Banning and outlawing.

[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?)

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I don't want ANYTHING banned...

unless there is a very obvious need to ban something extremely dangerous.

How that is defined is tricky and can be left for another day, but banning something because it is simply disagreeable without definite danger is reprehensible.

But, we do have a problem here-- some believe profoundly that pot, abortion, pornography and such have severe detrimental effects on society. And they claim to have proof.

So, how do we decide whether they do or not? Science is no more the answer than religion in these matters, since there are authorities on all sides who claim the truth.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. I think the benchmark question is...

"Does the benefit to society outweight the restriction on freedom?"

That is the idea on limits to free speech (ie "incitement", "fire in a crowded theater", etc.), zoning restrictions, gun registration, prohibition of certain substances and restrictions in selling other substances, etc. The difficult part is separating an actual benefit to society from personal bias as to what will benefit society (ie restrictions on pornography, "hate speech", access to abortion, etc.)

[sweetheart]

4. That's the old question

The new one is: "Does the benefit come to Corporations that support the repukes?"

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. How silly of me to have forgotten!

/em smacks forehead.

[Dave Reynolds]

8. That is the concept I meant

when I inelegantly stated my OP.

It is very difficult to know where the line should be drawn.

[otherlander]

3. I get your point.

The whole politically-correct thing goes a bit overboard sometimes, especially. It's as though, in trying to prove that we're not prejudiced like the wingnuts, we wind up restricting freedom through censorship. I forget who said this, but I agree, "The price of freedom isn't war, it's the freedom of your enemies."

[slackmaster]

5. What about regulating, taxing, etc.?

You left those out.

[Dave Reynolds]

9. I'm sure I missed a lot of things.

"For the good of society" is a difficult variable to quantify.

How much is too much, where does regulation become stifling?

Just a passing thought I had.

[Warpy]

7. All I want banned is busybody government that thinks it has the

right to interfere in any decision a consenting adult makes about his or her own body.

Note that sentence has operative words: consenting, adult.

My position is that without a victim, there is no crime and the government needs to BUTT OUT.