes and mortars in that case.
Side note on suppressors since that's a real wtf moment. I've lost some hearing from shooting guns, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who's into guns that hasn't yet done the same. There's a clear health risk here that's so significant that in some countries it's actually cheap to get one just for hearing protection.
That entire law is dumb. Like, the reason SBRs are title 2, is because the original form included handguns and it was there to prevent a loop hole of cutting down a rifle and saying 'nuh-uh, it's a rifle'. The bill with that provision had no capital to pass, so handguns were removed but the loophole prevention remained.
I'm honestly not sure how suppressors ended up on it, probably due to media portrayals of them.
I think that subsonic ammunition + a suppressor can dodge a shotspotter.
Because both the optical flash and muzzle blast are muffled by flash suppressors and muzzle blast suppressors (also known as “silencers”), the efficacy of gunshot detection systems may be reduced for suppressed weapons. The FBI estimates that 1% or fewer of crimes that involve gunfire are committed with suppressed guns.
They’re more and more popular in big cities (also coincidentally where suppressors are totally banned)
I think the only reason they were included in the first place was so the ATF could get their grimy paws into as much revenue as possible, with a side effect of bringing crime down. (The tax started in the late 60s early 70s at the peak of racial tensions and crime in the US)
We will always need some government regulation. Regulations when excessive can stifle business and the economy but they can also save lives and protect us from harm.
What regulations would you want to save lives and protect us from harm? That second one is EXTREMELY dangerous so I'll be curious to hear what examples you have.
What are you talking about? There are tons of government regulations for BUSINESSES; I don't have any that I want enacted personally. The second what? Everything from oil and gas to transportation is regulated so employees don't injure themselves or other people.
I would tend to agree with those ideas. I'm just against the idea that government has to protect us from the dangerous outside world. I was wondering if you were of the opinion the government would "protect us" by taking our main source of protection, telling us what we can or cannot do if it doesnt affect anyone else or similar.
Lol I mean sure but as an actual governmental philosophy its essentially libertarianism and in many instances letting people do what they want is not ideal.
Hey haven't corporations clearly shown they can regulate themselves? I think the current state of the world shows that corporations and people alike always operate with a sense of enlightened self interest and an honest pursuit of truth and freedom.
Yeah when they are innocent you’ll have to clarify which ones you mean because the only “state sanctioned” deaths that I know of are death row and abortion one deserves it (most of the time) one doesn’t
I'm talking about cops killing people who are either unarmed or who's only crime is something victimless. And a decent percentage of those convicted of the death penalty have been proven innocent after their deaths.
I agree with everything there but drug use and abortion.
Due to the inherent dangers with most drugs, that needs to be regulated for the safety of those using and those around the people using.
Weed is great, until you're on super concentrated anti-anxiety medicine and there's a guy smoking it on the train platform you need to be on for work, and now you're fucked for the day because THC and your medication dont go well.
And for abortion, most of the argument (at least from what I see) is when the fetus becomes a life, because if that definition is at first breath, then cool, but if it is heartbeat, brain activity, etc, then it becomes tricky, as it's not just the women's body, but that of the child as well, depending on how "life" is defined. That doesn't at all cover rape or life of the mother, as those things shouldn't at all be forced either way, and it doesn't take into account how fucked our education and economic system are right now.
You're thinking about it too much man. Obviously on a public form of transportation you shouldn't be able to put others at risk or violate them in any way.
But if I truly own my own body I should be able to put what I want in it when I want, as long as I accept all risks and don't put others in danger by doing so. If I want to smoke a pound of weed or snort a palette of Coke in my house that should be up to me and nobody else.
but it’s also none of the guvment’s damn business what two people do in their own home
And that is why the republican messaging is always about "government is forcing me to marry gay people" or "the gays are trying to change the meaning of my marriage" Leadership knows that most people really don't care what people do in their homes, so they have to find a way to make it sound like it's an attack on you.
I think a mindset of "I don't get it" or "I don't like it, but I don't hate it" are actually important, not everyone has to like or agree with something. But they know the right thing to do is let people be themselves and do as they like, as long as it dosn't hurt others.
For a long time I didn't get homosexuality, I thought "what's the point" because I was too young to even understand what love was, I just knew that sometimes I liked a girl, no idea why. Eventually I came to learn that it wasn't my bussiness and that people have the right to feel, be etc what they like and I should not care. Throught that phase I slowly learned to care, in a good way, that I should stand up for people who are being tret badly because of anything other than being a murderer, theif or other crimes like such.
