DuskStar
The upside to saying "yes I can be bought" is that people will give you boatloads of money.
And you need a new stamp if you want to transfer it to another person.
Those gun control regulations?
If there are actual gun control regulations from the post-revolutionary period, I'm sure that they'll be used to defend NY's and CA's modern regulations soon.
Wickard v. Filburn deserves a mention too.
A dude who plays LoL badly. Embarrassingly badly for his number of games.
If the person gets to choose, then there's a natural counterbalance against things that are harmful to the person but good for society. Only an idiot would turn down a vaccine that has a 90% chance of saving their life.
If society gets to choose, then forcibly sterilizing poor single mothers/disabled people /those of poor breeding/etc might be on the table again. (It's a health intervention that is bad for the individual but also leads to a healthier next generation)
Is it better to live in a world where 1000 murders happen a year and half the murderers escape punishment because they ran, or one with 100 murders where 10 ran and family members were killed in their place? That's a lot less deaths!
Nuclear MAD is an extreme example of this - it's very obviously immoral to kill a few million civilians in retaliation for the murder of other civilians. But that's what MAD is! And in practice, it's likely prevented millions of deaths due to war.
It should be obvious, but the people in power will not want you to say bad things about them. If given the power to prevent that, of course they will. (and they'll say that "politician X was found in bed with a dead hooker" is libel, regardless of the facts)
> Some political organizations should be prohibited.
But which ones? Just genocidal ones? Do communists count? How far do philosophies need to differ before a party is allowed again, and who (besides the individual voter) should be the one to choose?
"They're totally just lying about their beliefs" can be both true and not an acceptable reason IMO.
> prosecuted after intimidating opposition through violence.
Then BAN INTIMIDATING OPPOSITION WITH VIOLENCE. Ban ALL of it. But "these words are violence, this violence is just protest" isn't ok.
> Your voting rights cant be stripped away for small offenses.
Only being able to vote for people with governmentally approved opinions is itself a removal of voting rights. This should obviously be true for the limit case (only one candidate), but it's a spectrum.
If it only includes the things people would be ok with you saying, there would be no need to protect it as a right.
Seems like Ireland lasted 2 years before (in practice) removing all constitutional limits on government power forever. Oh sure, it's only "if so resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas" but that's slim comfort to me.
Leftists are 100% part of the problem here in the US, I'm not sure what you would need to be smoking to think otherwise.
> Using a “hazard ratio” — a measure of how often bad things happen to one group compared to another — the researchers found that the risk of heart, brain, kidney and blood complications all increased with each subsequent infection.
So does this sound like something in the same ballpark as "antibody dependent enhancement" to anyone else? And is there any reason to expect that "real" infections count but vaccine doses don't?
It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.