I take it, from what many posters defend, that many people in this board people regard the State and its extensions as our parents so I think the analogy is appropiate.
Because their job is public safety and creating laws? And since they are adhering to the scientific consensus of wearing masks, social distancing, and getting vaccinated, what is the issue?
No issue in the paternalistic approach. You just expanded on the definition. The emphasis was on the analogy of bad parenting for those with this point of view, regardless of how I feel about it.
FNQ wrote:The idea that people play no part in a public policy is lunacy man. If they strictly enforced it, it would work better, but it'd be encroaching way too far on freedoms. If they suggest it, people handwave it off. So some places made local mandates which mostly focused on businesses, not individuals. And then...
People's participation in public policy is passive. It's mostly the potential of their reaction and not much else. As for your assumption that stricter enforcement = better working I don't really know what method you use to predict the hypothetical reaction of the masses to stricter rule. In any case, there's nothing tangible about it so I can't say I agree or disagree.
FNQ wrote:Age of consent, drinking, smoking, drugs.. "if you listen to the authorities, you act like they are parents".. that's toothless
I listened to my actual parents and societal pressures such as taboos for all of these. Laws were just an added extra that wasn't really necessary and that only became relevant after I grew up. By then my morals were already pretty much set and what the law says has no effect on them. I agree and/or have no problem with the vast majority of them. And of course I still play ball with laws that I disagree with, as long as they're not abusing my will to cooperate and play along. I know when to sacrifice my personal interest because the general interest is ALSO part of my personal interest if I want to have a peaceful life.
Laws didn't teach me anything. Life, social pressures and especially my family did.
I don't think that most people do what they think is right because that's what the authorities say. People don't act based on fear, they act based on conviction. We can REact with fear and hatred, but proaction always requires conviction and love for a thing or an ideal.
State law is threat, and as such it employs fear. It's ment to dissuade people who already have the predisposition to do what the law forbids. It's not meant to inspire anyone because it doesn't have the tools to inspire anyone. The inpsiration comes from what people love, or what people dream about. And that's what the law is born out of and with what it negotiates and struggles.
You can still choose to believe norms and regulations are at the base of moral behavior. I personally believe laws of conduct are more of a reflection of the people's morale.
FNQ wrote:I'm guessing your libertarian based on this, and an opportunistic one at that
I don't see myself as a Libertarian. I don't know if I'm one by your standards.
If by Libertarian you mean someone who doesn't want any power structure, then I'm not a Libertarian. I believe hierarchies are a very concrete and inescapable reality of life and institutions of power are a product of that reality. I believe the free market creates monopolies. But I'm still no fan of monopolies nor of a planned economy. Pretty heretic, right?
I also don't believe institutions are inherently corrupt by nature. I do believe they tend to corrupt, like any entity that seeks its own survival above all else. When the people that govern you prioritize their permanence in power above all else, the harmony between people and institution is lost. I don't know many people that would argue in favor of the political class prioritizing people's wellbeing above their own permanence in power. That much seems to be clear to most people. And that's all it takes for me to remove my faith from that system.
I don't envision a world of free roving individuals as much as I don't envision a one-brained humanity. Neither of those worlds promise any progress. And those seem to be the charicaturized extremes of this debate.