"Mind your own goddamn business."

The RW wing, particularly the representatives of the religious sort, are always telling us what to do and what to think. They make being gay a moral choice, and attack such wide-ranging things as Harry Potter books, heavy metal music, and role-playing games as "tools of the devil." They're quite happy to legislate morality any time they get the chance, as if laws are going to stop people from doing what they're going to do. It doesn't stop killers, it doesn't stop drug dealers, and it sure as hell isn't going to stop someone from being gay.

I don't need anyone to tell me what to think. Shove your cross in my face and I'm liable to get a bit annoyed. I don't believe it, but I don't really give a shit if someone else does. If someone tries to bludgeon me with their bible, I WILL tell them what I think about the book. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, the bible is little more than mythology, excuses for cruelty, and pretense. If you are to believe the Old Testament, their God was a sociopathic monster, and his chosen rulers and prophets (Elisha, anyone?) were little, if any, better.

The New Testament redeems that a little, but it's still difficult to believe any of it, considering it wasn't written by the people who they SAY it was written by, and not one account of Christ's life or death even in the same book is the same as any other.

But this post isn't supposed to be about religion. It's about people forcing people to behave in a certain way through legislative arm-twisting. It's about the farce that's the drug war, it's about giving gays the rights they deserve, and it's about leaving others their otherness.

For me this whole "liberal" thing is about allowing people to think what they will, and, in extension, do as they will, assuming it doesn't harm someone who didn't consent to that harm in some fashion. I would no more snatch the cigarette out of a smoker's mouth than I'd break down a door to stop a couple from engaging in S&M games in the privacy of their own bedroom. Even if the latter does creep me out a little.

There are certain behaviors that we are completely justified trying to discourage through social interaction and, even, to a limited extent, by using the media to push a message. Just as there are behaviors we want to encourage in much the same way. But we should ALWAYS consider very carefully the very notion that we may force people to comply through the threat of physical force that lies at the base of every law. The whole, "if you do not obey, we will FORCE you to obey" thing.

I understand that a lot of people look to the "greater" good and I suppose that's okay. But there are two things we should always keep in mind when considering whether or not implementing such legislation would be a good idea. The first is "how can this be turned, by ignorance or malice, against the people it's meant to protect?" and the second is "Is it even possible to enforce it?"

The first is an issue because too many times we've seen what appeared to be good ideas pushed to their ultimate conclusion, like "zero tolerance" policies that, rather than helping, harm the very people they're meant to help.

The second is an issue because laws that cannot, or are not, enforced simply encourage disdain for the law in general. It's counter-productive to create laws that people, even the ones intended to enforce them, will not respect.

A third consideration is HOW a law might be enforced. We come up with environmental protection laws and yet those who break these laws get away with what amounts to paltry fines that are less than they'd have to pay if they comply. If they don't do the job they're intended to do, for whatever reason, either strike them from the books and try again, or put the effort into enforcing them in an effective way that addresses the problem realistically.

It's not rocket science.

I loathe authoritarianism, no matter the ideology it claims to embrace. I don't want the "conservatives" telling me what to do with my body, and I don't want the "liberals" doing the same.

Every so often a flame war breaks out here on DU about this very subject..."how far is TOO far?"

All I have to say to those who want to enact laws to accomplish liberal or progressive goals aimed at individuals...Try to convince me all you want. You try to force me, and you become my enemy just as surely as those hypocrites on the right with lies, double-dealing, and serial monogamy in the guise of "morality."

That applies to flag burning and Grand Theft Auto alike. I have never done (played) either, but I don't need anyone sticking their nose into the mix. Don't tell me what I should watch on TV, or read in books, or WRITE, for that matter.

Understand that, and we'll get along just fine.

edited to fix a typo

Hell, I'll do it for them:

lib·er·al

–adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.

13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun

14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.

15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

"Liberal" now means cowardly effeminate smartypants nerd to too many people.

The story that comes to mind is when he siced (sp?) those bears on the children who were making fun of him and they were killed. But yes, I see your point about religion and saw that bit about Thomas Paine. Yesterday someone on DU was jazzed about picking up his book "The Age of Reason." He/She had never heard of it before. Cool! So cool is Thomas Paine. He should be our mascot, but another website has him.

Anyway, that story about Elisha really upset me a kid. I was just learning about the Bible and stuff, God is love, etc. and then I read about this. I just couldn't understand it and asked an adult whose answer was something along the lines of "Well, he was a man of God and those children were disobedient."

Brilliant deconstruction.

I don't know how many times I thought, "Yeah, that's how I saw that too."

