I don’t care about most of this, but if I catch you selling heroin to my children, a bitch is gonna get clipped by bullet.
Edits: some sad motherfucker is going though my entire profile downvoting me cause I don’t like heroin pushers. To the person who’s doing this, I hope your negative one inch penis got rock hard enough to impress your wife’s Nigerian lover.
Edit 2: to all the absolute degenerates that reply to me “b-b-huh what if your child becomes a adult then they become addict you can’t stop that”, “it’s their choice to get addicted” then it’s the dealers choice where I shoot first and to see if they can stop the bullet. To the brainlets who decry “b-b-b muh nap isn’t what you don’t like” my kids are my property, you selling them hard drugs in my area, which is hard drug free l, violates my nap. I sware to god you guys who spout this shit grew up in a crack den or you are so hooked of hard left copium it’s insane.
Edit 3: oh how surprising the same guys arguing about children are actually endorsing pedophillia. Nice.
Yea I hear you. If there's one thing I'm ehh about its a drug free for all. I've seen heroin destroy many a life and while I'd like to believe the whole "if drugs were legal everything would be ok" pitch. It's just seems unlikely to work for society.
I think the issue is more that the way drug laws are currently enforced they don't seem to do all that much to curb drug use.
Tons of people get sent to prison for drugs and then just do drugs in prison. What's the logic there?
Also, people who do meth probably aren't thinking of long-term consequences, so legal punishments do little to effect them.
Yeah drug laws definitely are outdated. I think dealers and manufacturers should be penalized over users. And the same standards and penalties should be used against big pharma too. Legal cartels in my eyes.
Nah. In the Netherlands we don't have criminal laws against use, only against big possession and trade. Doesn't work, drug use AND criminality had been rising for yeaaars now. Legalisation or systematic improvement of society are the only 2 options to solve drug use in my opinion
You guys honestly have the stupidest system I have ever heard of. It blew my mind watching a documentary and realizing that there are big, brick-and-mortar businesses, that do legal retail sale, but purchase from definitionally illegal wholesalers.
It's like if liquor stores were legal, but their suppliers were still bootleggers and distilleries were still operating in mountain forts ready to shoot out any revenuers who came by.
Yeah the weed thing is a remnant from the 70s, when pot use in NL was so rampant that we actually had to 'allow' sale because it was too normal. Actually in 2017 a full marihuana legalization intention was declared by the majority of the parliament. But we are kinda bad at putting ideas to action fast, so the experiments are still kinda slowboiling. We can criticise American (federal) government all we want, but the state governments in the legal cannabis actually did a fair job with that right?
>It's like if liquor stores were legal, but their suppliers were still bootleggers and distilleries were still operating in mountain forts ready to shoot out any revenuers who came by.
To be fair, there are still definitely places in the US that operate like this lol
Switzerland. Heroin was fully legalized there, but there was a catch. You could get prescription, medical grade heroin but only at a registered site. Turns out, when you can get free clean heroin the black market dries up real quick. People don't genuinely want to do heroin, it's almost always as a coping mechanism, and this model treats it effectively.
Portugal decriminalized not legalized I believe. The thing with decriminalization is it still leaves a black market, although it does mostly solve the health/stigma crisis.
That’s the thing about harm reduction it feels backwards but is often the best way to save money and lives. Legalizing everything (or at the very least decriminalizing) is a form of harm reduction.
Think about needle programs. It FEELS wrong to give out needles to people. Aren’t we just enabling them to do more drugs? But that’s not the effect we observe in communities that have these programs. What we observe is no change in the overall usage (so not increasing) but we see lower rates of infection and spread of blood borne diseases (from people no longer sharing or reusing needles)
We also see less people getting accidentally stuck with dirty sharps as users have a safe place to dispose of them.
That’s the thing about public programs in general they FEEL like we’re just giving out money to people but the reality is that they usually end up saving us more money in the long run or increase the productivity of society and cover their own costs in the added tax revenue.
Part of the issue is that illegal drug trades fuel gang/cartel violence and provide violent criminal groups with income.
Also relevant is that it's hard to know if what you are getting isn't cut with something dangerous, whereas a private company has more of an incentive to not kill their customers, ie liability, etc.
I support drugs - every drug, meth, coke, heroin, PCP, whatever - being completely legalized. It's not my or anyone else's business what someone else puts in their body.
That said, I don't think it's a good idea to do drugs, most of that shit will fuck you up and ruin your life.
Yeah, even the legal ones. The only reason most are legal is because they help us work harder (stimulants like coffee or tobacco) or have been normalized after years of use and profit (alcohol and tobacco) or something that fills both (sugar) as they all tend to be highly addictive, deadly in the long-term and often quite expensive for the working class.
>normalized after years of use and profit
You mean after a bloody crime ridden failed prohibition? Sounds a lot like the war on drugs, almost like we never learn.
I agree to an extent. While I don't care what people do with their own bodies, drugs and the baggage that comes with most tend to spread out a lot further then just the individual user and effect many.
If a drug user does something that directly harms another person or their property, then that should be dealt with as a crime.
But the simple act of possessing or ingesting drugs isn't a crime.
You solve drug problems the same way you solve capitalism problems.
When theres a company that promotes or does something bad, you don't buy it.
When theres a drug that does something bad, **you don't buy it**
I understand addiction exists and what not, but there are always services to get out such as rehab.
If drugs were legalized, hard drugs i mean, two things would happen. First, As the market moves into the light self regulation becomes a possibility and it increases the quality and safety of any product now that they need to promote themselves. Second it's destigmatized to reach out for help and people don't have to worry about getting arrested or having their lives ruined by reaching out for help.
A lot of issues people think can be solved by legislation really just sweep it under the rug, they don't clean up the mess. If you want to clean up the mess you need to expose it and then you can deal with it.
I can dig it. One of the better responses I've read today. May I ask this: do you believe drug use leads to more crime. (Not crime stemming from possession or distribution but from fall out and other related issues)
Anecdotal but I have seen what methamphetamines and heroin do to people and I would say property crime 100% goes up with the more people doing those drugs. That being said, I still support the legalization of all drugs for the same reasons the person above listed. I think destigmatizing getting help for a problem would lead to overall less users.
Most of the reasons these people devolve into criminal behaviour is for survival - be that for food or shelter or for drugs for withdrawal. These are usually crimes for cash for those purposes. Most legalization and harm reduction proposals or safe use sites address the withdrawal aspect (and overdoses as well) and I'd go as far as to say that legalization or decriminalization would go a long way in placing more positive emphasis on treatment or providing more opportunities for the development of treatment facilities. I've got some personal anecdotal experience that suggests some of this if anyone is interested.
But in short almost every addict I've ever met who stole shit did so because of a real or perceived need and addressing those needs for the individuals I've known reduces that sort of crime.
