Banning or outlawing things.

[Dave Reynolds]

Such as guns, animal sports, abortion on demand, or flag burning.

Is it considered progressive to want something banned because it is personally disagreeable to you?

Or is it the flip-side of the fundie wingnut coin?

I personally find banning (outside of personal or property crimes already on the books) to be wrong, because the act of banning something reduces someone's freedom.

So therefore, I am going to start a movement to ban banning. (okay, not really, but do you get my point?)

[benEzra]

1. It's the flip side of the fundie wingnut coin.

Is it considered progressive to want something banned because it is personally disagreeable to you?

Or is it the flip-side of the fundie wingnut coin?

Wanting to use the police power of the state to force your life choices on those who disagree with you is wrong, regardless of whether your life choices are left of center or right of center.

[Deep13]

2. Personally disagreeable-no; good public policy-yes.

A lot of things are distasteful, but have no real effect on others. On the other hand, crystal meth is extremely dangerous to make, expensive for the state to dispose of it and devestating to users and their dependents. I don't want that to be lawful. Cigarettes slowly kill almost half a million Americans per year per CDC, far more than guns, car accidents, AIDS, breast cancer or lawn darts. Plus it smells BAD. Wouldn't mind more restrictions on that.

[Deep13]

3. I double-dog ban your banning of bans.

:evilgrin:

[tjwmason]

4. It all depends.

I know of nobody who genuinely wants nothing banned, so too I know nobody who wants everything they dislike banned.

Giving people the freedom to do things which one would never want to do oneself, indeed that one does find objectionable, is a mark of civilised society. Yet seeking restrictions on some activities which are damaging is also necessary.

This isn't a left-right thing. There are left-wing libertarians, and right-wing ones - left-wing authoritarians and right-wing ones.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. There are certain things that should be banned.

It shouldn't be within someone's freedom to train cocks and pitbulls to fight. That's hardly a "sport" and it's also a societal problem, because it creates emotionally damaged dogs and stigmatizes a wonderful breed. Also, dog racing because of the attrocities that have been documented in the name of the "sport."

I'm fine with a lot of animal sports, but some are just cruel.

[dr.strangelove]

6. For me it is all about injury and cost.

If an behaviour or a product is dangerous to others and the user can not control harm to others, I am all for bannign that behavior or product. A good example would be speeding. I am all for banning driving at excessive speeds. In residential neighborhoods, I support a 30 mph law. On highways in urban areas, 65 is fine with me and in rural areas, 75+ is fine with me. A good product to consider is crack or meth. Crack is still the drug of choice in the Bronx (where I grew up), though meth is moving up fast. Both are highly addictive, expensive to destroy, dangerous when law enforcement encounters production labs and the users suffer massive medical problems. I am okay with banning these products. I agree that we must be careful when banning products or behaviors, and each case must be closely examined, but there are many where I am all for banning.