the problem w/ abandoning paternalism is that this assumes a society has meaningful rituals for ensuring one has come of age
when this is not so, people who are de facto children in adult bodies are released to flounder, on the assumption that this is obviously better for them
---
RT @eigenrobot
thinking about the @Chris_arnade story about front row and back row Americans, which really came to mind here
and also that greentext about t…
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1411036677867401218
this strongly resonates for me, as my life path has been one of desperately trying to break free from the ties which bound me, only to realize, as I succeeded, how important it was for this to be difficult to do
the default path should be the same one
---
RT @eigenrobot
I hate this conclusion because my fondest desire is for everyone to fuck off and leave other people alone
but a very large number of people are not up to the task of …
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1411044583941672963
the best constraints are stepwise in nature, rather than binary; there are very few questions where the right answer is to categorically ban something
high guardrails encourage regression to the mean; should one desire something else strongly enough, they'll break through anyway
this is similar to how software is designed with different personas in mind; UIs are typically optimized for the lowest common denominator, and the poweruser features made harder to access; this works, bc the latter class tends to be more resilient in the face of obstacles
the pathways through society should be no different; very little should truly be banned, especially not that which predominantly only harms those who opt for it. a government's role should be twofold: a safety net for the common man, and an economic platform to build on top of.
the problem of health insurance and lifestyle is a good example of this confusion; sure, anyone should be able to choose to smoke! but I don't want to have to pay for the medical treatments resulting from their bad choices. but, where does this end?
should we approve of all a person's choices before we agree to share the burden of their safety net? presumably there's some upper bound past which we don't have to be responsible, but where is it? and how do we attain consensus on this?
much more complex than I used to think
I've never really abandoned my libertarian persuasions, but have been forced to temper & qualify them w/ piles of conditions & edge cases, as I encountered cases such as the QT
I still believe in liberty as foundational, but we owe more to each other
---
RT @pee_zombie
growing up I was the prototypical Randian libertarian, albeit w/ a more prosocial bent than many of that ilk; but over time, I "learned" & got a bit woke. nothing too c…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1405677277002833923
the trouble arises in the difficulty of precisely defining these terms, and the variety of responsibilities which can be lumped underneath these umbrellas; where does individual responsibility end? nothing is truly independent, so how much collateral damage is acceptable?