They do think their opinions should be based on logic?
I can understand that. I was conservative because of that very reason. Because in statist world, if you’re not for criminalization of something, you’re supportive of it.
I don’t think that most conservatives are against people doing what we want with our bodies, I think they genuinely believe that drugs are dangerous to society, not just the person using them.
The very first thing I started questioning the government on was the drug war. Partly because I had tried marijuana and felt nothing, my brain still worked and I hadn’t murdered anyone, and partly because I started realizing that criminalizing something doesn’t make it go away. Then I actually started looking into it, and found out all of this, and I could no longer support it. It’s just not logical.
This is where my problem comes up with conservatives. You tell them the truth and they don’t want to hear it. 95% of the time I’m not listened to and I’m given the line, “Well, we just have differing opinions.” No, we don’t. I’ve logically concluded that the drug war not only does not work, but that it kills innocent people and fucks up the economy, but they’re so gun happy that they don’t want to hear it.
I soon realized that the further I went into libertarianism and then anarchism that they are that way on basically any political position they hold, whether it be on abortion or foreign policy. Their answer to everything is criminalization and violence, even when there are more effective ways to handle things, and then they blame the left for fucking up the economy when they’re just as much to blame, if not more.
So I really don’t think they’re logical at all. They’re just afraid of change. They’re afraid that if they don’t have complete control that everything’s going to go to shit.
I bought a pack of mini cupcakes today.
I’m afraid I’m going to eat all 12 of them before Jerry gets home.
Or that I’ll eat half of them and leave the other half for him,
And then he’ll be like, “YOU ATE SIX?”
So maybe I should just hide them.
Or eat all of them right now and he’ll never know.
“Don’t drive over 65,” “don’t drive under 65,” “don’t cross the white line,” “don’t cross the yellow line,” “no right on red,” “no left on red,” “come to a complete stop,” “stop until the light turns green though no cars are coming,” “no U-turn,” “no passing,” etc.
These arbitrary laws exist under the guise of “road safety.” But is it the law that causes you to drive safely, or is it common sense, coupled with a desire on your part to avoid injury to yourself and others (for which you would be held liable)? If government laws compel people to act reasonably, then why are laws broken? And if common sense and a duty to others compels people to act reasonably, then why are those laws necessary?
To dispel the myth that traffic laws exist to create safety, it’s important to ask who lobbies for these laws, and who benefits when we are cited for violating them. The primary lobby for traffic regulation is, of course, the insurance industry. Insurance companies benefit because they get to raise your premiums whenever you are convicted of driving 50 in a 45 zone. Legislators are happy to oblige (and constantly raise fines) because they get to steal more of your money to pad their bloated budgets. And finally, traffic cops benefit because they get more stuff to do (more laws to enforce = more work = more money), more excuses to detain you, and because they get a gold star on their homework for giving out more tickets.
It’s no surprise then that traffic courts are nothing but rubber stamps for law enforcement and traffic defendants are regularly denied due process. Are roads made safer as a result? No, but that’s what we’re told to believe so that more and more of our money can be stolen with our tacit approval.
This is in response to brandonabell’s reblog of my reply to conservativebrew. Sorry, I didn’t want to reblog, but I thought what you said was something that should be addressed.
You say that conservatives aren’t all bad, and I would agree with you on a human level. I know conservatives that are great people. That doesn’t mean that they aren’t heartless, even if it’s not their intention. I would say the same of liberals. They just have misguided views on how to take care of social and economic issues.
If your solution to every problem is to bomb and imprison everyone that doesn’t live according to your rules (which is generally the answer to everything for conservatives), then you are heartless, I don’t care how nice of a person you are while holding this view. If your solution to every problem is to continue to tax the shit out of every citizen that works for a living (and violence if they don’t pay), then you are a thief, I don’t care how good your intentions are in doing so. If your opinion on how the world should run involves force, then you are bad, so this includes every kind of statism in existence.
Am I saying I’m any better? No, because I’ve held these views before as well and I voted for some pretty stupid people in the past that are for all of those things. But I am saying that my current view is the only right view because it doesn’t involve slavery, so yes, everyone else is somewhat a bad person for believing that violence is ever a solution to anything.
libertarians said: It is no wonder you are my #1 Tumblr crush.
My best friend from high school is 21 now.
I want to say we should go have a drink when I visit home again,
But to her, drinking means partying.
This has always been a problem in our friendship.
She likes crowds and loud rap music.
I don’t understand her.