Why do so many people consistently try to get the things they dislike legally banned?

[Lyric]

Why can't people just be content to avoid something on their own, and let other people be? Why is it that people can't seem to dislike something without wanting to see it banned for EVERYONE? If it's something that's infringing on the rights of others, that makes sense. But I was just reading a thread in which an old woman thinks that HALLOWEEN should be "banned". What rights of hers does Halloween infringe upon, exactly? She doesn't have to buy candy, turn her porch light on, and answer the door for trick-or-treaters. Nobody's forcing her to participate. Why does she think that it needs to be banned?

I don't understand why anyone would think that progressively reducing our freedoms is a good idea. Eventually we're going to be so constrained that we won't be able to breathe.

[Sweet Charming Dem]

1. Because some people have nothing better to do than make sure everyone is as miserable as them.

[GreenPartyVoter]

42. Yep

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I once tried to explain to a friend, new to politics, what was the difference

Between liberals and conservatives. He couldn't remember, so I finally told him that conservatives are the ones who want to tell everyone else what to do... x(

[Lance_Boyle]

24. Conservatives are not behind the smoking bans.

Conservatives are not the ones seeking to ban salt in prepared food.

This side has plenty of control freaks itself.

[Rhiannon12866]

29. I guess I was thinking of gay marriage and abortion rights,

Which are highly personal and certainly no one else's business. But you make an excellent point. However, the issues you name are health concerns and not life choices. Though, as a smoker, I probably use more salt than most... ;)

[Lance_Boyle]

30. Yeah, both sides have their control freaks.

I tend to blame religion more than politics for the opposition to gay marriage and abortion, but there is certainly an ugly confluence of religion and conservative politics in both of those arenas. Conservative nanny staters want to control what happens in your bedroom. Liberal nanny staters want to control what happens in other places. Neither should be tolerated in a free society.

[Rhiannon12866]

32. I agree with you completely.

It's become the religious nuts that want to impose their views on others, on issues that are none of their business. I cringe when I hear these control freaks pontificating on things like DOMA. What others choose in these areas has absolutely no effect on them. I do, however, think that too little attention has been given to all the crap that's allowed in our food. That's a different issue, since not getting sick from eating pesticides or lethal levels of bacteria should be a basic right for everybody. :(

[Starbucks Anarchist]

3. H.L. Mencken said it best:

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." :hi:

[Heidi]

4. Further (more Mencken):

"Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time."

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

"The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression."

:)

[pnorman]

12. Mencken (from my scattered notes):

"Run a boy through a Presbyterian Sunday-school and you must police him carefully all the rest of his life, for once he slips he is ready for anything."
http://www.rodneyanonymous.com/archives/00000180.htm

From the American Mercury, February 1929. Henry Judd Gray, a corset
salesman, and Ruth Brown Snyder killed her husband, Albert, an art editor,
on March 20, 1927. They confessed and were executed at Sing Sing, January
12, 1928 CE)

Mr. Gray went to the electric chair in Sing Sing on January 11, 1928,
for his share in the butchery of Mrs. Ruth Snyder’s husband. The present
book was composed in his last days, and appears with the imprimatur of
his devoted sister. From end to end of it he protests pathetically that
he was, at heart, a good man. I believe him. The fact, indeed, is spread
all over his singularly näive and touching record. He emerges from it as
the almost perfect model of the Y.M.C.A. alumnus, the conscientious husband
and father, the Christian business man, the virtuous and God-fearing
Americano. It was his very virtue, festering within him, that brought him
to his appalling doom. Another and more wicked man, caught in the net of
La Snyder, would have wriggled out and gone on his way, scarcely pausing
to thank God for the fun and the escape. But once poor Judd had yielded to
her brummagem seductions he was done for and he knew it. Touched by sin, he
shriveled like a worm on a hot stove. From the first exchange of wayward
glances to the final agony in the chair the way was straight and inevitable.

