[seebs]

Originally Posted by lisarea

The only remotely reasonable "libertarians" I've encountered were just people who got suckered into that weird dichotomy the libertarian party uses to trick naive people into thinking that, effectively, they're the only party that opposes any kind of regulation at all.

It's mostly a bunch of kids who want pot decriminalized and recently saw the withholdings on their first paycheck and haven't really stopped to think about what those taxes go toward.

Their support base is and always has been made up of evil, greedy old people furiously defending their privilege, and ignorant kids who haven't really thought things through yet.

While this may well be the case, there seems to be a fairly long-running line of people who actually have a somewhat coherent position. It's just that they've been outnumbered.

There are plenty of people who are offended precisely because they do know what a lot of their tax dollars go towards. We've spent thousands of dollars and my spouse has spent months crippled because our tax dollars went to providing for an elaborate new land development code which no one understands and people whose job is to reflexively say "no" to everything and lie to cover up that they had previously said yes. You better believe I would be all in favor of a massive reduction in the amount of zoning and code we have around here.

Look at it this way: Look at the Uterati thread. Look at all the (totally reasonable) outrage about all the crazy rules our government is passing. Look at my friend who has to have a doctor certify that she needs treatment before she can get health coverage, without which she is not allowed to see a doctor.

That's where I've met people IRL who self-identify as libertarians. None of them object to rules like "you must have a qualified contractor do any work on gas lines". That's a good rule. But stuff like "you can't sell books after 6PM"? Not so good.

That said, I do think there's a some truth to the position in that article. It seems pretty obvious that the definition of 'mental health' would align pretty closely with the personality type that would choose mental health careers; and that other types would be disproportionately pathologized.

Yes. Thus stuff like "neurodiversity".