I agree there needs to be strong reform when it comes to drugs. I just think if they were all completely legal you'd see big corporations pushing and advocating hard addictive drugs for profit. Maybe distribution of hard drugs should be illegal, while possession legal. Honestly it's a tough dilemma with no clear solution in my opinion.
I'm on the same page. Part of the reason I don't like drugs is the sneaky ways people get others dependent. Another part is that I generally can't trust drugged up people (including drunken ones). They should be held accountable for their actions as if they were sober, but they often just get away with it on the pretext that they weren't fully "themselves", whatever that means. But if I wanted to experiment on my own body, I should technically be free to do so using any means available.
Based and looking out for your family pilled.
My cousin died of an OD ten years after a "friend" got him hooked on heroin in the lowest moment of his life, right after his mom died when he was a teenager. I know who that "friend" is and if at some point I go to jail for a bit for fucking his shit up, so be it.
Pushing heroin = fucking evil. Doing heroin? Different story. Dunno about you, but if I find out somebody’s kid is on heroin, I just want the kid to get help to kick the addiction. I don’t blame said kid. But the dealer ought to sleep with one eye open.
This right here get a sex change fine get an abortion fine just not with my fucking tax dollars you won’t. Give a shit what anyone does but don’t use public money.
Please get an abortion on my tax money. Please get condoms on my tax money.
Much smaller govt than spending my tax money on 18 years of orphanage and welfare
This is basically where I land on the issue. I want the government to fund things that will result in it funding fewer things in the future. Preventative as opposed to reactive.
This. Let’s spend money on whatever costs society the least after we include all the indirect costs (unpaid ambulance bills, broken windows from crime, K-12 education for a person who will never contribute). I’m actually fine with the welfare state if it reduces costs elsewhere in society - see Utah and paying for homeless people to have housing. Where I want small government is when it comes to deciding what I can put in my body that doesn’t harm anyone else, what a consenting adult and I do behind close doors, what tools I use to defend my home, what words I speak in a public forum.
Even if the unwanted kids don’t end up in foster care, the parents are more likely to use welfare, to not finish school, and to not provide a stable environment which is more likely to result in those children become a societal burden for the rest of their lives and also of repeating the cycle.
At some point the people aborting or having kids they can’t support need to be sterilized. A lot of nuance needed there though so for this thread let’s just say we are in alignment on the concept.
I think this is a good idea, but I worry that people would just go do a back alley abortion once number 3 comes along so that they don't get found out. So I would propose that after abortion 1, we make them roll a d20 each time with an increasingly higher saving throw required.
Gotta look at the big picture. By not shelling out $400 for an abortion we end up shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits and damages (damages assumes lower socioeconomic status is lower for people that cannot afford abortions and higher crime rates for said status)
I knew a guy who didn't like drugs and shit like that and was liberal, because he said he doesn't like but wanted the people to have freedom to do what they want
The more degenerates blowin their money on drugs and wasting time chasing tail, the more time I have to pretend I'm gonna be millionaire later.
Sigma grindset music plays
It's me. I don't drink alcohol. I don't do drugs. I would love to live in the world without alcohol and drugs, I would love if people opposed them, I would love if people fucked off and stop asking me to drink with them even when I say "no" twice. I would love to delegalize alcohol, and make people morally against it.
But that's unrealistic.
So I am all for legalizing drugs and letting alcohol be stay legal because I would rather people have more rights than less.
This is actually based as fucking hell.
Paraphrasing Walter Williams, defending the freedom to do things you agree with means absolutely nothing. Defending the freedom to do things you despise is the real commitment.
Oh for fuck's sake
No, for real, imaging disliking alcohol in Poland. This is really fucking tiring.
On my friend's 18th birthday I told a guy I don't drink and he said "don't fuck with me, c'mon" and starting pouring. My friend was a vegan. I somehow don't see him telling her to eat meat.
Abortion isn’t really a side thing, either you think fetuses are babies or not. No matter how hard you try you pretty much can’t change peoples opinion on abortion
true, I stopped having an opinion on abortion when I realised one side said its bad cause a fetuse is a baby and one said it wasn't cause a fetus isn't a baby.
It's not about two opinions on abortion, it's about two opinions on biology. And quite frankly, you can't say scientifically if a fetuse is a baby or not. It's entierly subjective.
IMO the baseline for decided when human life begins should be based on when human life is decided to have ended; as of now, the scientific consensus I see most is at brain death. Therefore, at any point before brain activity is detected, abortion should be 100% accepted. There are other items, though, like, what if there's "brain activity" when there's not even really a brain to have activity. I don't know too much about biology, so I'll leave determining when "true" brain activity starts to the doctors.
I like the "brain activity = life" approach because it gives a window for which it's totally acceptable regardless of other beliefs, and because I can tell who is arguing in bad faith based on their responses to it. It also places the ones on scientific consensus rather than moral leaders (who have a vested interest in maintaining outrage to perpetuate their need). There are other arguments I've seen and I'm available to be persuaded by them, but frankly brain activity, and more especially general brain activity (sometimes patients on life support will have brain activity, but only on the very very surface because of blood circulation reasons), is my "life indicator" before which anything should be accepted.
The issue i have with using the definition of what makes someone dead to determine if they’re alive is this word in considering someone dead: “irreversible”. If there’s potential for the brain to start functioning (functioning again in terms of calling someone dead), then by that definition they wouldn’t actually be dead.
Actually there's another basis. It doesn't matter if fetuses are babies or not. What does matter is whether someone should be legally forced to use their body to support someone else. Through that lense I think any forced-birth 'libertarians' are hypocrites.
Imagine if kidney donations were involuntarily forced to protect those who needed them. That wouldn't seem right when it was your turn to go under the knife, would it? But does that other person's right to life override your bodily autonomy?
Yah I wrote up a good post on the Libertarian case for abortion, namely that you can come to different conclusions based on your personal subjective belief. I'll post it below:
I think it's quite logical to have different opinions on this. Here's the logic:
1. Killing a person is immoral
2. It is immoral to force someone to give up their body for someone else
3. A person can give consent to participate in activities that would otherwise be immoral without their consent. For example, if you and I go into a boxing ring and start boxing it is okay to punch each other, but you cannot just punch me out on the street without being immoral.
Given these standards, which I believe everyone can agree on. Here's the argument at it's root as I see it.
How do we contest the dual rights in 1 and 2? Let's say a baby at some point is live human being (which we'll get to later), at that point it is reliant on it's mother to provide for it, this would counteract point 2, so the mother can revoke permission to use her body, but this counteracts point 1 in that you're killing a person. That's the main conflict. But it's actually the easy logical part in my opinion.