All this sounds like paradox, but I offer it seriously, and as a
psychologist of high gifts. What finished the man was not his banal
adultery with his suburban sweetie, but his swift and overwhelming
conviction that it was mortal sin. The adultery itself was simply in bad
taste: it was, perhaps, something to be ashamed of, as stealing a poor
taxi-driver’s false teeth would be something to be ashamed of, but it was
no more. Elks and Shriners do worse every day, and suffer only transient
qualms. But to Gray, with his Presbyterian upbringing and his idealistic
view of the corset business, the slip was a catastrophe, a calamity. He
left his tawdry partner in a daze, marveling that there could be so much
wickedness in the world, and no belch of fire from Hell to stop it.
Thereafter his demoralization proceeded from step to step as inexorably
and as beautifully as a case of Bright’s disease. The woman horrified him,
but his very horror became a kind of fascination. He resorted to her as a
Christian dipsomaniac resorts to the jug, protestingly, tremblingly and
helplessly. In his blinking eyes she became an amalgam of all the Loreleis,
with the Rum Demon peeping over her shoulder. Whatever she ordered him to
do he did at once, like a man stupefied by some diabolical drug. When, in
the end, she ordered him to butcher her oaf of a husband, he proceeded to
the business almost automatically, wondering to the last instant why he
obeyed and yet no more able to resist than he was able, on the day of
retribution, to resist his 2,000 Volts.

In his narrative he makes much of this helplessness, and speculates
somewhat heavily upon its cause. That cause, as I hint, is clear enough:
he was a sincere Presbyterian, a good man. What is the chief mark of such
a good man? That he cannot differentiate rationally between sin and sin –
that a gnat gags him as badly as a camel. So with poor Gray. His initial
peccadillo shocked him so vastly that he could think of himself thereafter
only as a sinner unspeakable and incorrigible. In his eyes the step from
adultery to murder was as natural and inevitable as the step from the
cocktail shaker to the gutter in the eyes of a Methodist bishop. He was
rather astonished, indeed, that he didn’t beat his wife and embezzle his
employers’ funds. Once the conviction of sin had seized him he was ready
to go the whole hog. He went, as a matter of record, somewhat beyond it.
His crime was of the peculiarly brutal and atrocious kind that only good
men commit. An Elk or a Shriner, persuaded to murder Snyder, would have
done it with a certain decency. Moreover, he would have demanded a
plausible provocation. But Gray, being a good man, performed the job with
sickening ferocity, and without asking for any provocation at all. It
was sufficient for him that he was full of sin, that God had it in for
him, that he was hopelessly damned. His crime, in fact, was a sort of
public ratification of his damnation. It was his way of confessing. If
he had any logical motive, it was his yearning to get into Hell as soon
as possible. In his book, to be sure, he speaks of Hell under the name of
Heaven. But that is mere blarney, set down for the comfort of his family.
He was too good a Presbyterian to have any illusions on the point: he was,
in fact, an amateur theologian of very respectable attainments. He went to
the chair fully expecting to be in Hell in twenty seconds.

It seems to me that his story is a human document of immense interest and
value, and that it deserves a great deal more serious study than it will
probably get. Its moral is plain. Sin is a dangerous toy in the hands of
the virtuous. It should be left to the congenitally sinful, who know when
to play with it and when to let it alone. Run a boy through a Presbyterian
Sunday-school and you must police him carefully all the rest of his life,
for once he slips he is ready for anything.

[Heidi]

13. That quote parallels my own experience: raised Baptist, then went to college.

However, I've never considered myself particularly virtuous, and I don't think being ready for anything is a character flaw. :D

[pnorman]

14. "But to Gray, with his Presbyterian upbringing and his idealistic view of the corset business..."

I had stashed that gem away a while back, and just now read it again. Mencken was a self-described Reactionary, but he was also intellectually HONEST! i can't get enough of him!

[outerSanctum]

5. Guns and tobacco come to mind.... n/t

[Fumesucker]

6. With all the things that are *actually* illegal in the US (to the point of jail time)...

You choose guns and tobacco as examples?

You can buy both at practically any Walmart in America.