That book scared me in a way because it went against EVERYTHING I was brainwashed to believe. I was like wow....I can't think like that I'll get struck my lightning. However, I got over it rather quickly and Thomas Paine is my hero of all time. Years ago I went to a temp job near Santa Monica and right in the lobby were two huge potraits. On the right was Churchill and on the left was Thomas Paine. I was amazed, simply amazed.

Well, I'm off to work now. Have a great evening.

Enjoy.

Getting zapped for simple curiosity. If God were raining down fire, wouldn't you want to sneak a look?

Lot, in the cave, drunk with his daughters. Funny how the preacher man always skipped that part. God fearing Lot, you bethca. Gross, gross, so gross.

...handed them over to be gang-raped by a bunch of drunk rowdies...who really wanted to get their hands on the hot 'angelic' visitors that Lot was hosting.

Family values...:eyes:

The vistors being "hot," that is. Another interpretation is that they just wanted to rob 'em. By the sounds of it, they looked affluent.

The men of the town did want the vistors because they were "hot" and wanted them to come party at the Pink Elephant. Girls....naw....we dig guys! So we figured it was okay for the dad to give up his daughters instead because girls and women were the "property" of the man. So why didn't Lot just ask the visitors to zap the guys if he was so upset. To me, he was just a weak whiny boy.

you have been one of my favorite posters here on DU. You know how you will click on a post, not because the topic is especially grabbing, but because of who the poster is? Well, that's you for me.

I suppose you can tell by my screen name that I'm a christian, yet there's not one thing that you wrote that I disagree with. I, too, am tired of having people push their politics in my face in the name of religion. And yes, I know your post wasn't specifically about religion, but that is the part that spoke to me loudest. Thank you for your well-expressed opinions.

I don't "get" it, but there's nothing saying I have to. I don't get pagans either, but I'm married to one. LOL

Our daughter married a pagan and seriously, one of the most intriguing young men I've ever met. I was a little sorry when the marriage ended on bad terms because I learned a lot from him. Fascinating, that paganism!

than most folks, since most folks are at least nominally Christian.

Couldn't agree more.

(Just watch it, because before too long someone's gonna tag you with that dreaded, dirty "l" word...)

:thumbsup:

but "l" words will never hurt me.

:evilgrin:

you said:

'I loathe authoritarianism, no matter the ideology it claims to embrace. I don't want the "conservatives" telling me what to do with my body, and I don't want the "liberals" doing the same'

:thumbsup:

but of course the issues are much more complex than that, hence the problems.

Business owners in the South wanted to be able to choose their customers, and it took laws and a big struggle to force them otherwise.

Environmental protection laws, as you point out, are sometimes ineffective for various reasons, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

My only problem with "leave me alone" messages is that they're a clear and simple response to a murky and complex world, and lawmakers are informed not only by "higher" ethical and spiritual forces but also, and more strongly and directly, by base economic interests. The Libertarian position of "hands off," anti-authoritarianism leaves the door wide open for the Free Market to work its magic of addiction and slavery.

It's a complex world.

They're not, and should not be accorded the same level of liberty as actual people. Corporations and businesses are licensed to operate under the auspices of the common good. Therefore it's perfectly acceptable that they be required to uphold a certain standard of practice. To serve all people equally, to be responsible for their waste, and to have their "speech" (advertisement) curtailed in the name of the public good.

On the other hand, you cannot FORCE a man to associate with people he doesn't like. You can encourage in various ways, but the only way to FORCE him is to throw him in prison where he'll no longer have a choice.

Most of our environmental laws are crap, and they're being dismantled at a rapid pace as we speak. There is NO way to justify fines that impose penalties less than the amount it would cost to implement the regulations and behave responsibly. Useless laws are WORSE than useless. They're destructive.

Funny, the right wing doesn't have that problem- they manage to allow corporations to do whatever the hell they want, damn the consequences, while continually increasing the restrictions on what consenting adults are allowed to do with their own bodies and own lives.

What Mythsaje is talking about pertains to individuals, and I agree with him. There's a very big chasm between saying that individuals should be able to make their own decisions about their own lives insofar as they're not directly harming anyone else, and saying that businesses should be able to do whatever they want, period.

As for "leaving the door wide open", well, if it's between leaving the door open for adults to make their own mistakes and having a nanny (or daddy) state micro-manage their affairs, I'll go with the former. Prohibition didn't prevent the "free market" from creating alcoholics; all it did was kill tons of people with bathtub gin and cause gang violence a la Al Capone. Same with drug prohibition, now.

