• Wogi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    11 months 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
      19
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        11 months 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
    51
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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?

        • Franzia
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Regulations on business and production of resources don’t infringe on my personal liberties.

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

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

    • Franzia
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months 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.

      • scoobford@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree. I’ve been listening to behind the bastards a lot, and the host is basically a pretty radical dude in favor of maximizing personal and civic freedoms and social safety nets.

        At this point I feel like we should be called the neo-libroanarchists or something. It seems like every political faction in the US is trying to restrict something just because.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months 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.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        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
            ·
            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
          3
          ·
          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@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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
      ·
      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
        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.

  • 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.

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

      • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

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

        But thank you for offering your fraternity to me.

    • cannache@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months 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?

    • EmoBean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not with drugs. Does the drug look similar enough to something illegal? Well then it’s also illegal. Are there new, positive, revolutionary uses for those drugs? Who fucking knows, they’re illegal before they’re even made.

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, there’s some truth in that. But there is also a justification (predicated on prior justification for existing hard drugs being made illegal). The justification is that it is not difficult to synthesize similar drugs that have similar effects. And very often, the differences in the effects are such that the new drug is more harmful than the drug it is copying. So rather than just automatically allowing every new drug and then playing an never-ending game of wack-a-mole with new and dangerous addictive drugs, they are just automatically banned.

        There are a lot of arguments for why it might have been a mistake to make certain drugs illegal in the first place; but that’s a different issue. If certain drugs are harmful enough to be illegal, then it is definitely justifiable to make similar new drugs illegal by default.

        A similar thing can apply to weapons. We don’t usually have laws against specific make and model of weapons. The laws are usually for entire categories, which include new versions are not yet created or tested.

  • cannache@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Nah it’s not exactly unreasonable to say that all objects and systems can be observed and judged, this isn’t libertarian claptrap, it’s just a fundamental basis of reality, everybody has a plan including the ones keeping an eye on our very government systems. Think of it this way, almost every system has an achilles heel and can fall apart so having people observe and act quickly to get things “back on track” or simply suggest a potential alternative path away from a point of failure actually means more than simply rejecting critique on the basis of maintaining an imaginary status quo

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

        Governments and many other systems can be held accountable simply by their failure if nothing else, and would potentially have more opportunity to be better with more transparency.