One example is no fault divorce. This is what raised the divorce rate. Making things much harder to do is much more effective as a structure than magically changing minds. People behave according to consequences more than according to their own beliefs. Abortion is another example. Before the 70s there were so few of them because it was illegal. It skyrocketed after it started to become legal in different states. Moral of the story? Laws are more important than beliefs in enforcing behaviors.
Banning Things has Been More Effective Historically than Changing Minds
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
So this is proof that beliefs changing is irrelevant compared to whatever consequences people feel or whatever blocks them. The abortion rates only went down later because more clinics closed down and access was blocked.
Both are downstream from power. Laws themselves and social engineering are both intended to form a milieu in a way that is beneficial to the elites.
You're right. I fundamentally see society as top-down run vs. bottom-up run. From seeing the 21st century in action, I know values and ideals can change overnight depending on who is in charge of the propaganda. They're easily engineered.
You're reading too much into it. Abortion hurts elies because it generates more violent crime which is generally directed at the wealthy in the first place. Bastard gangbangers target people with more money for obvious reasons.
Bastard gangbangers are the brownshirts of the elites, they have zero fear of them. They are very effective at terrorizing those who might pose an actual threat if left unchecked, though, especially considering that the legal system allows them to do so with impunity
Elites love abortion. It's why they promote it so much in the media. He who controls the media controls society.
Elites also loved communism until they were shot in the head and had their income redistributed. Just because elities support something doesn't necessarily mean it benefits them.
>Abortion hurts elies because it generates more violent crime which is generally directed at the wealthy in the first place
HA yeah fucking right. At worst it’s directed at the middle class. The elites live far distant from situations that would put them at risk of violent crime
it fractured society and gangbangers are elites tools in terrorizing anyone who may think of changing status quo, they also justify overgrown 'law' enforcement department
not even mention child sacrifice aspect, cannibalism and fresh parts for pharma industry
This is gibberish. Rule of law exists because it’s more optimal than anarchy or rule by discretion.
The word of the law may claim that it applies to everyone, but it's obvious that in practice it doesn't apply to those who make the laws or who can afford to exist above the law through their wealth and power. Cynically made laws also obviously make an effort to keep anarchy to a manageable level, but only insofar that it helps furthering the interests of the elites. This is why two years ago you had policemen armed to the teeth surrounding neighborhoods where the rich lived, but the same police completely ignored the neighborhoods of the lower classes that were set on fire and had looters and other lowlife elements rampaging through them
every society has taboos e.g. things you absolutely are not allowed to question or criticize. authoritarian societies ban it through law, democratic societies use social engineering and paralegal means to persecute those who go against the ruling class. in modern western society we see both. for example it's illegal to question the holocaust in most EU countries. while doing so will not put you in jail in the USA, you will lose your job and become so ostracized that 99% of people are discouraged from doing it (and the few that do are social and institutional outcasts, effectively dead men walking).
you're just not getting the unrecorded data
abortions could be a similar rate, but they were just done illegally
marriage shouldn't even exist as a state institution so that's a massive overreach already
muh I have to make you listen to my stupid ideas and force you to do them, you're just as israeli as the nwo
I want my prime 14 year old wife, and I want a harem of asian girls as well, and how about you suck me off as well interloper
Making things illegal lowers the rate and it keeps it out of public sight. I'd rather not see something than see something in public. Also, with divorce you could publicly see the rate going up. Once you make things easier according to the laws, things skyrocket.
back when the government wasn't half as involved in marriage you could cheat on your wife the whole time with no consequences, functionally you could be divorced without the official tally, completely meaningless data crunching, that doesn't even need to be done
Adultery could be punishable under the law in some states.
Adultery laws, which make sexual acts illegal if at least one of the parties is married to someone else: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Divorce is as official as marriage. People were also punished for adultery, if you go back far enough you could even be killed for it.
basically only women were killed and in rare cases the man who fucked someone elses wife
if you're a man you can fuck pretty much anyone you want who isn't politically connected
I don't really have a hard time believing that, but I also don't see what your point is. People broke the law and were killed, although it was unfairly applied. So what?
treating no fault divorce as if it represents freedom to do something is disingenuous
you're free to lose half your assets if you are a male, it basically has invited more regulation and not less
previously you could pretty much do whatever you wanted and nobody really could stop you or cared much to do so
the whole thing is stupid honestly, traditional nordic bulls settled everything through holmgang or duels, we need to go back to almost complete destruction of all these laws that have been built up, also christfags are insufferable, we must deny every human impulse, we must worship something that doesn't exist like dogs
You literally cannot worship something that doesn't exist. How do you worship nothing? If I say that I ate nothing, it means I didn't eat, not that I ate something called nothing.
