This is like an arrow piercing to the heart of the issue. We must establish our moral boundaries and defend them from environment with extreme prejudice.
Slippery slopes are real, and one of the great fallacies of our time is the communists convincing us that slippery slopes are fallacies. They are not, they are real. But they and good-time, can't-see-the-long-term-effects libertarians took over on vice issues.
Most healthy societies historically did the following: banned or strictly controlled the use of drugs/alcohol; banned and prosecuted homosexuality, gambling, and prostitution; banned abortion; did not allow marriages to dissolve; harshly stigmatized and punished slutty behavior and single motherhood; banned men and women from wearing each others clothing; strictly banned all non-modest dress and arrested people for lewdness in dress; and censored/banned arts that attacked these prohibitions or otherwise promoted degeneracies, and required arts to promote good family images.
Although its not glamorous, we need to bring back censors. We need to start arresting folk again for causing very real, long term, quality-of-life crimes. Broken windows theory in policing worked because it was based on the same principles: attack the smaller quality of life crimes harshly and you'll stop a cascade effect of bigger crimes.
In short, bring back the vice squads. Because slippery slopes are real.
EDIT: As a current-day example, I heard that the famously race-realist late leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, crusaded hard against vices in his country. He believed (as do I) that vices had a dysgenetic effect on the lower classes in particular. The result? The lowest classes in Singapore consistently out pulled other countries' lower classes in GDP/accomplishment. No vices, nothing harmful for a poor kid to throw his money away on or get addicted to, and thus he can have a better chance at improving his lot and being productive.
I agree with most of your comments, except banning or over regulating alcohol. I am glad you enjoyed this essay. Hopefully you will check out some of my other writings.If so inclined, please consider giving it a "like," share, and subscribe.
Most of what we think we know about Prohibition comes from Hollywood movies (acting and boozing are best friends) and from post-Prohibition alcohol execs panicked about it ever coming back. So there's been a lot of propaganda against Prohibition after the fact, and propaganda from the winners is never the truth. If the news today is fake and gay, how much of history is?
Also, as Mike Cernovich and others have pointed out, most people when prohibition hit never bought the illegal alcohol and kept sober. There was a massive drinking problem in the country then (the liquid lunch and the liquid breakfast and liquid dinner were commonplace, especially among the Ellis Island immigrants). And The politicians in Washington and locally (most of whom didn't support Prohibition) refused to enforce it thoroughly, so gangsters grew powerful and rich off the obvious sales of it. But had the people voted these pols out and installed crusading pols and demanded strict enforcement, it would have destroyed Capone and company (as Elliot Ness and Thomas Dewey showed, it was possible to take down powerful crime bosses who'd gotten powerful off Prohibition).
Fun fact: Al Capone's brother was a Prohibition Agent.
This is like an arrow piercing to the heart of the issue. We must establish our moral boundaries and defend them from environment with extreme prejudice.
Choose your tribe well. It will be your Round Table to make Camelot possible.
Excellent thoughts here.
Slippery slopes are real, and one of the great fallacies of our time is the communists convincing us that slippery slopes are fallacies. They are not, they are real. But they and good-time, can't-see-the-long-term-effects libertarians took over on vice issues.
Most healthy societies historically did the following: banned or strictly controlled the use of drugs/alcohol; banned and prosecuted homosexuality, gambling, and prostitution; banned abortion; did not allow marriages to dissolve; harshly stigmatized and punished slutty behavior and single motherhood; banned men and women from wearing each others clothing; strictly banned all non-modest dress and arrested people for lewdness in dress; and censored/banned arts that attacked these prohibitions or otherwise promoted degeneracies, and required arts to promote good family images.
Although its not glamorous, we need to bring back censors. We need to start arresting folk again for causing very real, long term, quality-of-life crimes. Broken windows theory in policing worked because it was based on the same principles: attack the smaller quality of life crimes harshly and you'll stop a cascade effect of bigger crimes.
In short, bring back the vice squads. Because slippery slopes are real.
EDIT: As a current-day example, I heard that the famously race-realist late leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, crusaded hard against vices in his country. He believed (as do I) that vices had a dysgenetic effect on the lower classes in particular. The result? The lowest classes in Singapore consistently out pulled other countries' lower classes in GDP/accomplishment. No vices, nothing harmful for a poor kid to throw his money away on or get addicted to, and thus he can have a better chance at improving his lot and being productive.
I agree with most of your comments, except banning or over regulating alcohol. I am glad you enjoyed this essay. Hopefully you will check out some of my other writings.If so inclined, please consider giving it a "like," share, and subscribe.
Most of what we think we know about Prohibition comes from Hollywood movies (acting and boozing are best friends) and from post-Prohibition alcohol execs panicked about it ever coming back. So there's been a lot of propaganda against Prohibition after the fact, and propaganda from the winners is never the truth. If the news today is fake and gay, how much of history is?
Also, as Mike Cernovich and others have pointed out, most people when prohibition hit never bought the illegal alcohol and kept sober. There was a massive drinking problem in the country then (the liquid lunch and the liquid breakfast and liquid dinner were commonplace, especially among the Ellis Island immigrants). And The politicians in Washington and locally (most of whom didn't support Prohibition) refused to enforce it thoroughly, so gangsters grew powerful and rich off the obvious sales of it. But had the people voted these pols out and installed crusading pols and demanded strict enforcement, it would have destroyed Capone and company (as Elliot Ness and Thomas Dewey showed, it was possible to take down powerful crime bosses who'd gotten powerful off Prohibition).
Fun fact: Al Capone's brother was a Prohibition Agent.