Things liberals hate about liberals

[padren]

One of the more annoying things about being liberal is even on the left it's a pretty wide brush, and I'm pretty sure if you call yourself liberal there's a whole swath of the wing you just try to tune out as benign fruitcakes - I know I do.

 

Some liberal policies have really been irritating me lately though, so I feel like venting:

 

Green policies that aren't green yet limit choice:

I wonderfully discovered we don't allow plastic bags at groceries anymore, and have to pay for paper ones. I have never once thrown out a plastic grocery bag unless it was destroyed or hopelessly dirty. I'm not especially green, but I reuse every single one for garbage cans and to pick up after my dog.

Now, I have to buy special plastic bags to be shipped from who-knows-where to do the same thing, while I get paper bags that are so useless they go straight back into the recycle bin - which in itself is not without it's carbon footprint.

 

Of course, I could get a canvas bag (and God knows how much natural or food producing land world-wide is lost to demand for cotton) to shlep around with, wash every stinking time something leaks - but even this results in a larger carbon footprint, and I am still having to buy plastic bags I wouldn't otherwise.

 

It's not just that the entire premise is flawed, it's that there are liberals who genuinely believe they can somehow pass laws to force us to make better choices than we could conceivably make for ourselves on our own, and by doing so they'll make us better people. All through the gentle touch of limiting choice.

 

Personally, find the entire vein of reasoning as repulsive as the one that compels some conservatives to force a woman to have a wand shoved up in places before "allowing" her to make her own choice about her pregnancy.

 

 

The New York 16oz cup limit is also of the same bent and equally inane, imo, and I honestly think this stuff gives liberals a bad name. I can't even imagine the mindset that thinks things like this are a good idea.

 

 

Anyway - comments and vents welcome.

[Iggy]

...it's that there are liberals who genuinely believe they can somehow pass laws to force us to make better choices than we could conceivably make for ourselves on our own, and by doing so they'll make us better people.

Although, that's a fair description of any law. I mean... if we don't want laws to do that then I think we're pretty much left being anarchists.

[Moontanman]

One of the more annoying things about being liberal is even on the left it's a pretty wide brush, and I'm pretty sure if you call yourself liberal there's a whole swath of the wing you just try to tune out as benign fruitcakes - I know I do.

 

Some liberal policies have really been irritating me lately though, so I feel like venting:

 

Green policies that aren't green yet limit choice:

I wonderfully discovered we don't allow plastic bags at groceries anymore, and have to pay for paper ones. I have never once thrown out a plastic grocery bag unless it was destroyed or hopelessly dirty. I'm not especially green, but I reuse every single one for garbage cans and to pick up after my dog.

Now, I have to buy special plastic bags to be shipped from who-knows-where to do the same thing, while I get paper bags that are so useless they go straight back into the recycle bin - which in itself is not without it's carbon footprint.

 

This is one of my pet peeves as well, i reuse every plastic grocery bag and while I understand that paper decomposes and all that it's not like the plastic bags aren't being used in some constructive way. The look some people seem to get when you leave the store with dozens of plastic bags and they are using reusable bags and buying paper bags is classic...

 

I find myself thinking about banning the use of plastic bottles in favor of reusable glass bottles but it's difficult to completely support that idea.

 

The whole idea that using disposable paper plates is somehow a bad thing grates me big time. i tend to shy away from plastic plates, mostly due to not being sure how much of an impact they have compared to if not recyclable at least sustainable paper plates...

 

But the worst in my mind is the whole organic scam. The idea that somehow anything labeled organic is somehow superior to anything else. Petroleum, is natural, and organic but I don't wan to eat or drink it...

 

The whole idea that I must somehow edit my conversation so as to never piss anyone or group of anyone's is more than a bit annoying. Actively spouting hateful things just for shock value is not part of my behavior but the idea that i can't be critical of other peoples point of view without being considered hate speech bothers me quite a bit especially so since the groups i am most likely to be critical of don't seem to be held to the same standard...

[padren]

Although, that's a fair description of any law. I mean... if we don't want laws to do that then I think we're pretty much left being anarchists.

I'd say most laws are governed by weighing how to ensure the rights and actions of one do not unduly impede the rights and actions of others, and provide a common framework for resolving our differences and maintaining our expectations.

 

Some laws are more restricting than others depending on severity of the situation (such as the draft - which can be either reasonable or outrageous depending on the circumstances) that they are in response to, but I think you can isolate the specific vein of laws that are designed to reduce choice as a means to help us be better.