Also you can live like a barbarian if you want to, but I personally support putting barbarians to death. I really don't like despicable lifestyles.
I just made up a god named jingo, it obviously exists and you should worship it
ok, how do I worship jingo
jingo jingo, you are the one, we feel your presence jingo
he is there, and you will worship peon
Human impulse is intrinsically evil and must be curbed
If you make prostitution harshly cracked down on like it should be, then it would be the default for adultery.
human impulse to create laws is also evil by that same token
It's not an impulse, it's deliberate and needs legal framework to support. It's not like rape or murder which happens in a moment, legislation is deliberation.
beta males sitting around and using their combined might to hold you in check, when you are clearly superior to them in many ways, is this an evil or divine impulse
is the income tax rate being 30 percent inspired be feelings of good tidings among men or dirty backstabbing baby killers
For posterity could you give me a sauce on it mostly being women who were killed?
I don't know I just checked wikipedia and they state almost exclusively women were killed which is believable, obviously the king can fuck whoever he wants but if the queen cheats she's dead tomorrow
I just wanted more literature. But I do believe that, I mean even in the Bible it talks about how a group of men wanted to stone a woman, not an adulterous couple, but just a single woman.
Most adultery happens with other men's wives anon
not back in the day though
>I'd rathernot see something
Then kys you freedom hating homosexual.
Abortions definitely happened. They were just classified as other procedures and referred to with euphemisms.
Good luck prohibiting what can effectively be done illegally.
Like rape, murder, and basically anything else that is illegal?
It's 1000x easier to secretly distill alcohol at home, or to have an abortion than it is to get away with murder. Not to mention, 99% of people would rather just go about their daily lives than kill, rape, or rob. On the other hand, a large chunk of the population may feel the need for an abortion. Making a criminal out of the common man never ends well. What do you think happens when someone learns that they can flagrantly disobey the law with no consequences?
But can you answer my question? Nothing that you try to prohibit through the law can't be done effectively through illegal means. Name one thing.
Beyond that, if we removed the punishment for killing, you'd certainly have a larger chunk of the population who may feel the need to kill people.
The common person isn't a killer nor does the common person want an abortion. Why pretend otherwise, other than intellectual dishonesty?
Reality is that people are more likely to do things that are legal, regardless of what that actually is. Keep in mind that during WWII war crime trials, people used this as a legal defense.
"Well, what law says I can't indiscriminately bomb civillian targets? Therefore, I can and will do that, I did nothing wrong (in the eyes of the law)."
It's more like give an inch, take a human life. That is how people are.
>What do you think happens when someone learns that they can flagrantly disobey the law with no consequences?
A situation like Liberia.
So what? Laws regulate things other than physical safety.
Laws primarily exist for the protection of citizens against force, fraud, and exploitation or the risk of such. They don't exist to impose personal preferences on lifestyle choices outside of those that fall afoul of the above.
Abortion isnt a lifestyle choice retard, unless you want to consider murder or rape lifestyle choices, at least you would exhibit consistency
>It's more like give an inch, take a human life. That is how people are.
Then why hasn't the world ended as legal systems have gradually liberalized over 250 years?
> why hasn't the world ended
Just look around... It's already hell.
Because you're coming to an absurd conclusion based on an essentially worthless statement.
Which legal systems are you referring to?
And why would the world end if the legal system liberalized? At most, a state collapses. But that's not a spectacular or especially unique event.
Most of the West and much of the non West too.
>Nothing that you try to prohibit through the law can't be done effectively through illegal means. Name one thing.
It would be pretty hard to slander through illegal means. The nature of the crime is a public one. Same goes with public indecency and public drunkenness.
Then you move into crimes that are technically still possible, but incredibly hard to get away with. Like murder. Even if you're a psycho, getting away with murder is a lot of work compared to just sitting at home.
Then, you move into crimes that you can get away with regularly, but will eventually get you caught. Like synthesizing meth in your backyard, or drinking and driving.
Then you move into crimes that you can get away with no problem. Literally every single driver in the USA goes 5mph over the speed limit. Who is going to pull you over? Why not speed a bit? Same goes with pirating content off the internet, same goes with making alcohol during the prohibition, and same goes with abortion. If you do an at home abortion, who is going to know?
