I'll just say that I never cease to be amazed by the degree to which otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can have serious cultural blind spots. I'm sure I do it too!
Replies
I mean cars are probably the ultimate example of a cultural blindspot because if any other consumer product killed as many people as they do it would be a generational scandal and heavily regulated
aug 29, 2025, 6:28 pm • 1 0 • view
I mean I dont think that a democratic legislative body choosing to regulate multi-ton speeding bricks is illiberal in any sense of the word. Whether its a good idea (or whether that would ever happen) is a different convo
aug 29, 2025, 6:24 pm • 8 1 • view
I am honestly flabbergasted by this idea that there's some kind of individual right to own cars And I like cars!
aug 29, 2025, 6:25 pm • 2 0 • view
I never said there was an individual right to own cars. I feel strange having to remind you of posts that happened barely 10 minutes ago, but you specifically brought up the idea of a blanket ban as something that would be similarly in keeping with liberal ideology as a blanket ban on guns.
aug 29, 2025, 6:26 pm • 0 0 • view
Okay so if there's no right to own a car, how is a ban on cars illiberal?
aug 29, 2025, 6:27 pm • 2 0 • view
The disagreement is not over regulation. We all agree that both cars and guns should be subject to regulation. The disagreement is over whether a blanket ban would be illiberal.
aug 29, 2025, 6:25 pm • 2 0 • view
Right, and the power to regulate typically includes the power to ban altogether
aug 29, 2025, 6:26 pm • 5 0 • view
I think both hold enough,,,Cultural Value that any ban on either would have to have legitimacy of a majority at the very least
aug 29, 2025, 6:39 pm • 4 0 • view
well yeah I mean I thought that was a given
aug 29, 2025, 6:40 pm • 0 0 • view
i mean i think theres a difference between say winning power with a majority and some technocratic ban and actually having majority support for a ban
aug 29, 2025, 6:41 pm • 3 0 • view
I mean, isn't that true of all laws 😅 where I come from, coercive power can only justly be used by the majority of the community Including for things like "murder is bad"!
aug 29, 2025, 6:41 pm • 3 0 • view
We ban lots of stuff! We ban lots of stuff that people would very much like to do/own!
aug 29, 2025, 6:26 pm • 9 1 • view
It is oppression to deny me lawn darts.
aug 29, 2025, 7:01 pm • 5 1 • view
The difference between guns and lawn darts is that almost nobody cares about owning lawn darts. It wouldn't be terribly illiberal to ban chewing on rocks either
aug 29, 2025, 7:04 pm • 4 0 • view
Cutting yourself can be a basis for involuntary commitment, though. I'd be about ten times more concerned about something who chews rocks; they're obviously going to hurt themselves, probably sooner rather than later.
aug 29, 2025, 7:06 pm • 3 0 • view
This is not a salient difference
aug 29, 2025, 8:29 pm • 4 1 • view
Almost nobody cares about the right to perform Zoroastrian religious rituals either
aug 29, 2025, 8:31 pm • 2 0 • view
Yeah. Majority sentiment only matters for the politics of the legislative process. Individual rights belong to individuals.
aug 29, 2025, 8:43 pm • 4 0 • view
It is a salient difference. If effectively nobody cares, then you're not really doing any harm.
aug 29, 2025, 9:02 pm • 0 0 • view
I think maybe one of the key differences between you and I is that you are a deontologist and I am a consequentialist. On a theoretical level, I don't think individual rights really exist. They're just a convenient shorthand, some of the rules of rule utilitarianism.
aug 29, 2025, 9:02 pm • 1 0 • view
I get the sense that you view them as genuinely fundamental. Like all deontology, it's a viewpoint that suffers massively from the act of enumeration. "This is not on the individual rights list, so there is no tension between liberalism and a full ban."
aug 29, 2025, 9:02 pm • 1 0 • view
Crack cocaine
aug 29, 2025, 9:22 pm • 0 0 • view
And certainly the fact that *some* regulations are in keeping with liberalism does not mean that *all* regulations are. Knives impose a social cost, as people can be murdered with them. I therefore propose that knives with brown hilts be subject to a $3 million dollar tax if bought on a Thursday.