I fully understand why many liquor stores would choose not to sell booze on Sundays, but for that to be mandated into law in some places seems bizarre and draconian to me.

 

I would complain about the heath care mandate, but the health care crisis is a greater threat to us than any foreign power at this time so at least I can respect the need for a short term "medical draft" until we get a real solution in place.

 

 

In short, I think laws that clarify responsibilities and expectations (say, to drive a car) as a response to a social need (say, the harm caused by untrained reckless driving) are a perfectly acceptable way to form a common consensus within a society.

When a law is passed not because there is a need for it, but because some idle idiot has delusions of engineering some grand social paradigm through restrictive legislation than a gross line has been crossed.

 

This is one of my pet peeves as well, i reuse every plastic grocery bag and while I understand that paper decomposes and all that it's not like the plastic bags aren't being used in some constructive way. The look some people seem to get when you leave the store with dozens of plastic bags and they are using reusable bags and buying paper bags is classic...

If the paper bags are allowed to decompose, they won't be recycled into more paper bags, which means more trees get cut down. Of course if they are recycled, that's a factory's worth of carbon in the process anyway to get them back into paper bags.

I find myself thinking about banning the use of plastic bottles in favor of reusable glass bottles but it's difficult to completely support that idea.

I haven't exactly researched the numbers of glass vs. plastic bottles (I just recycle both unless I'm not home and there's only a garbage bin nearby) but I don't see how any numbers would justify a ban.

If plastic is resulting in a real cost to living increase for a wider swath of society than just those who use them - that's a cost that should be balanced out... but it's a ridiculously tricky process, especially with politics involved.

 

 

But the worst in my mind is the whole organic scam. The idea that somehow anything labeled organic is somehow superior to anything else. Petroleum, is natural, and organic but I don't wan to eat or drink it...

If people didn't love labels they wouldn't buy designer label clothes, I don't really see any reason people wouldn't apply this to food. If someone cares more about a label than the actual information it conveys that's their prerogative, imo.

 

The whole idea that I must somehow edit my conversation so as to never piss anyone or group of anyone's is more than a bit annoying. Actively spouting hateful things just for shock value is not part of my behavior but the idea that i can't be critical of other peoples point of view without being considered hate speech bothers me quite a bit especially so since the groups i am most likely to be critical of don't seem to be held to the same standard...

I've never really encountered this outside of some vague assertion that using the word "retarded" had become offensive, but I've yet to encounter anyone who will continue to argue when aggressively contested.

 

Have you experienced this very much?

[Iggy]

I'd say most laws are governed by weighing how to ensure the rights and actions of one do not unduly impede the rights and actions of others, and provide a common framework for resolving our differences and maintaining our expectations.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

Some laws are more restricting than others depending on severity of the situation (such as the draft - which can be either reasonable or outrageous depending on the circumstances) that they are in response to, but I think you can isolate the specific vein of laws that are designed to reduce choice as a means to help us be better.

I fully understand why many liquor stores would choose not to sell booze on Sundays, but for that to be mandated into law in some places seems bizarre and draconian to me.

Oh, no, it's far more than bizarre. It's down right inhuman.

 

I come from a state in which this mild form of prohibition is a reality and I can only tell you that it has caused me great personal harm for which I'll never forgive my state senate.

 

No, I do understand that some laws are pointless shackles placed on the arms of those for whom no restriction of freedom is needed. I get that, and I sympathize too that no immediate harm can be noticed by my buying liquor on sunday or to buy it in a plastic bag... as it were.

 

But, this... for all its truth... and all our willingness to affirm it... doesn't solve the issue you brought up. Where do we draw the line?

 

Imagine there is a US senator who visits an Australian fishing trawler and finds nothing in the pacific of value but trashed plastic bags. Imagine a great number of scientists telling this senator that this is a great problem for which our country is largely responsible and about which very little is needed to be done to fix the problem. Wouldn't it be this senator's moral obligation to pass exactly the type of law you scorn? Or would it not?

 

I just mean to ask where we draw the line. The plastics industry may hurt certain animals. Slaughtering kittens in the street also hurts certain animals. I'm not sure if you value one kitten over 100 turtles and tuna or if it's something else entirely that draws the line for you between the two. I don't think this thread has yet touched on what really separates what is legislative and what isn't.

 

Despite the long post, I don't think I'm making my case well...

