21–26 of 26 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really how the US is intended to work.
Does it work though? It's crazy to see a president elected and still be utterly powerless to implement their agenda since they're blocked at senate and state level
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming Texas was a small government, freedom loving state, one would think they would be one of the first to roll out legal marijuana. Or allow purchasing liquor at grocery stores. Or not require students to recite the pledge of allegiance. Or the Texas pledge of allegiance.
I have to agree with most of those, with two exceptions: - Marijuana isn't really on the same axis. It only becomes the same axis once you allow _all_ drugs -- cocaine, opium, etc. Once you ban one drug, government has control over which drugs are legal or illegal. - You don't need to align 100% to be an outlier in a given direction. Zoning, gun ownership, freedom-of-speech, and a hundred other issues collectively ma…
It is on the same axis that alcohol is on. Actually, marijuana is far safer and less problematic for society. There is no logical reason to allow all drugs if you allow marijuana. It is pretty evident that different drugs pose different risks to society, and marijuana is pretty far down the list. I would even rank sugar and saturated fats as more dangerous to society.
>- You don't need to align 100% to be an outlier in a given direction. Zoning, gun ownership, freedom-of-speech, and a hundred other issues collectively make up this particular ideological axis. No one will align 100%.
That was my point. Some people like to think of Texas (and Republican states in general) as having more freedoms and having a "small" government, yet reality shows they lack many freedoms for things that have no effect on others, such as marijuana and abortion. In reality, they are no more free than any other place, and I would argue less free for many people in their day to day lives.
Another one that just came to mind is Texas bans gambling.
Regulating private businesses like this feels anti-Texas. Governing by executive fiat also feels anti-Texas. I'm not sure what's going on in Texas, but I miss the small government, freedom-loving Texas.
Regulating private businesses like this feels anti-Texas. Governing by executive fiat also feels anti-Texas. I'm not sure what's going on in Texas, but I miss the small government, freedom-loving Texas.
Banning mandates that restrict freedom is ultimately consistent with valuing freedom. Calling that in itself anti-freedom is the same logic as "you aren't truly tolerant unless you accept my intolerance".
I'm not arguing for the validity of that (or either) perspective. I'm simply describing classical Texas values.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to agree with most of those, with two exceptions: - Marijuana isn't really on the same axis. It only becomes the same axis once you allow _all_ drugs -- cocaine, opium, etc. Once you ban one drug, government has control over which drugs are legal or illegal. - You don't need to align 100% to be an outlier in a given direction. Zoning, gun ownership, freedom-of-speech, and a hundred other issues collectively ma…
>- Marijuana isn't really on the same axis. It only becomes the same axis once you allow _all_ drugs -- cocaine, opium, etc. Once you ban one drug, government has control over which drugs are legal or illegal. It is on the same axis that alcohol is on. Actually, marijuana is far safer and less problematic for society. There is no logical reason to allow all drugs if you allow marijuana. It is pretty evident that diff…
A statement like "There is no logical reason to allow all drugs if you allow marijuana" is both correct and irrelevant here. The question is whether government had a right to regulate drugs. Once you agree it does, it has a right to regulate marijuana. If you don't think it does, it can't regulate any of them. Once you agree it can regulate drugs, which ones it regulates is purely a question of policy. Regulating marijuana might be a bad idea, but saying it's outside of the scope of government regulation is a view extreme for virtually any state, including Texas.
I'll also mention: There are a lot of breeds of Republican states. Many are not small government Republicans, for example, but Christian values Republicans. The Republican party is, in many ways, a weak confederacy on values. Texas is at an extreme end of believing it's about small government and freedom.
And yes, freedom is more complex than the Texas ideal. If I have $200k in college debt, two minimum wage jobs, I'm under NDA, a child support agreement, and without access to health care, I don't have much freedom. But that lack of freedom doesn't come from the government restricting me.