Not OP and couldn’t see myself moving towards Libertarianism, but I can kinda see where OP is coming from. Germany does have a huge amount of regulations for almost everything. A lot of projects take far too long because there are so so many rules and laws to be considered. People working in administration got so used to that, that they tend to avoid responsibilities and hide behind rules and regulations (saying this as someone working in administration, trying to establish better digital processes, which tends to be quite frustrating).
On an individual level, everything (except the Autobahn without its speed limit) is always made, so even the biggest idiot can’t hurt himself. Sometimes that ruins the fun for everyone else…
Where do you draw the line? Because that’s what it’s about: how much risk is acceptable for efficiency, personal freedom, etc. The answer is obviously not “zero” or else we wouldn’t have room for cars, construction, stairs, public beaches, the list goes on. Most of life is inherently or potentially dangerous, how much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?
There is no The Line, obviously. It’s all decided on case-by-case basis, and decisions have to be made in context. The only thing you can do in advance is to answer the question “do you prefer momentary efficiency, or do you prefer safety” and then go from there.
It’s not even about monetary efficiency. Ruined fun/ruined life. You said you were on the side of “ruined fun” but how much fun are we talking about? I assume you have some kind of stance because you joined the conversation.
I started to observe a pattern recently, when people on this platform refuse to read the text of the comment they’re replying to. It leads to all kinds of bad faith arguments.
Don’t be like that. Read the text, and engage with the text, not with what you imagined someone might say to you.
It’s not bad faith I’m just not taking you very seriously because you aren’t saying anything. “I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives” is a noncommittal platitude that avoids having an actual stance or argument, it’s vague enough to let you fill in post-facto whatever context helps you while being morally untouchable because obviously nobody is on the side of ruined lives. It’s intellectually lazy at best.
So I pushed, and you stayed noncommittal and only addressed the first part of my response instead of the part about the role of government in this thread about the role of government in regulation.
So I pushed again, and instead of having a thought when pushed you went right into accusing me of engaging in bad-faith. I am reading the text and there’s nothing there so I’m trying to provide you with anything to grab onto. “How much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?” was not a rhetorical question, it was a natural continuation of the dialogue within context.
Its 90% of european continent , ita burried under 10 layers of buirocracy … we even have a joke here “you’re gonna need a form ym1p (you’re missing 1 paper) on your third visit, otherwise you wont get anything done” , doesnt translate as well tho
Yes I’m generally pro regulation and government oversight but the way European countries implement this sometimes feels like a purposeful moat to protect the rich.
Living in Germany rn. I don’t get it? Can you please explain?
Not OP and couldn’t see myself moving towards Libertarianism, but I can kinda see where OP is coming from. Germany does have a huge amount of regulations for almost everything. A lot of projects take far too long because there are so so many rules and laws to be considered. People working in administration got so used to that, that they tend to avoid responsibilities and hide behind rules and regulations (saying this as someone working in administration, trying to establish better digital processes, which tends to be quite frustrating). On an individual level, everything (except the Autobahn without its speed limit) is always made, so even the biggest idiot can’t hurt himself. Sometimes that ruins the fun for everyone else…
I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives.
Where do you draw the line? Because that’s what it’s about: how much risk is acceptable for efficiency, personal freedom, etc. The answer is obviously not “zero” or else we wouldn’t have room for cars, construction, stairs, public beaches, the list goes on. Most of life is inherently or potentially dangerous, how much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?
There is no The Line, obviously. It’s all decided on case-by-case basis, and decisions have to be made in context. The only thing you can do in advance is to answer the question “do you prefer momentary efficiency, or do you prefer safety” and then go from there.
It’s not even about monetary efficiency. Ruined fun/ruined life. You said you were on the side of “ruined fun” but how much fun are we talking about? I assume you have some kind of stance because you joined the conversation.
I started to observe a pattern recently, when people on this platform refuse to read the text of the comment they’re replying to. It leads to all kinds of bad faith arguments.
Don’t be like that. Read the text, and engage with the text, not with what you imagined someone might say to you.
It’s not bad faith I’m just not taking you very seriously because you aren’t saying anything. “I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives” is a noncommittal platitude that avoids having an actual stance or argument, it’s vague enough to let you fill in post-facto whatever context helps you while being morally untouchable because obviously nobody is on the side of ruined lives. It’s intellectually lazy at best.
So I pushed, and you stayed noncommittal and only addressed the first part of my response instead of the part about the role of government in this thread about the role of government in regulation.
So I pushed again, and instead of having a thought when pushed you went right into accusing me of engaging in bad-faith. I am reading the text and there’s nothing there so I’m trying to provide you with anything to grab onto. “How much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?” was not a rhetorical question, it was a natural continuation of the dialogue within context.
ruined fun is a ruined life
It’s just Kafka-esque bureaucracy of everything. It’s almost impossible to get anything done and it’s incredibly demotivating.
That’s not “leftism”, that’s just unchecked, unquestioned bureaucracy.
Not saying it is, just quite the opposite if what libertarianism is.
Its 90% of european continent , ita burried under 10 layers of buirocracy … we even have a joke here “you’re gonna need a form ym1p (you’re missing 1 paper) on your third visit, otherwise you wont get anything done” , doesnt translate as well tho
Yes I’m generally pro regulation and government oversight but the way European countries implement this sometimes feels like a purposeful moat to protect the rich.
Gee, I can’t imagine why Germany would want to slow down government actions…
Can you give some examples? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about
Have you ever had to visit a DMV?
No, I’ve never lived in US. Why?