• yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Normal people have their behavior regulated by family, partners, and work. It’s only the ownership class and psychopaths who worry about being reined in by the government. Libertarians have spiders in their brains.

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Miscegny, abortion, sodomy, war on drugs…

      There’s plenty of things the government has (and it’s trying to have) blocked that “normal” people should worry about

      • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Have you ever noticed the people who don’t want lead in the gasoline are not the same people who are trying to ban abortion?

        • bobor hrongar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you’d fear a government that has banned abortion? Damn, you must be a psychopath or part of the ruling class or something.

      • Chriswild@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Some states making it illegal to be homeless. I’m sure the 14th amendment won’t be used for nefarious purposes… /s

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey this is the “I have nothing to hide” argument for privacy. I think wanting people to have freedom from suspicion by the government is based. You’re not gonna find me agreeing with any right wing “libertarian” positions like low taxes. My libertarianism is more about… Policing.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s only the ownership class and psychopaths who worry about being reined in by the government.

      I guess you forgot the badge-wearing fascists with itchy trigger fingers stalking your neck of the woods with the express purpose of visiting violence upon you if you step out of line.

  • Wogi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Justification is easy. Damn near no one does anything they don’t feel is justified. You may not agree with it, but that doesn’t really matter, because the right people will.

    A lot of the most evil shit in history was done by people who felt completely justified in doing it.

    Justification is a stupidly low bar.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re missing the point. We don’t need to justify to the government why we need to do anything. The government needs to justify to us why it should be prohibited. Feeling justified in your own actions doesn’t come into it.

      As for “the most evil shit in history”, it should be extremely easy for the government to justify prohibiting it.

      • rainynight65@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To any reasonable person it is extremely easy to justify prohibiting easy access to firearms. And yet here we are, with mass shootings happening every other day in the US.

  • Seaguy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    US Govt: Y’all shoot a lot of people. Let’s slow this down a bit. Some people: how about I shoot you!?

  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    11 months ago

    The government does justify its prohibitions.

    They’re just sometimes good justifications (like protecting drinking water supplies) or shitty justifications (like staying in power with Gerrymandering).

    Sometimes it’s even as weak as “putting forward laws Senator John looks like he’s doing something (so he can stay visible and get reelected. Not about power, but just keeping a cushy job)”

    But there’s always a justification.

    This is stupid.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Take cannabis for instance. They’ve ‘justified’ why it has been illegal, it’s just all the reasons were manipulated science and moral bullshit.

    • Happybara@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tolerance is just an extension of the social contract. Intolerant people are actively violating the social contract and, as such, are not eligible for the benefits such a contract provides. This has been settled law for millennia. Live and let live… or else.

      • bigFab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        The problem is ppl disagree on what represents tolerance. i.e: letting a trans compete in sport can be tolerance of gender diversity, while at the same time intolerance of competition rules.

        Sometimes one cannot know what is someone fighting intolerance gonna end up doing. Germans had been too tolerant of jewish wealthy elite until nazis had enough of it. Hitler was democratically elected and crimes begun only after that.

          • bigFab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I didn’t know this specifics, but after reading that I’m still waiting further explanation. Each party had own guerilla and wikipedia didn’t mention especially bloody SA behaviour.

            2000 SA vs 130 police = deads 15 vs 4 is a pretty normal protest clash outcome. I believe they killed also some more jews, but from that to a concentration camp there is a difference.

        • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          letting a trans compete in sport can be tolerance of gender diversity, while at the same time intolerance of competition rules.

          Oh no! Won’t somebody think of the rules?!

          Rules don’t have rights. People do. When the rules don’t respect people’s rights, then the rules have to change.

    • TopRamenBinLaden
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s kind of like pest control. I don’t hate termites. I just can’t have them tearing up my home, so they have to be exterminated.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That’s just something the ignorant say

      If you try to get rid of intolerance then you will find they out number you and it will lead to a more intolerant society

      You have to limit the ability for it to spread by expanding education and publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic

      The worst thing you can do is force them into their own communities, something social media promotes, because then intolerance grows

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic

        Yes, but you want to be careful you’re not lending legitimacy to their movement, either. If it’s a fringe, wacko idea, it shouldn’t be on NBC.

        But yeah, inoculating people against the kinds of arguments they make is good work.

  • Kalkaline @leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t go running around with feces all over your body and hug strangers, OP, it’s not hygienic.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isnt the meme basically “prove my justifications are invalid, cause I feel I’m always right and the government is always wrong” though?

        Yes, government action needs to have publicly, rather than personally, justifiable reasons for their actions. But that’s just as true of people, most especially when their actions effect many others.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, it’s not. At least not unless you’re taking a very uncharitable interpretation of what it’s saying and overlooking an obvious interpretation that’s much more reasonable. It’s saying the government shouldn’t be presumed right just because it’s the government. Governments are capable of being right, and they usually are right about a lot of things, but they need to be kept accountable in cases where they’re not.

          And people for the most part don’t need to prove any justifications for their actions are valid, because most of their actions don’t require justifications in the first place. Like, what’s your justification for positing on Lemmy? Do you actually believe you need one?

          • cannache@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Agreed. Sometimes the government simply oversteps the mark and just doesn’t understand what’s happening, just imagine how the USA got the crappy reputation of arms dealer, and consider that some people in Congress would probably ask not to look at the papers or the history because they know that it would make them feel dumber

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I will do all that I can to crumple a world where “if it is not required it is forbidden” exists; this I swear to you all.

    • cannache@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Clothes. Done. You wear most of your clothes to be presentable according to regulation, or to be comfortable, ask yourself if anybody went to a gay bar or a sauna, would they not prefer a towel if it were not for pockets?

      • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Regulation is not prohibition. Regulation and prohibition are at odds with each other.

        But thank you for offering your fraternity to me.

  • KombatWombat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Maybe this is just bait, but this is already how it works. I’ll go over US law, but other countries likely have similar processes.

    Legislation needs to have justification for restricting people, or it gets overturned when challenged. This is because it would fail the strict scrutiny test, making it unconstitutional. It needs to be “narrowly tailored” to a “legitimate government interest” to pass. In other words, it needs to be focussed on addressing a problem the government acknowledges some responsibility to solve, and do so in a way that doesn’t cause undue restrictions beyond that goal.

    Creating a law isn’t an easy process, so they are made with purpose. That doesn’t mean every law is a good law, but that’s why we have these processes for reform after all. Sometimes you have old nonesense laws remain, but that is typically because they are unenforced or too detached from modern life for anyone to care to remove them.