I'm glad to see that Nellie finally posted this article (which I read earlier in The Atlantic) here on Common Sense. It gives a lot of insight into what shaped Nellie into the person she is, which makes it even more amazing that she took a step back from Progressivism. Kudos, Nellie!
I agree that libertarianism helped create this situatio…
I'm glad to see that Nellie finally posted this article (which I read earlier in The Atlantic) here on Common Sense. It gives a lot of insight into what shaped Nellie into the person she is, which makes it even more amazing that she took a step back from Progressivism. Kudos, Nellie!
I agree that libertarianism helped create this situation--allowing people to "do their own thing." The problem is that too many libertarians have no answer to the issue of people's "own thing" becoming a problem for everyone else. The actual libertarian answer is too harsh for the Progressives: locking up the criminals (including those whose crime is leaving dangerous litter--used needles and human feces--in public places) and allowing drug addicts to experience the natural consequences of their choices (death by overdose).
But the Progressive desire to embrace and accept all oddities--no matter how dangerous to others--is what has made this problem impossible to solve. By papering over the issues with Newspeak, they allow themselves to believe that they have done all that can be done. To believe that they are kind and caring. To believe that allowing the law-abiding to be harmed in the name of tolerance is truly "righteous" (in the ideology of Woke-ism).
I have less hope for San Francisco than Nellie does. I don't think the inhabitants have the grit to make the hard choices, to impose the necessary solutions, to call their actions by their proper names. As a libertarian myself, I don't object to the city making drug addicts comfortable while they kill themselves. But it should be called what it is: assisted suicide. Nor should the process of providing comfort (and even drugs; fentanyl seems quickest to allow overdose) be allowed to enrich anyone (as it clearly does).
Saw this today from someone who worked the trenches in Seattle: "Much More Violent, Much More Unkind: Notes on progressive drug policy in the United States"
Thank you! That was very interesting. The author is clearly enmeshed in their own worldview, but they are still able to recognize that what Progressives are doing isn't working.
Naw. And, yeah, him being an anarchist threw me off, but I guess he seems to be recovering from it. At any rate, he punctured enough holes in the Woke agenda to make it interesting.
I'm glad to see that Nellie finally posted this article (which I read earlier in The Atlantic) here on Common Sense. It gives a lot of insight into what shaped Nellie into the person she is, which makes it even more amazing that she took a step back from Progressivism. Kudos, Nellie!
I agree that libertarianism helped create this situation--allowing people to "do their own thing." The problem is that too many libertarians have no answer to the issue of people's "own thing" becoming a problem for everyone else. The actual libertarian answer is too harsh for the Progressives: locking up the criminals (including those whose crime is leaving dangerous litter--used needles and human feces--in public places) and allowing drug addicts to experience the natural consequences of their choices (death by overdose).
But the Progressive desire to embrace and accept all oddities--no matter how dangerous to others--is what has made this problem impossible to solve. By papering over the issues with Newspeak, they allow themselves to believe that they have done all that can be done. To believe that they are kind and caring. To believe that allowing the law-abiding to be harmed in the name of tolerance is truly "righteous" (in the ideology of Woke-ism).
I have less hope for San Francisco than Nellie does. I don't think the inhabitants have the grit to make the hard choices, to impose the necessary solutions, to call their actions by their proper names. As a libertarian myself, I don't object to the city making drug addicts comfortable while they kill themselves. But it should be called what it is: assisted suicide. Nor should the process of providing comfort (and even drugs; fentanyl seems quickest to allow overdose) be allowed to enrich anyone (as it clearly does).
Saw this today from someone who worked the trenches in Seattle: "Much More Violent, Much More Unkind: Notes on progressive drug policy in the United States"
https://rhyd.substack.com/p/much-more-violent-much-more-unkind?s=r
Dunno You or anyone interested, but it's free, so there is that.
Thank you! That was very interesting. The author is clearly enmeshed in their own worldview, but they are still able to recognize that what Progressives are doing isn't working.
Naw. And, yeah, him being an anarchist threw me off, but I guess he seems to be recovering from it. At any rate, he punctured enough holes in the Woke agenda to make it interesting.