Lastly, regarding "slavery", I think it's perfectly consistent for the left libertarian minded among us :hi: to support the right of people to engage in whatever work they see fit while also supporting corporate oversight, workplace safety and liveable minimum wage laws. Only the serious authoritarian/neo-puritans here would try to make the argument (and some of them invariably do) that a wealthy porn star living in a multi-million dollar mansion is somehow "enslaved" and "victimized" by an industry that somehow hypnotized her into a state of being unable to voluntarily consent to her line of work.

and I agree that the elimination of corporate "personhood" would go a long way in making a better world.

I also agree with you and Mythsaje that allowing adults to make their own mistakes is important, and the private sector does a great job ensuring that mistakes are costly enough to teach lessons to the incautious. However, there are plenty of areas in which one person's freedoms encroach mightily upon the lives of others; loud recreational machinery, unsound property development and inappropriate punishment of children to name a few.

I'd sooner argue not that the wealthy porn star is "enslaved" by her industry, but that the thousands of desperate men who can't stop looking are enslaved by their own "choices." The Market loves addiction, because it guarantees customers who pay top dollar. To the extent a population can be educated away from bad choices, society will be healthier. The "nanny state" is a boogeyman for many on DU, but that's really where education happens, at least on a large scale.

That's not going to "education", mind you- that's going towards assault weapons for DEA agents to wield as they kick down the doors of medical marijuana co-ops. How many non-violent drug users are we "educating" with ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences, as we speak?

As for porn, maybe you missed the story about how incoming AG Gonzo made fighting adult porn one of his top priorities during Bush's second term:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/21/MNGRSER4141.DTL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901570.html

Or maybe that was Monica Goodling's idea.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, turns out an insufficient amount of enthusiasm to go after consenting adult porn was a part of the Justice Dept. scandal:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/19/DOJ_obscenity/

...now, tell me again how the "nanny state" is a figment of DU's imagination?

Okay, on to the "addiction" canard- everything, and I mean everything that some people like, and someone else doesn't like, can be called "addictive". Porn, Video Games, Political Message Boards on the Internet. The religious right argues that being gay is an "addictive pathology", unless now they're saying it's demon possession. Frankly, I've had some experience dealing with real addiction in friends and loved ones, and it's a little insulting , not to mention a serious weakening of the term, to apply it to just about every behavior that someone might take to extremes. Talk to an ER Nurse who has dealt with heroin withdrawls and the DTs from chronic alcoholism, and bring up how dangerously "addictive" pictures of nekkid ladies are. Do some people overindulge in just about everything? Yes. Some people overeat, some people jog way too much... But the "addiction" line is merely another way to get around the simple, straightforward concept that, again, consenting adults should be allowed to make up their own minds about stuff. People need to be free to make choices- even bad ones.

The line about "well, that's all well and good but obviously anyone who "chooses" to do blankity-blank-blank has lost their ability to make their own decisions." is a favorite of the anti-choice crowd, for instance. They get around the fact that they want to tell other women what to do with their bodies by arguing that women are 'brainwashed' and 'victimized' by the abortion industry, the poor, befuddled dears.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what sort of "education" you propose to stop folks from getting off on pictures or films of other adults naked or having sex. In my mind, it's perfectly natural- and I spent years working for a chain of indie video stores, and believe me, for some folks in the community, like some seriously disabled guys- smut was their only available sexual outlet. I'm not sure "educating" them that they ought to masturbate to a picture of a tree, or something, is really a legitimate proposition.

Edit: For the record, I have no problem with noise statutes, laws against child abuse, and regulations on property development. Shit, I also think it's legitmate for states and municipalities to tell smokers they need to go outside rather than light up in a public space. So I understand the line between one person's nose and another person's fist. But what consenting adults do with their own bodies, in their own homes and on their own time should generally be their own business IMHO.

but as far as I can tell, adults in this country have got considerable freedom to make up their own minds about stuff. I don't recommend Big Brother, but I'm also somewhat alarmed at Brave New World, which is the direction we've been moving for some time.

I'm not in opposition to you about censorship, license, pornography or any First Amendment issue. My gripe is with mass media, culture, and control by corporate pushers. There is NO incentive for corporations to do anything that elevates the human spirit, but plenty of incentive for debasement. People choose what they choose, and part of the price of that freedom is the damage that comes from instant gratification and permanent adolescence, conditions made to order for mass marketers. The collective id is far stronger than the collective Superego, the Church having been hijacked long ago by commercial interests and the Market now in ownership of the State, the collective Ego.

So let everyone choose, and hope for the best. When they went wild in the 1920's, at least jazz came into being - so maybe it can't be all bad.