 

If 16 ounce cups are killing more people in New York than cyanide is killing in New Mexico then why shouldn't the former be legislated more than the latter? Maybe there's a very good answer to that, but I don't think we've touched on it.

[Moontanman]

 

I would complain about the heath care mandate, but the health care crisis is a greater threat to us than any foreign power at this time so at least I can respect the need for a short term "medical draft" until we get a real solution in place.

 

Agreed

 

If the paper bags are allowed to decompose, they won't be recycled into more paper bags, which means more trees get cut down. Of course if they are recycled, that's a factory's worth of carbon in the process anyway to get them back into paper bags.

 

I live in area of the country with tree farms, as they are cut they are replanted in huge swaths, square miles of tree farms, most people assume they are natural forests but if you look close as you drive by you can see they are miles and miles of straight rows of trees... Oh yeah, they are owned by International Paper Co.

 

I've never really encountered this outside of some vague assertion that using the word "retarded" had become offensive, but I've yet to encounter anyone who will continue to argue when aggressively contested.

 

Have you experienced this very much?

 

Actually I have, mostly online to be honest but more than a few times in real life I've been accused of somehow being disrespectful of someones religious beliefs when they were trying to preach to me on the street, this has happened when people knock on my door to bring me the good news as well... In line at the grocery store, at the license plate store, any place I stand in line... Sometimes I think I attract these nutters...

Edited July 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[padren]

Oh, no, it's far more than bizarre. It's down right inhuman.

 

I come from a state in which this mild form of prohibition is a reality and I can only tell you that it has caused me great personal harm for which I'll never forgive my state senate.

 

No, I do understand that some laws are pointless shackles placed on the arms of those for whom no restriction of freedom is needed. I get that, and I sympathize too that no immediate harm can be noticed by my buying liquor on Sunday or to buy it in a plastic bag... as it were.

I do have some sympathy for people who want to ban alcohol sales, at least under certain circumstances. I mean, if you live in a town full of people who don't drink, who don't like booze, who've never sold booze - you can understand why they may be reticent about some new guy coming to town wanting to open a biker bar.

I don't think it's a common situation, but it does highlight the devil's argument in the issue.

 

But, this... for all its truth... and all our willingness to affirm it... doesn't solve the issue you brought up. Where do we draw the line?

 

Imagine there is a US senator who visits an Australian fishing trawler and finds nothing in the pacific of value but trashed plastic bags. Imagine a great number of scientists telling this senator that this is a great problem for which our country is largely responsible and about which very little is needed to be done to fix the problem. Wouldn't it be this senator's moral obligation to pass exactly the type of law you scorn? Or would it not?

Personally, I think the correct sort of law for the Senator to propose would be one that helps place the burdens (ie costs) of plastic bags upon those who buy and use them. We already do this with cars, gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol etc to one degree or another.

 

However, the law in question would arise from an investigation - that investigation would be initiated by the claims that damage is being done and no one is taking responsibility for it. It's especially tricky because we already ignore many ancillary costs on products in our society, and picking one out over others could easily have more to do with political opportunism than justice.

 

 

 

I just mean to ask where we draw the line. The plastics industry may hurt certain animals. Slaughtering kittens in the street also hurts certain animals. I'm not sure if you value one kitten over 100 turtles and tuna or if it's something else entirely that draws the line for you between the two. I don't think this thread has yet touched on what really separates what is legislative and what isn't.

 

Despite the long post, I don't think I'm making my case well...

As I replied to Moontanman: "If plastic is resulting in a real cost to living increase for a wider swath of society than just those who use them - that's a cost that should be balanced out... but it's a ridiculously tricky process, especially with politics involved."

 

- I don't think it's easy, but I think that if we have any chance of resolving these sorts of issues, we have to start by identifying the harm that is going on without accountability. More information, more choices, and a more honestly distributed burden of cost each are preferable (in my opinion) to bans on behavior.

 

If 16 ounce cups are killing more people in New York than cyanide is killing in New Mexico then why shouldn't the former be legislated more than the latter? Maybe there's a very good answer to that, but I don't think we've touched on it.

 

I would argue access to cups larger than 16 ounces hasn't killed anyone in New York - but poor diets are another story. Trying to force healthier diets through a limitation on drink sizes is not, imo, how you improve poor diets.

Edited July 16, 2012 by padren

[Moontanman]

There are lots of stuff I hate about liberals but most of it is stuff that i consider to be nutty and not deserving of any real consideration.

 

The whole idea that the liberal tent is big enough to cover everyone is at the root of the problem...