The likelihood of getting caught for a crime is a major determining factor in how willing people are to commit the crime.
Murder, rape, etc. has just been going down over time.
Because liberalization generally accompanies rapid social development. In other words, mass adoption of CCTV systems and a better equpped and efficient police force. That said, America has a homicide rate much higher than many third world countries. People behave absolutely savagely in America. I think the reason why this is the case could partially be blamed on the liberalization of the legal system, but I would mostly pin it on social attitudes towards the family unit.
You can drink alcohol safely. There's no safe murder.
retard pop history take
Prohibitions really only keep things out of the light and limits midwits ability to access it. People still murder, rape, and moonshine. All of which are illegal today. It says to someone, in order to participate in our society and access our amenities, then don't caught doing "this".
Most people are midwits so it's still effective. If murder were legal, lots more people would die and I know it.
Prohibition was effective in lowering alcohol consumption.
>100 abortions per 1000 women
Is this real data? Where does it come from? I’m flawed. Americans apparently live in actual Soddom and Gomorrah. I was willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but holy shit man!
You neglect the fact that abortion is now firmly established in American culture now. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it is difficult to close it. Banning something will often exacerbate people's desire it instead of squashing it.
You don't really get it. If you ban something long enough then the culture changes automatically, especially when the kids of people who were never born to see abortion legal see abortion illegal as normal. If abortion can be normalized so can abortion being illegal.
A great example of this is prostitution, actually.
Really anything that's known and widely understood to be illegal will be highly stigmatised simply because the average man on the street doesn't like getting into trouble or being associated with people getting into trouble. Lawbreaking is associated with stupidity and irresponsibility in general, except when it's obviously so trivial and lightly punished that everyone sees it as barely a violation of the law at all, like not wearing a seatbelt or whatever.
Depends on the circumstances. Nowadays people take seatbelts more seriously because they know how important they are.
prostitution isnt as stigmatized as you think it is and for every old school republican man you know, you can bet with certainty that he's visited a prostitute once in his life
>every old school republican man you know
So, in short, old guys. Men 18-25 are under massive social pressure not to exploit women, which basically means subscribing to her OF and simping is fine, paying hard cash for pussy, not fine.
And I think something else is that once something has been illegal and stigmatised for long enough, just advocating for it to be changed is enough to mark you out as foolish, irresponsible, and also a social outcast.
The stigma of advocating wickedness (which of course always is really defined as whatever the community disapproves of) is compounded by the more basic, practical matter that you're deliberately skating on thin ice.
Imagine for example publicly arguing in the early 18th century that the Buggery Act was too severe and that execution ought to be replaced by corporal punishment, or a merely short term of imprisonment. Besides the assumption that you must be one of those buggers yourself, people would be irritated by your disrespectful willingness to defy consensus and argue something so unpopular, but they would also despise your irresponsible attitude since it could hurt your family, and especially wife and children if you had any.
Once there is a strong public consensus that something is both wrong and illegal, advocating on behalf of it (or even just advocating weakened punishment for offenders) makes you seem not just mistaken, but irresponsible.
Nowadays I guess we could call this the "incel effect". It's undeniable that incels are growing at an insane rate even among normal men (for reasons that I don't care to discuss right now), but literally nobody will go anywhere near it no matter how obscenely huge the elephant in the room might get.
The stereotypical Western incel is hated by society mostly for being powerless and outside the power structure, and no other reason.
Both women and men are biologically wired to despise and disregard the weak, because they are viewed as literally no use to them.
Since men with power and status in society automatically drown in pussy, there is no way to bitch about not getting pussy without making a laughingstock of yourself and being seen as a loser by everyone. Sure, incels will make the special pleading argument that Tinder makes it harder, inflation is making it impossible to climb the ladder, yadda yadda yadda, but the iron reality that if you're complaining you're not winning is unavoidable.
I was thinking moreso of your average joe, the 5/10 guys you pass by in the supermarket, who have an average job, some cash but not a whole lot, who look okay in the right light and with the right clothes but aren't particularly handsome or like greek sculptures in the flesh, etc.
Online dating fucking obliterated their prospects, too, compared to how things were like before the internet.
those are normal people, socially competent, and do get girlfriends and marry and so on even if their wife might not be crazy hot
Saw such a couple in the supermarket last week. they had an about 1 year old baby. the chick was bending the cashier's ear about her baby. she seemed super nice. no she wasn't anything amazingly attractive but neither was the guy. but at least he must have been normal and not a sociopathic incel who blames the israelites or Reddit for his inability to get laid.
