A lesson for when a society becomes too liberal?

[Machjo]

'I'd be happy to slaughter' millions of drug addicts: Philippine president - World - CBC News

We start off by legalizing this, legalizing that, and, not knowing how to control X, Y and Z, we legalize them too.

Before you know it, problems spout up everywhere and then... the backlash. Suddenly we want to criminalize this, that and the other thing and crush it at all costs.

I think a better approach is to have tougher laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. now rather than liberalize them to the point at which a backlash makes everyone want to crush them to oblivion. Think of it an an elastic. The more you stretch it, the more probable that it will eventually snap.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So, your thesis is that legalizing things like free speech, freedom of religion, racial equality, and letting women wear pants and use birth control causes illegal drug addiction and violence?

 

[personal touch]

I am sure the Pres is a devout Catholic

 

[Machjo]

So, your thesis is that legalizing things like free speech, freedom of religion, racial equality, and letting women wear pants and use birth control causes illegal drug addiction and violence?

No, not exactly. More like once you start legalizing more and more and more drugs, prostitution, etc, that sooner or later you get a reactionary backlash. Take the Netherlands for example. Extremely liberal sex trade, now grown to 5% of GDP! Now many Dutch regret having legalized it. Yet, if they continue with such extreme legalization we can imagine an eventual backlash whereby the community increaingly wants to adopt the toughest possible laws against it. Think of it as a pendulum. Same with drugs. The more we legalize them, the more the community will rally against them.

Of course we can argue that the same can be true in reverse. If the laws become too strict, eventually even those who might support strict laws in principle start to rally to loosen the laws a little.

However, I think at this point in time, we find ourselves in the former scenario. We're legalizing more and more and so we risk a reactionary backlash in the future.

Since you mentioned immigration, I'll take that as an example. I'm for totally open borders, but I also recognize that if we open them up faster than the general public can accept, it too can provoke a reactionary backlash. So though I would like us to open up our borders as fast as possible, I also recognize that we might need to also consider what the geneal community can tolerate before doing so. Not all will be able to tolerate borders as open as I could.

 

[personal touch]

No, not exactly. More like once you start legalizing more and more and more drugs, prostitution, etc, that sooner or later you get a reactionary backlash. Take the Netherlands for example. Extremely liberal sex trade, now grown to 5% of GDP! Now many Dutch regret having legalized it. Yet, if they continue with such extreme legalization we can imagine an eventual backlash whereby the community increaingly wants to adopt the toughest possible laws against it. Think of it as a pendulum. Same with drugs. The more we legalize them, the more the community will rally against them.

Of course we can argue that the same can be true in reverse. If the laws become too strict, eventually even those who might support strict laws in principle start to rally to loosen the laws a little.

However, I think at this point in time, we find ourselves in the former scenario. We're legalizing more and more and so we risk a reactionary backlash in the future.

Since you mentioned immigration, I'll take that as an example. I'm for totally open borders, but I also recognize that if we open them up faster than the general public can accept, it too can provoke a reactionary backlash. So though I would like us to open up our borders as fast as possible, I also recognize that we might need to also consider what the geneal community can tolerate before doing so. Not all will be able to tolerate borders as open as I could.

Does it matter?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No, not exactly. More like once you start legalizing more and more and more drugs, prostitution, etc, that sooner or later you get a reactionary backlash. Take the Netherlands for example.

You realize that drugs, including marijuana, are illegal in the Philippines, right? And that the government violence there has nothing to do with legalization, correct?

Extremely liberal sex trade, now grown to 5% of GDP! Now many Dutch regret having legalized it.

What are you talking about? Prostitution has been legal in the Netherlands throughout most of its history. A few minor, sporadic, and temporary bans of one type or another have been imposed now and then, but there hasn't been an illegalization of prostitution there in centuries. And I'd like to see some stats or references on the incredibly vague term "many Dutch." Particularly since there is not a Dutch person alive who has ever known prostitution to be illegal in the Netherlands.

Yet, if they continue with such extreme legalization we can imagine an eventual backlash whereby the community increaingly wants to adopt the toughest possible laws against it. Think of it as a pendulum. Same with drugs. The more we legalize them, the more the community will rally against them.

Ah, so you are speculating that maybe there will be a backlash against legalized drugs at some point in the future, based on the fact that a crazy man in the Philippines is killing people over illegal drugs. Allow me to repeat, the situation in the Philippines is not over legalized drugs. Drugs, including marijuana, are illegal in the Philippines. The Philippines is in the top 20 worldwide for the harshest drug penalties.

So again, if your thesis is that legalizing drugs causes a harsh backlash, the Philippines, where drugs are illegal and penalties are harsh, is a damned odd thing to offer as evidence.

Of course we can argue that the same can be true in reverse. If the laws become too strict, eventually even those who might support strict laws in principle start to rally to loosen the laws a little.

However, I think at this point in time, we find ourselves in the former scenario. We're legalizing more and more and so we risk a reactionary backlash in the future.

Who's "we" and "ourselves?" What "backlash" is this? I repeat, using the Philippines as an example is crazy. Drugs are illegal in the Philippines and penalties are very harsh.

 

[mentalfloss]

'Liberal' is misleading term.

This is libertarianism.

And every nation responds differently.

You could have a nation that has loose gun freedoms and they do just fine.


And then you have the morans in the U.S. that can't even be responsible with a slinky.

 

[Machjo]

'Liberal' is misleading term.

This is libertarianism.

And every nation responds differently.

You could have a nation that has loose gun freedoms and they do just fine.


And then you have the morans in the U.S. that can't even be responsible with a slinky.

Ture enough. Stupid thread I started.

 

[HarperCons]

'I'd be happy to slaughter' millions of drug addicts: Philippine president - World - CBC News

We start off by legalizing this, legalizing that, and, not knowing how to control X, Y and Z, we legalize them too.

Before you know it, problems spout up everywhere and then... the backlash. Suddenly we want to criminalize this, that and the other thing and crush it at all costs.

I think a better approach is to have tougher laws against drugs, prostitution, etc. now rather than liberalize them to the point at which a backlash makes everyone want to crush them to oblivion. Think of it an an elastic. The more you stretch it, the more probable that it will eventually snap.

What the **** are you even talking about? What liberalism? Nothing has been legalized, foreigners are executed in countries for drug trafficking (even after pleas of clemency from their own government as in the case of the Bali Nine), non-violent drug offenders in amerika are put into prison for absurd lengths of time, etc..

 

[Curious Cdn]

So, your thesis is that legalizing things like free speech, freedom of religion, racial equality, and letting women wear pants and use birth control causes illegal drug addiction and violence?

Well, look what "civil rights" did?

Now the police have to shoot all of the black people.