Except the argument that gas taxes pay for road maintenance is total fucking bogus when you realize how much is spent on entirely unnecessary road maintenance just because of city/state governments in bed with construction companies.
If the average person doesn't care, then there's nothing wrong with the average person getting whacked with the consequences of their actions. I, for one, would definitely not take a job specifically on the terms of not having premarital sex if I intended to have premarital sex.
And as for state-level law making these terms guaranteed, it certainly seems like a damn good argument for not fucking regulating everything into the ground.
Sounds like a good reason to not take those contracts. If enough people find the terms to be bad and refuse them, companies ultimately have to change the terms if they want employees.
Hate speech targetted at a group effectively makes them leave and/or stop speaking. As a result, the discourses that they were voicing get silenced with them, and the social acceptability to voice those discourses goes down. The environment in question becomes less free as a result.
This is where I don't agree. Hate speech doesn't make anyone leave. It has no power nor authority over people to make them do anything. No matter how much someone spams "kill all niggers", it doesn't actually do anything. If someone leaves, it's entirely because they aren't personally interested in being there. This is in contrast to censorship from the platform, where there is the ability to unilaterally force a user to not participate via bans or removals.
It's the same idea as how free speech applies to the government not censoring the town square. Someone leaving because they don't enjoy what people say is not an infringement on anyone's speech, but the government arresting people based on what they say is.
Just not censoring people offers nearly all the benefits you claim your perspective offers.you don't have to worry about misuse of censorship because it isn't used at all, and it is entirely devoid of "feeling" and "intent", and the other things like ability to an undesirable speech isn't particularly relevant when discussing a free speech platform.
Because the goal of politics isn't to optimize people like they're robots. Everyone deserves to keep as much of their money free of taxation as possible.
It isn't. That's my point. The guy I was responding to made the claim that people should not vote for anything good if it isn't directly good for them, individually. The greedy perspective is voting for higher taxes on someone else just because it isn't your pocket.
I was arguing that people should vote based on principles. For instance, it isn't voting against your interest to support tax cuts if you believe that everyone should be paying less taxes
if you allow it, you’re lowering a lot the freedom of speech of those who’d be targeted by it. It’s a lot because they’ll disengage and leave
I disagree that this is lowering free speech. Those people who leave are still entirely within their ability to stay and continue speaking. Free speech isn't lesser just because someone doesn't feel like speaking
They would if we stopped wasting money on entirely unnecessary projects and worthless maintenance.