Hacker News Reader

Comment by seibelj | Hacker News Reader

Libertarians, although a much-derided and mocked perpetual third party in the US political system, have been banging the drum on drug legalization for decades. Plus their opposition to the incarceration state, excessive police power, unconstitutional search and seizure, and their support of gay rights and overall being ideologically supportive of the individual.

What do libertarians predict next? I would suggest the elimination of the modern-day guild system, also known as occupational licensing, as well as the legalization of sex work in various forms. It would not surprise me whatsoever if within 10 years legalized prostitution is a tax-paying and government-supported industry in major coastal cities.

Amazon’s move is a recognition that the laws of the state in regards to drugs are woefully backwards and they - possibly the most litigated and attacked business in the world - doesn’t need to respect these laws.

View on HN

You're giving Amazon way too much credit here. They didn't need to drug test most of their employees in the first place. That policy was their choice.

Also:

> Amazon was hit with a proposed class action suit, which claimed that the company was violating a New York City law by testing applicants for jobs at local facilities for marijuana, according to a Westlaw report.

So it seems like their hand was forced by the dissonance between federal and state law. This is not leadership or some kind of principled stand, it's liability minimization.

That's my read as well. It seems like Amazon would rather not deal with having to keep track of where it is and isn't legal to smoke weed, so they're just saying, "Ah, fuck it," almost entirely.

Wow, Seattle based company supports legal weed 8 years after WA legalized it. Golf clap

The progressive-left has supported a lot of those social issues too. It just wasn’t mainstream enough to get significant Democratic support until more recently. Meanwhile Libertarians never put much consideration into their mainstream palatability.

The progressive-left does not care a lot about their electability either, although socialists have had more recent electoral success than libertarians.

If Libertarians actually supported gay rights and drug legalization more than low taxes, then they wouldn't vote Republican all the time.

I don’t think it’s such a clearly Democrat vs Republican issue. Plenty of Democrats have been in favor of harsher penalties for drug and other crimes. Biden and Harris among them. The Republicans are of course just as bad on this topic.

I do think the Republicans, especially when they were more heavily influenced by the “religious right” had a noticeably worse position when it came to gay rights. However, that appears to be in the past. Let’s remember that in 2004 even Obama was opposed to gay marriage. Society took a while to evolve on the issue. And both parties have evolved since what they were in the 80s, 90s, and 00s.

>However, that appears to be in the past.

That's unmitigated bullshit and you know it, and you're living in a fantasy world.

Why do you find it necessary to lie like that? Especially when it's so mendacious on its face and so easily disproven.

Trump used to be pro-gay, and claimed during the campaign that he was the best friend of gays, but then he actually "de-evolved" to support and empower the anti-gay evangelical bigots who STILL run the Republican party, so your argument is incoherent nonsense that flies in the face of reality and fools nobody, in the defense of bigotry.

It's really insulting you'd attempt such a poorly executed Gish Gallop, and you don't deserve any proof that you're wrong in response, because you're just making shit up to defend and exonerate terrible bigots.

I agree with you but it cuts both ways. GOP and Dems do whatever they think they need to do to stay in power. Hilary Clinton changed her position on LGBT rights when the winds started to blow in a different direction too.

And Donald Trump changed his position on LGBT rights in exactly the opposite direction, but HE was PRESIDENT and LEADER of the Republican Party (and still thinks he is), and his DE-EVOLUTION hurt many people.

Hillary IMPROVED. Trump GOT WORSE. There is no equivalence. They're OPPOSITES.

So no, the Republican Party doesn't get credit for being just the same as the Democratic Party, and it most certainly cuts much worse in one way than the other. So please spare us the false equivalences and revisionist whitewashing of institutionalized GOP bigotry.

Of course they are equivalent because they are completely self serving and insincere. We should want and expect leaders with the courage of their convictions. I don't trust anyone who can change so readily and without second thought when it suits them. They'll just change back again when it suits.

They certainly don't have equivalent intentions or outcomes. So no, they're not equivalent at all, no matter how hard you try to justify and whitewash one-sided Republican bigotry by claiming to know everyone's true motivations. You're still making a false equivalence.

Then name some openly gay Republicans in power, and tell me what they've done to tangibly improve LGBT lives. (Who didn't switch to the Democratic party after coming out, like Charlie Crist, and who don't deny it, like Larry Craig or Lindsey Graham.)

Are the Log Cabin Republicans finally being taken seriously?

Republican LGBTQ rights group’s executive director is the latest to leave after its endorsement of Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/executive-director-o...

Conservative LGBT group denied a spot at Texas GOP convention

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/...

I'd vote Democrat over Republican every day of the week but it's denialism to pretend this doesn't enable this sociopathic approach to governance. You're appealing to tribalism because it fits your values. I wholeheartedly disagree that this is a healthy way to approach politics.

I'll take a self serving and insincere politician who moves in the right direction over one who moves in the wrong direction every time. Those are absolutely not equivalent.

> but then he actually "de-evolved" to support and empower the anti-gay evangelical bigots who STILL run the Republican party, so your argument is incoherent nonsense that flies in the face of reality and fools nobody, in the defense of bigotry.

I'd love to see something about this

Are you maybe conflating transgender demands vs gay rights?

There is definitely opposition to "gender is what you identify with and not something objective", which I think it's reasonable - there are biologically 2 genders (not including extra chromosome anomalies).

At the same time, everyone is free to believe and say what they want and noone is trying to change that. The main opposition is around compelling speech according to someone preference not to trigger them or allowing parents to inject hormones in underage kids.

I enjoyed your other comments on this thread so I’m surprised by this response.

I'll explain my reasoning as someone who would have voted liberal ages 30 years ago and not now.

Gay rights are mainstream in both parties these days and not a concern. That would have been a great factor in shifting me to the left.

While I'm much in favour for complete drug legalisation, between the chance of getting legal drugs + higher taxes and no legal drugs + same or lower taxes, I'd always pick the second one.

After legal drugs are a mainstream topic and given for granted, I would have even less arguments for voting liberal.

Conservatives are not great in social policies, liberals are not great in economic policies.

Moreover liberals became against free speech, against gun rights and pro cancel culture which is ruining their only appeal - freedom in social policies. They're also pro in a lot of things I find morally abhorrent, like abortion (infringement on the unborn baby's freedom) and transitioning transgender underage kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com