quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.
How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?
Look at it this way: someone using drugs in their own home eventually has to step out into the public sphere just to acquire them. If they want to get high, frankly, I couldn't care less, but drugs are expensive; the money has to come from somewhere, and unless you're part of the ultra-wealthy elite whose daddy always picks up the tab, it leads to crime—any kind of robbery or assault to get the cash—and once that happens, aren't others being endangered? Why would someone mug me and take my credit card or $67, when I don't even carry those things around anymore? Furthermore, regarding imprisonment: that is an unthinkable category for me, and I would do everything in my power to avoid it. To be clear, it isn't claustrophobia (it's acrophobia), but I would rather face death than have my freedom stripped away. Certain social norms must exist for a society to function. There is no such thing as "reintegration" or "re-education"—I admit that, even if we are approaching this from different angles—nor is there a fixed process or deadline for, say, dangerous individuals. No one is going to "cure" a pedophile or a schizophrenic (though that would be a whole new debate). People criticize me for being too liberal, but if there are no boundaries in the sense you're suggesting, then fine, man—I don't smoke inside so I don't poison the kids, but I might run into a neighbor right outside my front door, exchange a quick hello, and suddenly I'm being judged because the smell might bother a baby. I remember him when he was an infant, so I respect the father. Now, I’m heading out for coffee with two non-smokers at an outdoor cafe, and we'll be careful about where we sit so the smoke doesn't drift toward their "sensitive" noses that I'm so eager to see! There is no goldencobra5 here; rules must be respected, though it feels to me like laws in this country mostly exist to be broken. Best regards!