If your point is that what was acceptable in the past is now distasteful, then respectfully I do not care.

The fact that the government cannot create a regulation that works for everyone, everywhere, all at once across time and space is not a winning argument for me since that limitation applies to all actors. We go through cycles where we either change what society generally considers "ok" or we discover that something we thought was ok was actually a great evil after some forerunners on moral thought convince enough people of the righteousness of their belief.

That doesn't make regulating bad behavior not ok.

▲

samdoesnothing 3 days ago | parent [-]

I think you meant the opposite - that what was distasteful in the past is no longer distasteful today.

I think we realised as society that regulating most behaviour, no matter how distasteful we find it, is not a great idea for various reasons - 1. it's subjective, 2. people get tired of prudish cultures and act out in various ways, 3. you end up on the wrong side of history. As a society we're becoming a lot more liberal about letting people do their own thing, as long as they aren't actually hurting others. Playing music out loud is not hurting others, neither is wearing a bikini at the beach, etc.

Of course there are always the hall monitors that want to control other peoples behaviour and they often use the excuse that they're regulating bad behaviour for the sake of society. Thankfully it seems like we are beginning to reject those people and push them out of power.

▲

lovich 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I think you meant the opposite - that what was distasteful in the past is no longer distasteful today.

It could be either

> I think we realised as society that regulating most behaviour…

I did not mention anything close to regulating “most” behavior, and I want to call out to you, since you are respectfully laying out your point, that this seems to be a common knee jerk reaction to a large number of people bemoaning any particular issue if I bring up government regulation. That knee jerk reaction specifically being the assumption that being for any government regulations means you are for regulating most or all things.

> Thankfully it seems like we are beginning to reject those people and push them out of power.

It’s only thankful if you prefer the situation. If you are someone who does not want to experience pot smoke and loud music blaring in your ear when someone chooses to do so because they have the freedom to, then maybe you prefer the hall monitor.

I’m not even advocating for one option or the other. This thread started with me pointing out to someone who was upset at people engaging in anti social behavior en masse, that the solution was government regulation.

If you don’t like government regulations in general, or you just think that on net they are a detriment, then the solution is to make peace with the fact that other people are going to use their freedom in a way that you don’t like

	▲	samdoesnothing 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, when I said "most" behaviour I meant it categorically, not quantifiably. As in, most behaviours should not be regulated, not that there are people who want to regulate most or all things. I don't think the solution to the type of anti-social behaviour described in the article is regulating it. Like I'm not sure how we can make "being Paris Hilton" illegal, unless we do something akin to bringing back Puritanism or something like that. I very much appreciate both the separation of church and state, and also the freedom to live my life how I want even if there are some people who disapprove of it. > If you don’t like government regulations in general, or you just think that on net they are a detriment, then the solution is to make peace with the fact that other people are going to use their freedom in a way that you don’t like Yeah I think the lesson is that people need to make peace with the fact that other people have different values and should be free to live their lives the way they want.