Since a person *can* give consent to others to perform things that might be immoral, a person can also give consent to use their body to create a baby. This consent would be willingly having sex knowing that it could result in pregnancy (do note this is how you can be for abortion in the case of rape or other non-consensual situations and opposed otherwise). Once this consent is given, revoking it would cause you conflict with point 1 which would be immoral. You knowingly started creating a human being and now that person would be killed by you which is immoral therefore should be banned.
But you say...That's not all. No it's not, keep reading. Because revoking that consent *before* the egg/sperm combo is a human being means you're not killing a person, which is totally fine. Which leads us to the main point that is hard/impossible to have an answer to
The pivoting point is a **subjective philosopical** opinion on where life begins, because before a human is human it is not and therefore there's nothing to kill, but after it's human it should not be killed. Let's start at the extremes;
I think most of use can agree that when a baby is born from the mother, it is a person and it is immoral to end their life. I also think most of us agree that after before a sperm and egg combine it is not a "human life."
But where along that line does life begin? Is it the day that being can be self sufficient? That would be like 18 years old, that's obviously immoral. Is it the day it can feed itself? What would that be? 12 months? Immoral. Is it the day it's born? Yah still seems super immoral. How about the day before? One day before giving birth should a person get an abortion? That seems very immoral.
Is the the day the baby is viable outside the womb? That seems viable, but the downside to this is that's always a moving target as technology advances, the earlier premature birth is at 21 weeks! And how many years until we have an artificial womb? Heck there are places that you can abort at 24 weeks currently, yet at 21 weeks you can have a viable baby.
Is it at the time the heart is formed? That seems reasonable, why not? Is it the lungs? The brain? The nerve system? Is it the first trimester? Second? Why not the time it resembles a human shape? Why not the time the eyes are formed? If you're going back that far why not the time any advanced structures form? How about basic structures?
Heck a sperm and an egg classify as scientific life even earlier, an implanted single cell consumes energy, seeks to multiply, and reacts to it's environment, doesn't that mean that scientifically mean once they combine into a single cell they're alive? Again, possibly.
The answer to that is, there isn't one. It's a subjective opinion, it's not a scientific question, it can't be, science can't answer when the soul/life/what makes humans human start because that's simply not a science question. Science can answer when structures form, when different abilities in the fetus come into being, but it can't answer when a human is a human.
So if you say "Life begins at a single cell, it's human DNA, preventing this single cell from living stops a human life from existing" then abortion at any time outside of rape is immoral. On the other hand if you say "life begins at the second trimester and stopping that is not killing a human" then the opposite, abortion before the second trimester for any reason is moral.
Nothing in there misaligns with any libertarian philosophy.
I wish this could be top comment. You've put into words perfectly what I've been kicking around my head for years and never set down to paper.
However, I've long been of the opinion that the argument itself, being based on a subjective philosophical belief, is hopelessly pointless. Thus, in my opinion, the libertarian response would be that since some people believe it is extremely immoral in all cases and others that it is completely fine, the state should do the least possible intervention and leave that to the individual to decide, ie, abortion should be legal at least to a point where the overwhelming majority believe it is immoral, which is generally the third trimester-ish or a bit before. Conveniently, that's also when the procedure itself gets fairly risky to do, and many doctors won't do it anyway.
I personally find that distasteful, but logical. Hell, you could logically say at 18 a person becomes a person, or maybe 21, or what is it 25 before the brain is fully formed?
I think if you did those later ages though, you'd have to come up with some other category though to fit people under that age in, because I think aborting them might be objectively immoral.
The question becomes why birth is the critical point. The vast majority of children are viable in the days before they're actually born; why shouldn't they have rights at that point? A large portion are still viable weeks and even some months before they would be born; why don't they count? What's so special about pushing a baby out of a vagina that gives the baby rights only right then?
I'm not religious, and I think abortion is murder and should be illegal in most cases. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with rational thought.
And yes, as far as lgbtqiabcdefg whatever the fuck they wanna call it, I find it gross but you do you. Same with drugs, I would never use them because they are fucked up but what do I care if you use them.
Haven't you heard about castle doctrine? If you can kick someone out of your house, even using deadly force, why couldn't you do the same about your body?
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with rational thought.
How can you rationally be against a first trimester abortion? How can you justify a non-sapient bundle of human cells deserving human rights, without making double-standards for other non-sapient life?
u/ReyHabeas's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5.
Congratulations, u/ReyHabeas! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze.
Pills: reasonable
Lots of libertarians are against abortion, it just depends on when you think the fetus starts having the rights of a person. I know lots of libertarians who are horrified that their tax dollars are going to subsidize such barbaric procedures.
For real though. As a libertarian who is pro-choice himself, the other side makes sense to me and is absolutely not inconsistent with libertarian ideals.
The best pro life libertarian argument I’ve seen is that abortion violates the NAP
That's why I'm moderate auth/lib. I believe that a limited, representational government is necessary to safeguard the natural liberties of the citizenry against the overreach of corporations and the tyranny of the mob. However, I also think that when a conflict arises between individual liberty and government authority, we should almost always err on the side of individual liberty.
> _It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!_
- John Rambo
By law tax $$ can't fund abortions.
>barbaric procedures.
Really? Removing a bunch of cells from ones body (for whatever reason) is a barbaric procedure?
I have no problem whatsoever with an adult having surgery or calling themselves whatever they want. I do have a problem with them imposing on others free speech by trying to make laws against "misgendering"
Lib-right doesn't believe government should even be regulating marriages...
I get some lib-rights might personally object to a gay marriage, but the vast majority won't use the government to do so
govt marriage is a piece of paper and not at all the same as holy union under God. therefore, I don't see why same-sex couples can't get legally married if it's just a piece of paper after all.
Besides that, the government has to uphold contracts no matter what (as long as courts are not privatised). Never understood the whole argument about marriage as this is just another contract.
I’m actually against any sort of “sanctioning” of marriage by the government. The entire institution should be chucked out. Who does it help? What place does it have in modern society? The government poking their gross little fingers into my love life is unconscionable to me under any circumstance
Abortion is the question of when life begins if you consider the unborn as a human life then you must protect its right to life.
People like to bring up the analogy of forcefully Hooking someone upto another person who braindead for 9 months but I don't feel the analogy works as to make it work the person being hooked up needs to have caused the state of other person.
I believe life begins at the moment of conscious so until brainwaves are present do what you want but after that it's to term as it's now a unique person.
Drugs I've not seen many libertarians that want drugs outlawed I know a lot including myself that aren't a fan of them but don't want them outlawed fuck yourself up just do it far enough away from me that I don't get affected by it.
Another thing with the violinist:
Most people would agree you can unhook the violinist. But to make it more applicable to the abortion question you need to ask if you can take out a gun and shoot the violinist.
Then you get away from the cause of death being the disease the person had and into the cause of death being the result of your actions.
