Let's look at marijuana.
1. We legalize dope. You now have no reason to tell your kids not to do it, since gov't thinks it's OK..
Actually there are many reasons other than gov't thinks it's OK to support a parent telling their child(ren) to not do it, health being first and foremost.
2. People smoke more of it.
3. Whatever social consequences of pot-smoking occur and we all pay for them instead of putting that money toward other things, like space exploration or ocean renewal.
Oh, you mean, like the costs of putting people in prison and paying to support them for non-violent offences that don't cause any more harm to society than offences related to legal activities like alcohol?
4. I lose the ability to live in a society where pot-smoking is not normal. I may want this for moral reasons, ethical reasons, or even scientific reasons. But either way, I'm deprived.
Deprived of defining society for me, instead of with me
You've fallen into a fallacy:
How is "You may do this, or may not, depending on your choice," more imposing than "You may not do this"? How in the world is freedom more imposing than restriction?
You're looking at a change in state of the law, not a change in state of society.
Either way, permission or denial, a change has been effected and that changes the overall experience of the society.
Calling it "freedom" (etc) is just a linguistic and political trope in this case, as it doesn't relate to the effect of what you're describing.
Permissiveness is not victimless. It is simply a change in status, much like denial. Thus, any condition is an imposition in effect.
Currently, our society has a bias in favor of permissiveness, using the "it's not a change to you" argument that you outlined above. However, this is fading, since people are seeing that all these permissive changes have long-term social consequences starting with the perception of approval.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
So we're talking about the forward progress of a free society; seriously, don't let the door hit you on the way out into your controlled, utopian society, I'll stick with allowing people to choose for themselves and their offspring when those choices don't adversely affect others.
Hope that cleared it up for you.
If it can't, it should be held liable for the breach of privacy that it undertook. Just because a piece of information is public record does not imply that it is appropriate to publish it en mass.
I want to peacefully get my government to change laws which is why I vote and participate in the political process, BUT I also want the ability to exercise my Right granted by the Second Amendment so if I should need to protect myself and my family I am able (because the police aren't always quick to arrive, nor are they all the upstanding, moral types that most Anti-Gun people believe them to be) _and_ because I believe the Founders intended the US citizens to have the ability to be armed in order to push back against an increasingly tyrannical government should one develop (which I fear is actually happening before my eyes.)
Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.
We have met the enemy and he is me.
There fixed that for you.
If you really believe that criminals are going to abide by gun control laws, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. This perspective is a lot like the War on Drugs. Heroine and cocaine are illegal, right? So, by your logic, they aren't available on the street. How's that working out for us
It's fair to say that those who freely throw around the word "sheeple" are unable to offer constructive criticism. This inability to think critically, or to even empathize with others who differ politically/philosophically, will inevitably lead to caricaturizing/demonizing broad swathes of the political and social landscape. When enough power is acquired, prepare your ass for acts of fascism from the very people who proclaimed to oppose it.
I use the word sheeple, but it's not because I lack empathy nor am I unable to think critically. I use the term to describe those who refuse to think for themselves, those who would prefer to go through life with blinders on believing that everyone around them has their best interests at heart. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree with those whose opinions and viewpoints differ from my own; I'm quite happy to discuss with them and review my own opinions and viewpoints to see if I should adjust accordingly using any newly acquired information or perspectives.
You are correct; Critical thinking is the key
I'd vote, but then I heard that a definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different outcome each time.
Okay, so let's get this straight
Thanks for playing; people like you are part of the reason this system doesn't work as well as it could.
Survival of the fittest. The government does not owe me or anyone else a single thing. Stay out of my business. I have been unemployed for 8 months without insurance and I do not blame anyone but myself. Stop being a leech on society and provide for yourself. I bet you believe that the government "owes" you a retirement also? If you do not save enough for your retirement, then you don't deserve to retire. The government does not owe you a retirement or social security. Start saving for your own damn retirement and give back your free obama phone.
You sound bitter; you should do something about that
Considering that I paid into the Social Security system my entire life, you're damn right I expect something back. And I get very offended when anyone suggests that I'm asking for a hand out; what I expect is that a system that I supported be sorted out so that I'm going to get back what I was 'promised' in the end.
Believe me if I could save for my retirement I would, but right now I'm too concerned with keeping a (now rented rather than owned) roof over myself and my child's head and food on our table. I'm struggling to survive, and all 'trickle-down' is doing for me is raining poo on my head, weighing me down further.