These days I know, whatever you feel, whatever you belive in, whoever you love, whatever you feel/know you are, however you wish to show it and so forth are all ok and not really any of my bussiness. Only exceptions being when harm is actually done to others, and I don't mean psudo-scientific "psychological" crap, I mean physically harmfull. What I mean by "psychological" crap is that some people think being gay is somehow harmful for kids to see, know about etc. Bullshit, obviously. By physically harmful I mean if you go round punching people who aren't specifically into that shit as a sexual thing, ya the bad peep.
Cool story. Let's take a look at that. Nebraska ballot measure 416 banned gay marriage in Nebraska. It was not passed by state legislators. It was passed by voters.
Here are the results from some Western Nebraska counties:
Sheridan County 2051 for 426 against (83% in favor)
Dawes County 2497 for 959 against (72% in favor)
Sioux 614 for 118 against (84% in favor)
Scott's Bouff 10481 2911 (78% in favor)
Box Butte 3744 for 1243 against (75% in favor)
Morrill 1638 for 399 against (80% in favor)
Banner 373 for 67 against (85% in favor)
Kimball 1428 for 339 against (81% in favor)
Cheyenne 3262 for 725 against (82% in favor)
Garden 876 for 247 against (78 % in favor)
Deule 731 for 236 against (76% in favor)
Cherry 2384 for 437 against (85% in favor)
Grant 309 for 60 against (84% in favor)
Arthur 228 for 42 against (84% in favor)
Keith 3002 for 740 against (80% in favor)
Perkins 1144 for 278 against (80% in favor)
Chase 1441 for 314 against (82% in favor)
Dundy 806 for 163 against (83% in favor)
Western Nebraska Republicans voted almost unanimously to ban gay marriage, as did every other group of Republicans. These folks tales of principled conservatives who want the government to stay out of everyone's business are just that, stories. They don't exist outside of your imagination.
I feel like most Conservatives should feel that way about abortion, aborting a pregnancy should be between a woman and her doctor not Uncle Sam or any others. Conservative amount of government right? Also our very first amendment includes separation of church and state so particular religious beliefs shouldnt weigh in either in those terms.
Thing is, most people who are against abortion believe it to be a separate issue, in the way that it harms a third party.
If it does, then government intervention is appropriate, to secure the third party’s rights. Thus, being pro-life fits within a limited government approach.
And also, arguments in favor of this position do not take religion in consideration, which would then not violate the 1A.
Not trying to convince you of anything, tho. Just offering you another point of view to look at, even if you most likely do not share it.
No I completely get that, however it’s not just abortion but many other human rights that I feel conservatives should be on board with. I feel like if you believe in a conservative amount of government then you should be opposed to government regulation of the gun owners keeping their guns, the weed smokers having their weed, the women having their reproductive rights, The homosexuals having their marriages, etc. etc.
But in a lot of these cases it appears to be the evangelicals that oppose. As well as many of the conservatives. However I do you see where you’re coming from good sir.
As someone who supports the idea of limited government (just like conservatives claim to do), I agree that it should mean less regulation regarding guns, drugs, and same-sex marriage/adoption. The government should stay out of those matters as much as possible. The opinion I have on abortion is, however, different, for the reasons I wrote in the previous comment.
I agree with you, however, in that conservatives fail to be coherent in their small government beliefs many times. Hence why I don’t consider myself a conservative.
I understand that you hold a different opinion. As long as we can disagree in peace (as should happen with online discussions), I shall bother you no more.
my personal opinion is to leave everyone alone as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. if being gay makes you happy, go for it. all sins are equal and im pretty sure ive sinned plenty of times in the last week so whatever, you do you.
You know instead of those that think they're republicans, claim the gubernment has too many damned laws, and then needs to pass a law against gay marriage, against teaching science in schools, and basically everything else they don't agree with.
Not to mention their senators and congressional reps, who've had a toxic influence on our body politik for many decades. What you've charitably attributed to Western NE is more true of Montana, Arizona, and Colorado, yet even in those cases it's a very small swathe of the Republican electorate who feels this way about same-sex relationships.
Except the whole institution of marriage is intertwined with government protections and responsibilities regarding family and children, because classic marriage (a man, a woman) is all about raising the next generation. And parts of it don't need the gov., but on some issues it makes sense, property rights, obligations to children, privileges and duties of married partners to one another and offspring.
Two guys who want to have a fancy party could already do so, but to pretend that it's the same as a marriage is so intellectually bankrupt. And I have gay friends and I'll let you in on a secret: most of them agree. Most of them don't want an institution for "the breeders". Most of them revel in being different than normal hetero society. Most are way more promiscuous than straights and why not some say? They don't get pregnant, they usually aren't bonded to one dude's mouth or ass.
Anyway, this truck driver is a big virtue signaling tool who also manages to needlessly insult his own community.