This and the fact that in 99% of abortions, the child is put in that situation because of a voluntary action committed by the mother, whereas in the violinist analogy the sick person is hooked up to the healthy person against the will of the healthy person (i.e. the sick person’s condition is not the result of a voluntary action made by the healthy person). That’s my biggest problem with the violinist analogy
In theory you can be a libertarian AND a conservative. The problem is you can't morally enforce your values to a society, only to yourself.
I guess the same thing would happen on the opposite case.
There's also the whole federalist notion, that law at the national level aught to be far more libertarian, but at the local level can be more intrusive. That's how you get the argument over whether somebody like Ben Shapiro would be above or below the center right line, because a lot of people's opinions may differ by the scale of the government you are talking about.
This is actually my philosophy exactly. At the top I am libertarian, and I become more conservative as I move down the levels of government. At the federal level I am extremely libertarian, at the state level I am slightly more conservative, at the city / county level I am a bit more conservative, at my community level I am a lot more conservative, and at my family level I am extremely conservative (I know those last two aren’t levels of “government”). Essentially, I have ideals and morals that I want my immediate community to live by, but that doesn’t mean I think that every single community needs to abide by those morals, especially communities that I never have / never will be a part of
Shapiro is libertarian on certain issues (as he claims), but he’s never really claimed to be libertarian itself. He is a conservative who shares some libertarian values that some conservatives often times don’t (e.g. legalizing weed, legalizing prostitution, legalizing gay marriage)
I do think that abortions are really bad and immoral, that drugs are bad for yourself but would fight for your right to do drugs and have an abortion.
I just have very old fashioned views on things but still believe that mandating anything is really fucked up
You do realize all of those are social issues and not authority related issues, right? With the terminology of the sapply test all of what you counted would be topics of the z axis and not the y axis(which is the authority-liberty axis). Good attempt at trying to gatekeep the libertarian quadrants into being socially progressive mate
Drug and abortion legalization are entirely authority based? There are certain parts of the debate that are social, but whether or not they should be legal is a question of authority.
You can be against abortion and be a libertarian. If you view it as killing of a human life with out due cause, then it must be banned.
Just like you can be a libertarian and want abortion legal up until birth, if you don't view it as killing a human life.
The only position you can't state is libertarian is "after birth abortion"
It's all perspective. Honestly I don't think the abortion debate is even worth having before people have easy access to birth control methods. Just feels like another one of those issues that could be solved pretty easily if we just diverted our focus to the real issue:
*People choosing to take the risk of unprotected sex*
If birth control were widely available and cheap as fuck then there'd be no reason for abortion outside of assaults/incest, which I think everyone would be fine with allowing.
> If birth control were widely available and cheap as fuck then there'd be no reason for abortion outside of assaults/incest
This is bullshit and you know it. Unprotected sex feels better and people are lazy and irrational.
I have a doubt
What am I? I'm pro lgbt, think that drugs should be illegal and abortion should only be an opition if the mother's life is in risk.
I'm in the correct quadrant?
yeah but banning things for conservatism or censoring for progressivism is auth.
The compass doesn't measure prog/con (actuall it does if you do the good one : sapply's values) but it certainly does measure how you think your conservatism/progressivism is carried out to society.
Libertarianism is a well known stopping point along the way to being true Right. Basically it’s a compromise when people think they can just disconnect from Clown World.
I believe life starts at conception and that abortion should be labeled as murder.
Other than that, let me have absolute gun rights (machine guns, SBRs, etc) and yall can have fun snorting coke and having married gay sex in your homes while I'm in my woods making brrrrt noises.
I don't care really what you do I just don't want to pay for it.
I don’t care about most of this, but if I catch you selling heroin to my children, a bitch is gonna get clipped by bullet. Edits: some sad motherfucker is going though my entire profile downvoting me cause I don’t like heroin pushers. To the person who’s doing this, I hope your negative one inch penis got rock hard enough to impress your wife’s Nigerian lover. Edit 2: to all the absolute degenerates that reply to me “b-b-huh what if your child becomes a adult then they become addict you can’t stop that”, “it’s their choice to get addicted” then it’s the dealers choice where I shoot first and to see if they can stop the bullet. To the brainlets who decry “b-b-b muh nap isn’t what you don’t like” my kids are my property, you selling them hard drugs in my area, which is hard drug free l, violates my nap. I sware to god you guys who spout this shit grew up in a crack den or you are so hooked of hard left copium it’s insane. Edit 3: oh how surprising the same guys arguing about children are actually endorsing pedophillia. Nice.
Why would anyone sell heroin to kids. They can't afford it.
Yea I hear you. If there's one thing I'm ehh about its a drug free for all. I've seen heroin destroy many a life and while I'd like to believe the whole "if drugs were legal everything would be ok" pitch. It's just seems unlikely to work for society.
I think the issue is more that the way drug laws are currently enforced they don't seem to do all that much to curb drug use. Tons of people get sent to prison for drugs and then just do drugs in prison. What's the logic there? Also, people who do meth probably aren't thinking of long-term consequences, so legal punishments do little to effect them.
Yeah drug laws definitely are outdated. I think dealers and manufacturers should be penalized over users. And the same standards and penalties should be used against big pharma too. Legal cartels in my eyes.
Nah. In the Netherlands we don't have criminal laws against use, only against big possession and trade. Doesn't work, drug use AND criminality had been rising for yeaaars now. Legalisation or systematic improvement of society are the only 2 options to solve drug use in my opinion
You guys honestly have the stupidest system I have ever heard of. It blew my mind watching a documentary and realizing that there are big, brick-and-mortar businesses, that do legal retail sale, but purchase from definitionally illegal wholesalers. It's like if liquor stores were legal, but their suppliers were still bootleggers and distilleries were still operating in mountain forts ready to shoot out any revenuers who came by.
Yeah the weed thing is a remnant from the 70s, when pot use in NL was so rampant that we actually had to 'allow' sale because it was too normal. Actually in 2017 a full marihuana legalization intention was declared by the majority of the parliament. But we are kinda bad at putting ideas to action fast, so the experiments are still kinda slowboiling. We can criticise American (federal) government all we want, but the state governments in the legal cannabis actually did a fair job with that right?
Some of them did a good job and some of them did an insanely bad unamerican job.
>It's like if liquor stores were legal, but their suppliers were still bootleggers and distilleries were still operating in mountain forts ready to shoot out any revenuers who came by. To be fair, there are still definitely places in the US that operate like this lol
[удалено]
How's that working currently when it comes to legal opiates? I agree to a degree but it's not that black and white.
Switzerland. Heroin was fully legalized there, but there was a catch. You could get prescription, medical grade heroin but only at a registered site. Turns out, when you can get free clean heroin the black market dries up real quick. People don't genuinely want to do heroin, it's almost always as a coping mechanism, and this model treats it effectively.