aug 29, 2025, 6:28 pm • 2 0 • view
again i think youre conflating bad policy with illiberal policy
aug 29, 2025, 6:29 pm • 5 0 • view
Yeah, that sounds dumb and arbitrary but not particularly illiberal
aug 29, 2025, 6:30 pm • 3 0 • view
You might notice that the word "liberal" shares its root with the word "liberty". One of the principles is that you should leave people their liberty whenever possible.
aug 29, 2025, 6:32 pm • 0 0 • view
Right see, this is not how I understand liberalism, or for that matter liberty! This is, I think, the naive conception of liberty that gets us all into trouble Rather, I think that, in a world marked by universal mutual obligations, liberty means not being free from coercion but from rule
aug 29, 2025, 6:33 pm • 2 0 • view
Viz., by the arbitrary and unequal exercise of power by one person over another The way to achieve liberty, then, is through a democratic leviathan that, within certain individual-rights limits, allows people to exercise power over one another on equal and reciprocal terms
aug 29, 2025, 6:34 pm • 2 0 • view
PREVENTING the democratic leviathan from exercising power over something it ought to be able to regulate is as much a restriction of liberty as is the reverse
aug 29, 2025, 6:35 pm • 1 0 • view
Sex can impose a social cost due to its spread of some very deadly diseases, HIV chief among them, and in particular among gay people. I see no obvious individual right to non-procreational sex acts, even if I think there should be one. Procreation? Sure. But casual sex? Not obvious to me.
aug 29, 2025, 6:42 pm • 0 0 • view
Restricting liberty with arbitrary and capricious laws is illiberal. That remains true even if the law applies to something that is, broadly speaking, an appropriate target of legislation.
aug 29, 2025, 6:32 pm • 4 0 • view
Robert's claim here, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that *no* ban on *anything* is fundamentally illiberal, because there is effectively nothing in this world that does not have at least the *potential* to impose high social costs.
aug 29, 2025, 6:32 pm • 0 0 • view
This isn't close to true
aug 29, 2025, 6:35 pm • 2 0 • view
Suppose your city banned asbestos in coffeeshops and grocery shops but not restaurants or bars. Someone complains that the ban is arbitrary and therefore illiberal. The city responds with an absolute ban on asbestos, everywhere. It's no longer arbitrary. Is that more liberal?
aug 29, 2025, 6:55 pm • 0 0 • view
a blanket ban might be "overbroad" which I think is illiberal? if liberalism favors no more regulations than needed and no fewer than beneficial, going under-or-over is illiberal to an extent
aug 29, 2025, 6:27 pm • 0 0 • view
Right I think this is the heart of the dispute. I heartily deny that "overbreadth" is illiberal in the general case! (Obviously that's different with something like speech-related laws)
aug 29, 2025, 6:28 pm • 3 0 • view
Basically I'm a Williamson v. Lee Optical stan
aug 29, 2025, 6:29 pm • 3 0 • view
In general, "I think the legislature's reasons for restricting my conduct were bad and went further than was necessary to achieve its goals" is not and should not be a valid kind of constitutional claim. The simple fact that the majority preferred this approach is enough!
aug 29, 2025, 6:30 pm • 5 0 • view
with subject-area exceptions, obviously.
aug 29, 2025, 6:31 pm • 3 0 • view
I mean I think we basically agree that there is not a convincing policy reason to ban all cars, but if one existed, it could justify a hypothetical law because there is not an intrinsic need to protect car ownership.
aug 29, 2025, 6:31 pm • 4 0 • view
also there are non-hypothetical examples of this right? there (not enough) places where we say "you cannot drive here", including pedestrianized zones where once you could. there is even a level of arbitrariness to the ban (why this stretch of broadway but not that one), but it's not illiberal
aug 29, 2025, 6:58 pm • 2 0 • view
This is not a cultural blind spot lol
aug 29, 2025, 6:23 pm • 2 0 • view
I mentioned cars because I like cars! I drive a car! The other day I got into an argument about whether it's ever appropriate to break the speed limit (I was on Team Yes)!
aug 29, 2025, 6:24 pm • 3 0 • view