This guy is fucking based

This is extremely vague with zero context.

Right? There's a lot to criticize the US government for, but I'm pretty sure that this is already how things work. No idea what OP is on about
- Why can't I use explosives to fish?
  Why is it illegal to spray people with gasoline?
  If my company wants to dump toxins into the daycare, they should. There's no laws for it.
- This has "park in handicap parking without stickers" energy
- Lemmy.world isn't exclusive to the USA, but still yeah I think deregulators are almost always the worst type of politician.
This also works as a corporate excuse to do whatever the hell they want to a community and the environment.
- This is the huge problem with the optics of Libertarianism as a whole. Thats why Liberal Progressive is a more common term because the right wing co-opts libertarian arguments in a pro-corporate way.
DAMNIT THIS IS MERIKA I SHOULD HAVE A MISSILE LAUNCHER ON THE FRONT YARD BEN WASHINGTON WROTE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION
- Don't forget James Hancock, Thomas Madison, and John Jefferson!
Laws against victimless crimes come to mind.
- How far down before you don't care about victims.
  Technically running red lights are victimless

Justification is easy. Damn near no one does anything they don't feel is justified. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't really matter, because the right people will.

A lot of the most evil shit in history was done by people who felt completely justified in doing it.

Justification is a stupidly low bar.

You're missing the point. We don't need to justify to the government why we need to do anything. The government needs to justify to us why it should be prohibited. Feeling justified in your own actions doesn't come into it.
As for "the most evil shit in history", it should be extremely easy for the government to justify prohibiting it.
- To any reasonable person it is extremely easy to justify prohibiting easy access to firearms. And yet here we are, with mass shootings happening every other day in the US.
- I say go the other way. Fucking people are trash and need to be babysat like fucking toddlers. Government is the only sensible people trying to keep it all together

US Govt: Y'all shoot a lot of people. Let's slow this down a bit. Some people: how about I shoot you!?

Take cannabis for instance. They've 'justified' why it has been illegal, it's just all the reasons were manipulated science and moral bullshit.

Isn't it inherently cringe to claim your own things based?

You think this is OC? You must be new here.
- Of course, OP even went through the effort of making it all blurry so it looked like it was recycled content! /s

You can't go running around with feces all over your body and hug strangers, OP, it's not hygienic.

Boom. Justification. OP's request is satisfied.
- You fool, I'm not a representative of the government. Ha, request not satisfied.
Prove it
Bioterrorism covers this pretty well.
- Did you read the meme though?
- Just existing is not a crime, even if you're just casually spreading disease
Source?

This is deep. I'm 14 though fyi.

All base no substance
- It's quite literally a founding principle of most modern legal systems but okay.

Btw, I don't hate nazis

Tolerance is just an extension of the social contract. Intolerant people are actively violating the social contract and, as such, are not eligible for the benefits such a contract provides. This has been settled law for millennia. Live and let live... or else.
- Grade 9 level understanding of anthropology right here
- The problem is ppl disagree on what represents tolerance. i.e: letting a trans compete in sport can be tolerance of gender diversity, while at the same time intolerance of competition rules.
  Sometimes one cannot know what is someone fighting intolerance gonna end up doing. Germans had been too tolerant of jewish wealthy elite until nazis had enough of it. Hitler was democratically elected and crimes begun only after that.
Meh, I'm not a Nazi so no offense taken.
How is this relevant to the post
It's kind of like pest control. I don't hate termites. I just can't have them tearing up my home, so they have to be exterminated.
That’s just something the ignorant say
If you try to get rid of intolerance then you will find they out number you and it will lead to a more intolerant society
You have to limit the ability for it to spread by expanding education and publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic
The worst thing you can do is force them into their own communities, something social media promotes, because then intolerance grows
- publicly engage with them to challenge their ideas so that others can see the faults in their logic
  Yes, but you want to be careful you're not lending legitimacy to their movement, either. If it's a fringe, wacko idea, it shouldn't be on NBC.
  But yeah, inoculating people against the kinds of arguments they make is good work.
- This is actually what Karl Popper said if you read the entire quote. This comic cut out that part.

I will do all that I can to crumple a world where "if it is not required it is forbidden" exists; this I swear to you all.

But black and white thinking is the only way my brain can work because
Sorry bro certain things need regulated
- Regulation is not prohibition. Regulation and prohibition are at odds with each other.
  But thank you for offering your fraternity to me.
Clothes. Done. You wear most of your clothes to be presentable according to regulation, or to be comfortable, ask yourself if anybody went to a gay bar or a sauna, would they not prefer a towel if it were not for pockets?

Uhhhh... isnt this how it already works?

Not with drugs. Does the drug look similar enough to something illegal? Well then it's also illegal. Are there new, positive, revolutionary uses for those drugs? Who fucking knows, they're illegal before they're even made.
- Yeah, there's some truth in that. But there is also a justification (predicated on prior justification for existing hard drugs being made illegal). The justification is that it is not difficult to synthesize similar drugs that have similar effects. And very often, the differences in the effects are such that the new drug is more harmful than the drug it is copying. So rather than just automatically allowing every new drug and then playing an never-ending game of wack-a-mole with new and dangerous addictive drugs, they are just automatically banned.
  There are a lot of arguments for why it might have been a mistake to make certain drugs illegal in the first place; but that's a different issue. If certain drugs are harmful enough to be illegal, then it is definitely justifiable to make similar new drugs illegal by default.
  A similar thing can apply to weapons. We don't usually have laws against specific make and model of weapons. The laws are usually for entire categories, which include new versions are not yet created or tested.

See also: the ninth amendment.

Justifications are easy, though.

Less so when you have to persuade other people that the justification is valid.
- Isnt the meme basically "prove my justifications are invalid, cause I feel I'm always right and the government is always wrong" though?
  Yes, government action needs to have publicly, rather than personally, justifiable reasons for their actions. But that's just as true of people, most especially when their actions effect many others.

Ehh that is how it is right now though? Anything that's not illegal is allowed.

Depends on the cops in that jurisdiction.

Maybe this is just bait, but this is already how it works. I'll go over US law, but other countries likely have similar processes.

Legislation needs to have justification for restricting people, or it gets overturned when challenged. This is because it would fail the strict scrutiny test, making it unconstitutional. It needs to be "narrowly tailored" to a "legitimate government interest" to pass. In other words, it needs to be focussed on addressing a problem the government acknowledges some responsibility to solve, and do so in a way that doesn't cause undue restrictions beyond that goal.

Creating a law isn't an easy process, so they are made with purpose. That doesn't mean every law is a good law, but that's why we have these processes for reform after all. Sometimes you have old nonesense laws remain, but that is typically because they are unenforced or too detached from modern life for anyone to care to remove them.

Nah it's not exactly unreasonable to say that all objects and systems can be observed and judged, this isn't libertarian claptrap, it's just a fundamental basis of reality, everybody has a plan including the ones keeping an eye on our very government systems. Think of it this way, almost every system has an achilles heel and can fall apart so having people observe and act quickly to get things "back on track" or simply suggest a potential alternative path away from a point of failure actually means more than simply rejecting critique on the basis of maintaining an imaginary status quo

What the fuck are you talking about?
- Governments and many other systems can be held accountable simply by their failure if nothing else, and would potentially have more opportunity to be better with more transparency.