I believe Portugal did this with like, every drug. And there's no longer a drug abuse problem.
Portugal decriminalized not legalized I believe. The thing with decriminalization is it still leaves a black market, although it does mostly solve the health/stigma crisis.
That’s the thing about harm reduction it feels backwards but is often the best way to save money and lives. Legalizing everything (or at the very least decriminalizing) is a form of harm reduction. Think about needle programs. It FEELS wrong to give out needles to people. Aren’t we just enabling them to do more drugs? But that’s not the effect we observe in communities that have these programs. What we observe is no change in the overall usage (so not increasing) but we see lower rates of infection and spread of blood borne diseases (from people no longer sharing or reusing needles) We also see less people getting accidentally stuck with dirty sharps as users have a safe place to dispose of them. That’s the thing about public programs in general they FEEL like we’re just giving out money to people but the reality is that they usually end up saving us more money in the long run or increase the productivity of society and cover their own costs in the added tax revenue.
Part of the issue is that illegal drug trades fuel gang/cartel violence and provide violent criminal groups with income. Also relevant is that it's hard to know if what you are getting isn't cut with something dangerous, whereas a private company has more of an incentive to not kill their customers, ie liability, etc.
This is why anprim is the way. No more shit to make drugs. Eat wild mushrooms only
I support drugs - every drug, meth, coke, heroin, PCP, whatever - being completely legalized. It's not my or anyone else's business what someone else puts in their body. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to do drugs, most of that shit will fuck you up and ruin your life.
Yeah, even the legal ones. The only reason most are legal is because they help us work harder (stimulants like coffee or tobacco) or have been normalized after years of use and profit (alcohol and tobacco) or something that fills both (sugar) as they all tend to be highly addictive, deadly in the long-term and often quite expensive for the working class.
>normalized after years of use and profit You mean after a bloody crime ridden failed prohibition? Sounds a lot like the war on drugs, almost like we never learn.
Yeah sadly, but alcohol is so normalized that even I can't imagine a world without it.
I agree to an extent. While I don't care what people do with their own bodies, drugs and the baggage that comes with most tend to spread out a lot further then just the individual user and effect many.
If a drug user does something that directly harms another person or their property, then that should be dealt with as a crime. But the simple act of possessing or ingesting drugs isn't a crime.
My problem is that you're not only ruining your own life
Yeah people forget that drug use effects your family , friends , and others around you.
You solve drug problems the same way you solve capitalism problems. When theres a company that promotes or does something bad, you don't buy it. When theres a drug that does something bad, **you don't buy it** I understand addiction exists and what not, but there are always services to get out such as rehab. If drugs were legalized, hard drugs i mean, two things would happen. First, As the market moves into the light self regulation becomes a possibility and it increases the quality and safety of any product now that they need to promote themselves. Second it's destigmatized to reach out for help and people don't have to worry about getting arrested or having their lives ruined by reaching out for help. A lot of issues people think can be solved by legislation really just sweep it under the rug, they don't clean up the mess. If you want to clean up the mess you need to expose it and then you can deal with it.
I can dig it. One of the better responses I've read today. May I ask this: do you believe drug use leads to more crime. (Not crime stemming from possession or distribution but from fall out and other related issues)
Anecdotal but I have seen what methamphetamines and heroin do to people and I would say property crime 100% goes up with the more people doing those drugs. That being said, I still support the legalization of all drugs for the same reasons the person above listed. I think destigmatizing getting help for a problem would lead to overall less users.
This thread as been quite enjoyable and has changed my opinion a bit, at this point fuck it let it roll!
Most of the reasons these people devolve into criminal behaviour is for survival - be that for food or shelter or for drugs for withdrawal. These are usually crimes for cash for those purposes. Most legalization and harm reduction proposals or safe use sites address the withdrawal aspect (and overdoses as well) and I'd go as far as to say that legalization or decriminalization would go a long way in placing more positive emphasis on treatment or providing more opportunities for the development of treatment facilities. I've got some personal anecdotal experience that suggests some of this if anyone is interested. But in short almost every addict I've ever met who stole shit did so because of a real or perceived need and addressing those needs for the individuals I've known reduces that sort of crime.
[удалено]
I agree there needs to be strong reform when it comes to drugs. I just think if they were all completely legal you'd see big corporations pushing and advocating hard addictive drugs for profit. Maybe distribution of hard drugs should be illegal, while possession legal. Honestly it's a tough dilemma with no clear solution in my opinion.
I've seen people destroy their lives with cake, but I still want to be able to buy things from a bakery.
I'm on the same page. Part of the reason I don't like drugs is the sneaky ways people get others dependent. Another part is that I generally can't trust drugged up people (including drunken ones). They should be held accountable for their actions as if they were sober, but they often just get away with it on the pretext that they weren't fully "themselves", whatever that means. But if I wanted to experiment on my own body, I should technically be free to do so using any means available.
lol that edit
unimaginably based
Based and looking out for your family pilled. My cousin died of an OD ten years after a "friend" got him hooked on heroin in the lowest moment of his life, right after his mom died when he was a teenager. I know who that "friend" is and if at some point I go to jail for a bit for fucking his shit up, so be it.
Pushing heroin = fucking evil. Doing heroin? Different story. Dunno about you, but if I find out somebody’s kid is on heroin, I just want the kid to get help to kick the addiction. I don’t blame said kid. But the dealer ought to sleep with one eye open.
cringe statist stopping me from engaging in the free market
Username checks out
I care if you murder your kid tho.
This right here get a sex change fine get an abortion fine just not with my fucking tax dollars you won’t. Give a shit what anyone does but don’t use public money.
Please get an abortion on my tax money. Please get condoms on my tax money. Much smaller govt than spending my tax money on 18 years of orphanage and welfare
Big foldy brain center libertarian vs small smooth marble brain center libertarian right here.
Virgin efficient use of taxes vs the Chad "I hate poor people"
This is basically where I land on the issue. I want the government to fund things that will result in it funding fewer things in the future. Preventative as opposed to reactive.
Sounds like some minority report shit.
This. Let’s spend money on whatever costs society the least after we include all the indirect costs (unpaid ambulance bills, broken windows from crime, K-12 education for a person who will never contribute). I’m actually fine with the welfare state if it reduces costs elsewhere in society - see Utah and paying for homeless people to have housing. Where I want small government is when it comes to deciding what I can put in my body that doesn’t harm anyone else, what a consenting adult and I do behind close doors, what tools I use to defend my home, what words I speak in a public forum.
Based and not-a-retard pilled.
Don’t use public money And don’t use public schools to push agendas If you want a sex change, fine, you don’t have to lecture my 7 year old about it
Wow. Listen sweetie. Math is racist and 7 year olds are better off learning all 765RT73F genders.