:crazy:

[Chulanowa]

7. Gun bunnies, smokers, and Christians all get off on being "oppressed"

One thinks that if they could just loosen up a bit and realize there's no reason to feel persecuted, they wouldn't feel the need for so many guns / smokes / hail maries. It seems like a vicious cycle

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I can count the number of people I know who want to outlaw tobacco on one hand

I know a lot of people who favor regulations on where it can be smoked, be that inside bars or restaurants, in hospitals, in preschools, what-have-you. But saying where something can be done is not the same as outlawing it. I tend to fall on the side of regulating smoking in indoor, public establishments. Stepping outside to light up is not a grave injustice, sorry.


As for guns- feh. Whatever anyone may want; I happen to think our society is a little gun crazy, but I'm not interested in taking anyone's away- the political REALITY is, guns aren't going anywhere. I accept that reality and I think that the leadership of the Democratic Party accepts it, too-- as opposed to the Republican Party, which stands very little chance of outlawing birth control and non-procreative fucking, yet still coddles the wild-eyed crazies in the base who want nothing more than to give the death penalty to every woman who takes the pill.

[Nye Bevan]

27. Smoking should be legal.

Exposing others to the smell of secondhand smoke against their wishes should be illegal. As should forcing anyone to be exposed to smoke as a condition of their employment.

[Toucano]

8. However, I would like to note that not every criticism is a call to legally ban something.

In the example you cite (and many times) it is just that.

But I have often made a criticism of something - without calling for it being banned or "regulated" or boycotted - that results in someone accusing me of trying to "reduce" their freedoms.

It is possible to encourage people to make *better* choices without trying to impose limits on those choices.

A free society that has leadership does just that. A perfect example is the White House garden which seeks to improve people's exposure to the idea of eating better without restricting their choices.

Anyway, so this seems a bit off topic. Sorry.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. There are a lot of control freaks who don't like how other people get their jollies.

Personally, I think anything involving consenting adults, their own bodies, their own homes, etc. as a wide sort of philosophical point, isn't anyone else's business. Pot smoking, porn watching, gay marryin', covering each other in crisco and prunes.. your deal.

As for a lady who wants to ban Halloween- well, she's obviously nuts. And fighting a losing battle, to boot. Fuck 'er.

[Touchdown]

11. I rail against SUVs and their drivers all the time

and Escalade drivers are pretty much self absorbed pricks advertising they don't give a fuck about smog/others as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to see a lot less people buy/drive them, but I don't want them banned.

[zbdent]

15. it's a power trip ...

they get one thing done, then they think they can do more. They get off on it.

[TBF]

16. They sure can't control capitalism, but this is one small part of their

lives that they can control. You're right about the hypocrisy though. Down here one of the repubs is using "Freedom Matters" on his campaign signs (can't remember which one - might be Perry). Of course that freedom magically disappears when we talk about gay rights, women's reproductive rights, etc...

[Waiting For Everyman]

17. As an e-cig vaper, I'd like to know that too.

If ever anything ought to be promoted rather than banned, e-cigs should.

I find it flabbergasting that something which is actually saving lives from a known killer of thousands of people each year, is actually in a struggle to stay legal. Frankly, I'm outraged that that is even happening.

All I can say is, it's a power-trip. And it's really inappropriate.


I was thinking the same thing about the Halloween candy - why is it that the knee-jerk reaction of some people is to try and ban whatever they don't like? They just can't stay out of other peoples' business, I guess. And then to top it off, those same people will be the ones spouting the "land of the free" crap.

:eyes:

[The Straight Story]

18. They consider it being 'progressive' to force people to make the 'choices' they made

"your body, your choice - unless I say otherwise and then we can through out the whole idea and do a line item veto, cause principle is not what I really stand by" pretty much sums up a lot of folks.

[SoCalDem]

19. Because , at heart, some people are busy-bodies

and just cannot stay out of other people's business

[quaker bill]

20. It is the nature of law and government

most laws are passed to ban something we dislike. In cases like theft, murder, and rape, this is a very good thing. The problem is that it the concept is often enough carried too far, like laws against parking a boat in your yard, or painting your house an unusual color. It is the people's essential love of government, as opposed to their purported "libertarian" streak, that underlies this. They see something they don't like, and therefore they want a bigger and more powerful government create and enforce a new law to ban it.

