/liberty/ - Liberty

>>76962

>I abstain from political games

You're engaging in one right now.

The tl;dr version is that both parties are authoritarian- whether that's right or left can be left up to debate, but both groups want more control over your life, so they create a false narrative that you can only choice between having your rights whittled away at in one area or a different area. Since people get pissy about their rights getting whittled away in one area, they eventually vote the opposition in, which proceeds to do the same thing in another area while pulling one step back for every three steps forward from the "opposing" team. With this, the overton window shifts over time and you end up with all sorts of bullshit. Republicans don't want you to own guns, it's just they'd lose what support they have if they went after guns.

>I would appreciate if someone could tell how you end up with so tangled politics?

Democracy, anon, combined with mass media. Your average person has an extremely short attention span, and because the average normie is to whom politicians cater they don't need to worry too much about internally consistent opinions. Each side just spits out a few sound bites that seem reasonable enough to their respective voter base, and the base tends to swallow each of these sound bytes in a vacuum. Occasionally Republican normies will notice a small amount of the Democrat's hypocrisy and pass around a few memes about it, and occasionally the Democrats will do the same.

>>76965

Regarding the gun control/refugee comparison: mental health is a spook in either case, but I think the right has a little more ground to stand on there. Guns are inanimate objects and have no effect on mental processes. Religion/culture requires you to believe certain things and as such has a snowball's chance in hell of affecting how you behave.

Guns have a lot less to do with positions than it does with basic human liberty. Someone saying to you "you don't need that" when that activity hurts and destroys nobodies life or property in first blood is equivalent to someone taking control of your life, which we as voluntarists and libertarians reject.

The problem with the position of the "liberals" is that gun control won't reduce violence and they know it; it's just a political power play that they're putting a veneer of social responsibility pandering over.

The problem with the position of the conservatives is that they're just saying "oh, it's just crazy people, just ignore them." They have no plans to promote the mental health and wellbeing of the nation, it's just a political power play that they're putting a veneer of social responsibility pandering over.

The fact of the matter is that neither side cares about you, your wellbeing, the wellbeing of your neighbors, or anyone's freedom. The entire democratic mechanism is just a big dog and pony show so the modern nobility can fuck you from both ends and then tell you "You asked for this, but you can still fix it! Just vote for the other color next time and everything will be better!"

for starters both our right wing and left wing politicians are closet communists. Communists are opposed to all freedom in practice, despite their constant cherry picked quotes to the contrary in theory. Why? Because if you give the state a cookie it will want some milk and at your expense

>>76974

It will reduce gun violence tho

>>76962

>I abstain from (((political games)))

So you're just a soyboy?

>>76965

This.

The common wisdom is that politics is a public affair, while the fact of the matter is that most people simply aren't qualified to hold opinions on philosophical, sociological or economic topics. This is not a matter of raw intelligence, most people also just plain don't have the time or the interest to deal with these big questions, which after all entails learning about logic, epistemics and methodology.

>>77227

Possibly not even that, unless you manage to take all the guns away. But if you take only a half measure and leave the most violent and unstable 20% of the population armed, then you've basically made a plea to the god of firearms to cause lots of rampage killings. Compare shooting sprees in gun free zones and in areas where people are armed. Only in the former do the number of dead reach twenty, thirty or even fifty.

Honestly, I thought the problem was the media giving mass shooters so much exposure that it creates copycats.

>>77411

Not just exposure, it also mystifies them.

>"Why did he do it?"

Fuck off. Stop asking that. Evil people are deficient people. We'd have fewer evil people if we'd stop this damn myth that a drooling idiot like Charles Manson is the pinnacle of human complexity and depth.

>>77416

The contemporary left wants gun bans, including many Marxists, because these idiots are, well, idiots.

>>77413

Evil people=narcissists

>>77416

>The left did not want to 100 years ago so they don't want to now

>>76962

>Liberals, the left, want gun ban in general

not for police and military

>>77473

kys

>>77473

Didn't say that, nor that I imply it. If we forget for a second that narcissists exist, then what I actually said still holds true: Bad people are deficient, they are not more complex than anyone else. They can be narcissists, or they can just lack empathy for others, or be incapable of restraining or arousing their temper appropriately.

Look at how followers of amoral ideologies act when they see someone invoke a moral principle. They become incredulous, mocking, and start asking endless "why?"-questions, and I do mean endless. They don't seem wiser than anyone else, but just plain like people who don't get it.

>>77673

>Didn't say that, nor that I imply it.

No, but I said it and I mean it

>>77673

Okay, then I misunderstood you, sorry.

>>77683

You, too, will be shot