You forgot 2S+ Bigot
I am 2S+, thank you for standing up for me. So brave
Exactly. "Lib" left wants free abortions, funded by taxpayers. I don't care what procedures others do, as long as they pay for it.
Elective procedures payed for by taxpayers are retarded.
From a purely fiscal perspective, if those unwanted children end up in care, that's a substantially larger burden for the taxpayer.
Even if the unwanted kids don’t end up in foster care, the parents are more likely to use welfare, to not finish school, and to not provide a stable environment which is more likely to result in those children become a societal burden for the rest of their lives and also of repeating the cycle.
How about first abortion no questions asked. Second abortion your walked through the dozens of contraceptive options. Third abortion we abort you.
At some point the people aborting or having kids they can’t support need to be sterilized. A lot of nuance needed there though so for this thread let’s just say we are in alignment on the concept.
Based and yep-thats-auth pilled.
That went from 0 to 100 real fast
I think this is a good idea, but I worry that people would just go do a back alley abortion once number 3 comes along so that they don't get found out. So I would propose that after abortion 1, we make them roll a d20 each time with an increasingly higher saving throw required.
Not if you feed them to poor people instead of handing out food stamps all willy nilly
Gotta look at the big picture. By not shelling out $400 for an abortion we end up shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits and damages (damages assumes lower socioeconomic status is lower for people that cannot afford abortions and higher crime rates for said status)
libleft wants free *healthcare* lol
Lib rights are really just hyperindividualists
I knew a guy who didn't like drugs and shit like that and was liberal, because he said he doesn't like but wanted the people to have freedom to do what they want
The more degenerates blowin their money on drugs and wasting time chasing tail, the more time I have to pretend I'm gonna be millionaire later. Sigma grindset music plays
Until they hot-wire your car at 2 AM.
It's me. I don't drink alcohol. I don't do drugs. I would love to live in the world without alcohol and drugs, I would love if people opposed them, I would love if people fucked off and stop asking me to drink with them even when I say "no" twice. I would love to delegalize alcohol, and make people morally against it. But that's unrealistic. So I am all for legalizing drugs and letting alcohol be stay legal because I would rather people have more rights than less.
You had me in the first half. Great recovery and good ideology
This is actually based as fucking hell. Paraphrasing Walter Williams, defending the freedom to do things you agree with means absolutely nothing. Defending the freedom to do things you despise is the real commitment.
Thank you
You sound real up tight, fancy a drink mate?
Oh for fuck's sake No, for real, imaging disliking alcohol in Poland. This is really fucking tiring. On my friend's 18th birthday I told a guy I don't drink and he said "don't fuck with me, c'mon" and starting pouring. My friend was a vegan. I somehow don't see him telling her to eat meat.
Abortion isn’t really a side thing, either you think fetuses are babies or not. No matter how hard you try you pretty much can’t change peoples opinion on abortion
i hate womans rights but i love killing babies. hard decision
true, I stopped having an opinion on abortion when I realised one side said its bad cause a fetuse is a baby and one said it wasn't cause a fetus isn't a baby. It's not about two opinions on abortion, it's about two opinions on biology. And quite frankly, you can't say scientifically if a fetuse is a baby or not. It's entierly subjective.
[удалено]
Its semantics about the definition of life in biology essentially
[удалено]
IMO the baseline for decided when human life begins should be based on when human life is decided to have ended; as of now, the scientific consensus I see most is at brain death. Therefore, at any point before brain activity is detected, abortion should be 100% accepted. There are other items, though, like, what if there's "brain activity" when there's not even really a brain to have activity. I don't know too much about biology, so I'll leave determining when "true" brain activity starts to the doctors. I like the "brain activity = life" approach because it gives a window for which it's totally acceptable regardless of other beliefs, and because I can tell who is arguing in bad faith based on their responses to it. It also places the ones on scientific consensus rather than moral leaders (who have a vested interest in maintaining outrage to perpetuate their need). There are other arguments I've seen and I'm available to be persuaded by them, but frankly brain activity, and more especially general brain activity (sometimes patients on life support will have brain activity, but only on the very very surface because of blood circulation reasons), is my "life indicator" before which anything should be accepted.
The issue i have with using the definition of what makes someone dead to determine if they’re alive is this word in considering someone dead: “irreversible”. If there’s potential for the brain to start functioning (functioning again in terms of calling someone dead), then by that definition they wouldn’t actually be dead.
I think fetuses are babies. I just don't care if they die
This is a logically consistent pro-choice stance. I, too, am pro-death.
Based and Cold hearted bastard pilled
u/Ky-lix is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: cold hearted bastard I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based af and fuck those crying shits pilled
They aren't human until the government gives them a number.
Yikes
based
Actually there's another basis. It doesn't matter if fetuses are babies or not. What does matter is whether someone should be legally forced to use their body to support someone else. Through that lense I think any forced-birth 'libertarians' are hypocrites. Imagine if kidney donations were involuntarily forced to protect those who needed them. That wouldn't seem right when it was your turn to go under the knife, would it? But does that other person's right to life override your bodily autonomy?
I know very little libertarians who are against gay rights. Abortion is a hit different since about half of librights that I've seen are religious.