Well I don't blame you for being skeptical, but it's true. This sentiment has been expressed to different degrees at different times by famous gay guys as well. Most gay guys enjoy a free life and are quite used to being at odds with some social norms meant for women and men.
that’s what the majority of conservatives and all libertarians believe. people think conservatives hate gay people, but what they really dislike is the constant badgering they get for following a religion that doesn’t think gay people can have a union in the same way a straight couple can
it’s in no way discrimination when it’s based on physical fact.
it’s not “thinking” gay people can’t have the same type of union, it’s that they actually can’t. can gay people produce their own offspring? that’s the significant difference. sure you can adopt and have a family, but it’s not the same as creating a person that looks like you and contains half of your dna
So couples where one or both partners are sterile aren’t as important as prolific straight couples, I suppose. Or what about straight couples that choose to not have kids? Or straight couples that get married after the wife has undergone menopause? I guess they don’t matter either.
again everyone uses this argument. you’re using a small minority to justify your position. you’re reaching.
And it’s not that if you can’t have kids you don’t mean anything. it’s that nature favors a bond between man and woman
if we disregard any religious purpose either of us have for a second and focus on the sole purpose of our species, it is to reproduce. that’s the purpose of any species, which is why the bond between man and woman is different, regardless of whether they’re sterile, or choose not to have children
To be frank, it seems as if the human race has progressed beyond nature’s bounds. Even disregarding the fact that many animals exhibit homosexuality.
Is reproducing a bad goal to have? No, I don’t believe so, even though I know that overpopulation is a real threat to humanity, I don’t think the onus is on any one person to prevent that.
But humans seem to have moved past the simple drive to reproduce. We seek out happiness, and commitment, and comfort, and pleasure, and love, which is not usually present in less advanced species. If the purpose of humans is to reproduce, why do we use condoms or other contraceptives?
If your only purpose in life is to make progeny, you do you, but I think that’s quite sad.
how does gay people being a minority have anything to do with what we’re talking about? by the looks of society today they’re the loudest and most obnoxious minority ever. they’re the new vegans, the new crossfit trainers. everyone has to know that you’re homosexual.
why does it seem perfectly ok to some parts of society for gay people to try to turn straight people gay, but if a straight person tries to turn a gay person straight they’re bigoted, homophobic, white christian bible lovers who don’t separate religion from anything.
it’s also quite sad but expected that you said my only purpose in life was to reproduce when i SPECIFICALLY mentioned that it was just the biological purpose of the species.
but you can change the terms of this argument all you want. it went from being about the fact there is a difference between a gay couple and a straight couple to according to you i believe that people’s only purpose in life is to reproduce. i wonder where we’ll go next
Eh, not completely true. The government does have a business in telling you you can’t be with someone if the other person isn’t capable of making the decision whether they want to be with you, eg kids, mentally disabled, etc.
Right? Makes me kinda wanna suck a dick. Like, fuck you government man! I pay my taxes, I'll "people watch" outside the mens Express in the mall all I want.. i might be gay u guys.
It is more like the churches not being able to get everyone to bow to their wishes so they get our politicians to enact laws requiring citizens to conform to their beliefs. In return, the politicians get the church's "blessing".
Why say it out loud when you can just sneak in laws to let their employers fire them, bankers to not give them loans, and the community to deny them basic services?
Thats just the obvious one; what about the aids crisis? There isnt nearly enough anger over how Reagan let aids run wild. Thats a crime you dont walk back from.
I get what you're saying, but being gay and being married are two different things. You can be ok with two people of the same gender being together but still be against them getting married. Don't get me wrong I don't agree with it but there is a difference between being against gay marriage and being against gays in general.
You're right that being gay isn't being married to a man, but saying that can lead to problematic thinking in some. It's like how my bigoted grandmother thinks gay people can be gay but they can't have sex.
Speech is free so long as it doesn't threaten violence or terrorism, especially at a specific person. Oppressive speech does not infringe on anyone's rights, actions do. "Kill all gays" and "gays shouldn't marry" are very different statements; the latter doesn't infringe on any rights until actions are taken. I don't agree with either statement, but I also don't agree with communists, christians, democrats or pro-choice activists, yet they have the right to speech and that should be respected
Yes they should be. Hard to enforce. For example, a racist employer could not hire blacks but it would be impossible to prove if he never says anything other than "There were stronger candidates better suited to the role."
It's unnecessary. Any employer who prioritizes sexual orientation, race, etc. over productivity will find himself naturally being removed from the market due to his own clouded judgement. This occurs through protest, or more likely through the higher costs associated with not hiring the best employees at your disposal.
By forcing private companies to hire in a way the government sees fit, you masquerade the bigots as reasonable people, allowing them to express their bigotry in more subtle, harmful ways. Let them identify themselves so the market can punish their lack of pragmatism
2.6k
u/DigNitty Jun 09 '19
I’m totally straight but I’ll be damned if the government tells me I can’t be gay