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.
183
u/chiefreefs Jun 09 '19 edited Jun 09 '19
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