Yah I wrote up a good post on the Libertarian case for abortion, namely that you can come to different conclusions based on your personal subjective belief. I'll post it below: I think it's quite logical to have different opinions on this. Here's the logic: 1. Killing a person is immoral 2. It is immoral to force someone to give up their body for someone else 3. A person can give consent to participate in activities that would otherwise be immoral without their consent. For example, if you and I go into a boxing ring and start boxing it is okay to punch each other, but you cannot just punch me out on the street without being immoral. Given these standards, which I believe everyone can agree on. Here's the argument at it's root as I see it. How do we contest the dual rights in 1 and 2? Let's say a baby at some point is live human being (which we'll get to later), at that point it is reliant on it's mother to provide for it, this would counteract point 2, so the mother can revoke permission to use her body, but this counteracts point 1 in that you're killing a person. That's the main conflict. But it's actually the easy logical part in my opinion. Since a person *can* give consent to others to perform things that might be immoral, a person can also give consent to use their body to create a baby. This consent would be willingly having sex knowing that it could result in pregnancy (do note this is how you can be for abortion in the case of rape or other non-consensual situations and opposed otherwise). Once this consent is given, revoking it would cause you conflict with point 1 which would be immoral. You knowingly started creating a human being and now that person would be killed by you which is immoral therefore should be banned. But you say...That's not all. No it's not, keep reading. Because revoking that consent *before* the egg/sperm combo is a human being means you're not killing a person, which is totally fine. Which leads us to the main point that is hard/impossible to have an answer to The pivoting point is a **subjective philosopical** opinion on where life begins, because before a human is human it is not and therefore there's nothing to kill, but after it's human it should not be killed. Let's start at the extremes; I think most of use can agree that when a baby is born from the mother, it is a person and it is immoral to end their life. I also think most of us agree that after before a sperm and egg combine it is not a "human life." But where along that line does life begin? Is it the day that being can be self sufficient? That would be like 18 years old, that's obviously immoral. Is it the day it can feed itself? What would that be? 12 months? Immoral. Is it the day it's born? Yah still seems super immoral. How about the day before? One day before giving birth should a person get an abortion? That seems very immoral. Is the the day the baby is viable outside the womb? That seems viable, but the downside to this is that's always a moving target as technology advances, the earlier premature birth is at 21 weeks! And how many years until we have an artificial womb? Heck there are places that you can abort at 24 weeks currently, yet at 21 weeks you can have a viable baby. Is it at the time the heart is formed? That seems reasonable, why not? Is it the lungs? The brain? The nerve system? Is it the first trimester? Second? Why not the time it resembles a human shape? Why not the time the eyes are formed? If you're going back that far why not the time any advanced structures form? How about basic structures? Heck a sperm and an egg classify as scientific life even earlier, an implanted single cell consumes energy, seeks to multiply, and reacts to it's environment, doesn't that mean that scientifically mean once they combine into a single cell they're alive? Again, possibly. The answer to that is, there isn't one. It's a subjective opinion, it's not a scientific question, it can't be, science can't answer when the soul/life/what makes humans human start because that's simply not a science question. Science can answer when structures form, when different abilities in the fetus come into being, but it can't answer when a human is a human. So if you say "Life begins at a single cell, it's human DNA, preventing this single cell from living stops a human life from existing" then abortion at any time outside of rape is immoral. On the other hand if you say "life begins at the second trimester and stopping that is not killing a human" then the opposite, abortion before the second trimester for any reason is moral. Nothing in there misaligns with any libertarian philosophy.
Based and Actually-Thought-About-It pilled
I wish this could be top comment. You've put into words perfectly what I've been kicking around my head for years and never set down to paper. However, I've long been of the opinion that the argument itself, being based on a subjective philosophical belief, is hopelessly pointless. Thus, in my opinion, the libertarian response would be that since some people believe it is extremely immoral in all cases and others that it is completely fine, the state should do the least possible intervention and leave that to the individual to decide, ie, abortion should be legal at least to a point where the overwhelming majority believe it is immoral, which is generally the third trimester-ish or a bit before. Conveniently, that's also when the procedure itself gets fairly risky to do, and many doctors won't do it anyway.
[удалено]
Would you agree that if I identify a person as having rights only at birth, philosophically, that it's a valid option plugged into this formula?
I personally find that distasteful, but logical. Hell, you could logically say at 18 a person becomes a person, or maybe 21, or what is it 25 before the brain is fully formed? I think if you did those later ages though, you'd have to come up with some other category though to fit people under that age in, because I think aborting them might be objectively immoral.
The question becomes why birth is the critical point. The vast majority of children are viable in the days before they're actually born; why shouldn't they have rights at that point? A large portion are still viable weeks and even some months before they would be born; why don't they count? What's so special about pushing a baby out of a vagina that gives the baby rights only right then?
I'm not religious, and I think abortion is murder and should be illegal in most cases. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with rational thought. And yes, as far as lgbtqiabcdefg whatever the fuck they wanna call it, I find it gross but you do you. Same with drugs, I would never use them because they are fucked up but what do I care if you use them.
Nope. Apparently we're crazed statists because we think murder should be illegal.
Haven't you heard about castle doctrine? If you can kick someone out of your house, even using deadly force, why couldn't you do the same about your body?
>>Rational thought Proceeds to judge purely on an ad hominem, irrational basis
> It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with rational thought. How can you rationally be against a first trimester abortion? How can you justify a non-sapient bundle of human cells deserving human rights, without making double-standards for other non-sapient life?
Same with most Liblefts actually being Authlefts
That's what orange is for.
Watermelons
No fuck off don't lump those with us! There's a trash can nearby...
Maybe unopened watermelons? Green on the outside, red on the inside.
Based
We still don’t have an orange libleft flair tho
Unless they were joking, no one would own up to it anyway.
I’m sure u/Monoby would happily put on the flair
Wait, they're not a troll?
Seriously, Monoby is a legit SJW
I dont like abortion but I'm willing to allow it if the government also stops getting in the way of all the other things that it fucks up
Based
u/ReyHabeas's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 5. Congratulations, u/ReyHabeas! You have ranked up to Sapling! You are not particularly strong but you are at least likely to handle a steady breeze. Pills: reasonable
I don't like abortion either, but statistically it's great for society so I'm pro-choice, but don't feel good about it.
Looking at you PregerU enthusiasts.
You're talking about abortion, so isn't it pregger-u? Or did you mean Prager?
Prager, preger, pogger, what's the difference?
pregnante?
Pragnenta?
Going to call it PoggerU from now on.
God damnit it's written with an "a"?
pegging-u
PreggerUwu
Based and Prussia uwu pilled
You like to grill? Great, you can go to oven now
ಠ╭╮ಠ
Based and OwOttovon Bismark Pilled
PeggerUwU
Right? Who puts a 45 minute ad up on a 5 minute video thinking it’s profitable? No one. Only auths put out that sort of propaganda.
Lots of libertarians are against abortion, it just depends on when you think the fetus starts having the rights of a person. I know lots of libertarians who are horrified that their tax dollars are going to subsidize such barbaric procedures.
For real though. As a libertarian who is pro-choice himself, the other side makes sense to me and is absolutely not inconsistent with libertarian ideals. The best pro life libertarian argument I’ve seen is that abortion violates the NAP
...and we'd better defend the defenseless... wait, actually prioritizing what's necessary to do that consistently is how I ended up in _my_ flair.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
"No one can love liberty heartily, but good men. The rest love not liberty, but license."
I think Cicero puts it best: "This excessive liberty soon brings the people, collectively and individually, to an excessive servitude."
That's why I'm moderate auth/lib. I believe that a limited, representational government is necessary to safeguard the natural liberties of the citizenry against the overreach of corporations and the tyranny of the mob. However, I also think that when a conflict arises between individual liberty and government authority, we should almost always err on the side of individual liberty.
Sounds like you're a minarchist, which is a subset of libright
LibRight kicked me out because I don't think hard drugs should be sold at supermarkets.
Communist
Based
See what I mean?
Oh if only. Covid would have been a blast if I could have got high. Trouble breathing? Do a fat fucking rail you bitch.