Whenever one group proposes a new law like this, the other side complains of reducing freedoms. It is so reasonable to prohibit guns in bars, that even old cowboy movies exhibited the concept on occasion. Large quantities of alcohol and firearms is likely an unpredictable and fairly lethal mixture. However, there are still those who complain that their freedom is being limited.

At some point reason and discretion needs to take over, but where and when?

[KurtNYC]

21. I don't really want my neighbors running a meth lab guarded by tigers

while they breed piranha and make kiddie porn.

I guess I am just a fascist that way.

[Lyric]

22. I'm sorry--did you actually READ my op?

If it's something that's infringing on the rights of others, that makes sense.

Meth labs are dangerous to other people and toxic to the common environment.

Tigers are dangerous to other people, and require enormous amounts of space, food, and security, which your neighbors probably don't have.

Piranha are an invasive species that could destroy native fish populations (a common good) if they are set free.

Kiddie porn is exploitation and abuse of children, who cannot legally consent.

None of these things are things that don't infringe on the rights of other people.

[Lance_Boyle]

23. Why do people insist that DU ban certain words when it already gives each user

the power to censor the site for him or herself as s/he sees fit?

Control freaks playing victim as a means of asserting power over others.

Next question?

[Lyric]

25. Not sure what you mean.

If you have a grudge against the admins, try here:

[e-mail]

[Lance_Boyle]

26. Nice.

What don't you understand about my post? That there are control freaks on DU who seek to censor the entire site because they're not satisfied ignoring users or hiding threads they find offensive? I don't have any problem with the admins, except when they give in to the "DU must conform to my view of what it should be for EVERYONE" control freaks, which does happen from time to time.

Seriously - what don't you understand?

[Lyric]

33. I'm sorry. That probably came out snarkier than I intended.

I have a simmering resentment for certain people who think that we shouldn't be allowed to say "homophobic" in terms of our President, and that's the first thing that came to mind when you posted.

My apologies.

[Lance_Boyle]

34. No worries Lyric.

I jumped into the flame suit prematurely. ;-)

[Lyric]

36. Understandable, considering.

And thanks for being gracious.

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Is there some ethnic or gender slur you're being prohibited from using?

Awww. :nopity:

[LostInAnomie]

31. That's the truth.

There are way too many "victims" on here.

[proteus_lives]

28. Some people need that sense of control.

Halloween, guns, porn, music, religion, books. Gotta ban them, gotta control other people. :puke:

It's hilarious how many authoritarians on this site pose as liberals.

[MicaelS]

35. Because Authoritarians on both the Right AND the Left

Are common that's why. They just do not like someone doing, possessing or using something they disapprove of.

As far as the Right Authoritarians, many of those folks, like the women you posted about, are hyper-religious and obsessed with sin. The think the US is going to Hell, literally, because of America's "tolerance" of sin. Fred Phelps is the most extreme version of these folks. So they want anything that even hints of sin banned.

As far as the Left Authoritarians, these folks hide behind the aura of "Protecting Public Health and Safety". That is why they want guns, smoking, fatty foods, salt, HFCS, SUVs, eating meat, and so on...restricted or banned. In reality they are just a bunch of people who think they know what is best for everyone because they believe themselves so much wiser and superior.

[derby378]

37. Of candy, K2, and Kalashnikovs

As a progressive, I have no problem with any of the above three. Just don't drive or operate heavy machinery under the influence of K2 and we'll get along swimmingly.

[pipi_k]

39. Goes the other way, too...

How many so-called "Progressives", "Liberals", "Democrats" or whatever... think it's OK to stifle the things they don't like?

Like Fox News or certain political signs or bumper stickers, or a dozen other things I've seen discussed.

Oh, maybe they don't want to outright BAN them, though I suspect if they were banned, there wouldn't be much sadness.


What's up with that, I always wonder... Why is it OK for "our" side to kill off the things/ideas we don't agree with, but when the "other" side does it, it's WRONG WRONG WRONG. And BAD.

:eyes:

[Lyric]

40. I didn't mention "sides". I just said "people".

That encompasses both sides, or it was meant to.

[krabigirl]

41. Because people cannot stand others being different from them, and especially hate people being happy

Fuck em..it's my life..as long as you don't harm others, do what you want, i say.