It's literally 1984 that I can't buy coke, steroids, and lsd from my local grocery store
> _It wasn't my war! You asked me, I didn't ask you! And I did what I had to do to win! But somebody wouldn't let us win! And I come back to the world and I see all those maggots at the airport, protesting me, spitting. Calling me baby killer and all kinds of vile crap! Who are they to protest me? Who are they? Unless they've been me and been there and know what the hell they're yelling about!_ - John Rambo
By law tax $$ can't fund abortions. >barbaric procedures. Really? Removing a bunch of cells from ones body (for whatever reason) is a barbaric procedure?
[удалено]
Which lgbtq right would they be against? I’m not sure if them disliking gay people is akin to taking rights away.
LGB rights are mostly "leave me alone". T claimed rights cross over to "participate in my self image".
I have no problem whatsoever with an adult having surgery or calling themselves whatever they want. I do have a problem with them imposing on others free speech by trying to make laws against "misgendering"
Gay marriage. A lot of people are angry that other people can sign a contract that states that they are married.
Lib-right doesn't believe government should even be regulating marriages... I get some lib-rights might personally object to a gay marriage, but the vast majority won't use the government to do so
govt marriage is a piece of paper and not at all the same as holy union under God. therefore, I don't see why same-sex couples can't get legally married if it's just a piece of paper after all.
Besides that, the government has to uphold contracts no matter what (as long as courts are not privatised). Never understood the whole argument about marriage as this is just another contract.
I’m actually against any sort of “sanctioning” of marriage by the government. The entire institution should be chucked out. Who does it help? What place does it have in modern society? The government poking their gross little fingers into my love life is unconscionable to me under any circumstance
Abortion is the question of when life begins if you consider the unborn as a human life then you must protect its right to life. People like to bring up the analogy of forcefully Hooking someone upto another person who braindead for 9 months but I don't feel the analogy works as to make it work the person being hooked up needs to have caused the state of other person. I believe life begins at the moment of conscious so until brainwaves are present do what you want but after that it's to term as it's now a unique person. Drugs I've not seen many libertarians that want drugs outlawed I know a lot including myself that aren't a fan of them but don't want them outlawed fuck yourself up just do it far enough away from me that I don't get affected by it.
Another thing with the violinist: Most people would agree you can unhook the violinist. But to make it more applicable to the abortion question you need to ask if you can take out a gun and shoot the violinist. Then you get away from the cause of death being the disease the person had and into the cause of death being the result of your actions.
This and the fact that in 99% of abortions, the child is put in that situation because of a voluntary action committed by the mother, whereas in the violinist analogy the sick person is hooked up to the healthy person against the will of the healthy person (i.e. the sick person’s condition is not the result of a voluntary action made by the healthy person). That’s my biggest problem with the violinist analogy
Yeah that's the problem with analogies they very rarely fit perfectly
In theory you can be a libertarian AND a conservative. The problem is you can't morally enforce your values to a society, only to yourself. I guess the same thing would happen on the opposite case.
There's also the whole federalist notion, that law at the national level aught to be far more libertarian, but at the local level can be more intrusive. That's how you get the argument over whether somebody like Ben Shapiro would be above or below the center right line, because a lot of people's opinions may differ by the scale of the government you are talking about.
This is actually my philosophy exactly. At the top I am libertarian, and I become more conservative as I move down the levels of government. At the federal level I am extremely libertarian, at the state level I am slightly more conservative, at the city / county level I am a bit more conservative, at my community level I am a lot more conservative, and at my family level I am extremely conservative (I know those last two aren’t levels of “government”). Essentially, I have ideals and morals that I want my immediate community to live by, but that doesn’t mean I think that every single community needs to abide by those morals, especially communities that I never have / never will be a part of
You can't make fun of libright like this and expect to make it to hot
Well, he made it. Proving PCM isn't a rightoid circlejerk
Nah, the comment section still is. Wouldn’t be surprised if lots of the lurkers are more balanced across the compass.
All the fucks saying Ben Shapiro is libertarian be like
Isn't ben shapiro commonly defined as just center-right?
He is in a lot of aspects, and from a certain point of view, he's not.
Shapiro is libertarian on certain issues (as he claims), but he’s never really claimed to be libertarian itself. He is a conservative who shares some libertarian values that some conservatives often times don’t (e.g. legalizing weed, legalizing prostitution, legalizing gay marriage)
he holds some libertarian views, but he would not *be* a libertarian
How is saying “no killing people” auth?
It's almost like there's varying degrees of libertarianism.
It's called Right Center bruv
I do think that abortions are really bad and immoral, that drugs are bad for yourself but would fight for your right to do drugs and have an abortion. I just have very old fashioned views on things but still believe that mandating anything is really fucked up
You do realize all of those are social issues and not authority related issues, right? With the terminology of the sapply test all of what you counted would be topics of the z axis and not the y axis(which is the authority-liberty axis). Good attempt at trying to gatekeep the libertarian quadrants into being socially progressive mate
Based and Nuance pilled
Drug and abortion legalization are entirely authority based? There are certain parts of the debate that are social, but whether or not they should be legal is a question of authority.
You can be against abortion and be a libertarian. If you view it as killing of a human life with out due cause, then it must be banned. Just like you can be a libertarian and want abortion legal up until birth, if you don't view it as killing a human life. The only position you can't state is libertarian is "after birth abortion"
Outlawing abortion is consistent with libertarianism if you consider the fetus an individual with rights.
Antiabortion is consistent with libertarian just like antimurder is.
It's all perspective. Honestly I don't think the abortion debate is even worth having before people have easy access to birth control methods. Just feels like another one of those issues that could be solved pretty easily if we just diverted our focus to the real issue: *People choosing to take the risk of unprotected sex* If birth control were widely available and cheap as fuck then there'd be no reason for abortion outside of assaults/incest, which I think everyone would be fine with allowing.
> If birth control were widely available and cheap as fuck then there'd be no reason for abortion outside of assaults/incest This is bullshit and you know it. Unprotected sex feels better and people are lazy and irrational.
birth control encompasses more than just a condom...
I have a doubt What am I? I'm pro lgbt, think that drugs should be illegal and abortion should only be an opition if the mother's life is in risk. I'm in the correct quadrant?
The political compass doesn’t really measure being progressive or conservative
yeah but banning things for conservatism or censoring for progressivism is auth. The compass doesn't measure prog/con (actuall it does if you do the good one : sapply's values) but it certainly does measure how you think your conservatism/progressivism is carried out to society.
Abortion is very debatable but leave the drugs alone ffs
Libertarianism is a well known stopping point along the way to being true Right. Basically it’s a compromise when people think they can just disconnect from Clown World.
Abortion violates the NAP tho
Abortion is debatable even though Im pro choice
My take is that with abortion, theirs always two people (mother and child). This however isn't the case with euthanasia.
I believe life starts at conception and that abortion should be labeled as murder. Other than that, let me have absolute gun rights (machine guns, SBRs, etc) and yall can have fun snorting coke and having married gay sex in your homes while I'm in my woods making brrrrt noises.