>blames the israelites or Reddit for his inability to get laid
Is it just me, or is this supposed difficulty in getting laid actually the least shitty part of modern dating? The real minefield aspect of society today is how marriage and family work. It's just all so complicated and demanding these days.
>but at least he must have been normal and not a sociopathic incel who blames the israelites or Reddit for his inability to get laid.
Do you think political takes have anything to do with sexual attraction? If a woman finds you attractive you could go full neonazi on her and she still would end up in your bed, and if she isn't attracted to you, you could say "all the right things" and she still will never fuck with you.
>Do you think political takes have anything to do with sexual attraction?
it does for women, try talking to one sometime
Also, it depends on how good-looking you are, if you look like a Nazi propaganda poster being politically or otherwise deviant is a naughty, transgressive flex and alpha, but if you look like Chudface, much less so.
Point taken, but it amounts to the same thing.
Whether you're a legit "incel," average Joe, or even a handsome hunk, doesn't matter: if you're angry or complaining, you're obviously not winning, and in the dating game that's kryptonite.
It's curious actually how much more people are willing to admit being economic losers than sexual losers. The average man would happily admit to tens of thousands of dollars of debt, problems getting a job, no prospects, but would take care to insist on how much sex he has supposedly had with young, willing, attractive partners. This seems especially true in Europe, whereas in the US there's a much stronger hustle culture where everyone's a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
were what you said true, we would still be living in the 1950s. it's not as if that decade's associated values weren't quite suddenly and dramatically cast off in the following 15 years.
Counterpoint: prohibition. If the ban is against something which is a huge part of the culture and people simply do not respect it, enabled by authority figures who share their sentiment, then the ban is worthless.
Abortion however is not like prohibition, and not just because of the difference in public support. Prohibition was an attempt at a national ban on something that most people did not want banned, while Abortion bans are state-level, and actually not common. Most states simply want to restrict access, not ban them, and these restrictions are not even very harsh, most are either on par with most of Europe or far more lenient than Europe. So I don't really see any kind of prohibition-esque resistance to abortion bans in the US.
>most are either on par with most of Europe or far more lenient than Europe.
Europe has a shorter time window but doesn't deliberately make abortion impractical to access or difficult to obtain.
Not that anon but the banning of things that are tied to instinctual drives, the results of instinctual drives, or outright addictions (prostitution, prohibition, abortion ) not being effective does not mean that other things that are more culturally embedded and intimately tied to networks of power (such as the acceptance of various ideologies, homosexuals, trannies, etc. ) can not be effective in the way OP suggested.
Just like Prohibition, right? You're gambling with an unknown factor, whether the will to suppress abortion is greater than the will to embrace it. And guess what's powering the will to abortion? Our libidinal economy, our libidinal society, our lack of other cultural forces which promote the virtues of an alternative lifestyle. Think about how much money will have to be spent policing it, which will ultimately have no effect because few people want to do without casual sex. It's a losing battle. People are just going to get angry that you're taking away things they find fun for what they perceive to be no reason. And they will subvert it, undermine it, and actively clamor for reform until the politicians cave in and the laws change.
The boomers who remember a world before Roe v. Wade will die in the next decade or so. And at least half of them wouldn't want to return to it. Hardly any politically relevant factions want to keep it, let alone are capable of imagining a world where abortion isn't legal.
>Hardly any politically relevant factions want to keep it, let alone are capable of imagining a world where abortion isn't legal.
what does that even mean?
What is there to explain? Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z largely do not want to get rid of abortion. They never lived in a world where they could experience what an abortionless society would look like. And they will be far more politically relevant in the upcoming years because boomers are starting to drop dead.
>by and far only women actually care about that and they're more collective and less likely to question things anyway
Why do women collectively embrace the right to abortion?
>if men say abortion=bad, most will go along with it because it's the nature of the female to follow, not lead.
Then why did men stop saying that abortion is bad? Besides, can the power of individual man outcompete the power of women as a collective? It seems like it can't.
It doesn't matter what people want. What matters is who has the power to enforce the rules and what the rules and consequences are. Many people in the church want female priests but guess what? They get excommunicated. The world is determined from the top down, not the bottom up. Collectives don't matter if the society rules them with an iron fist. The world is about how has the power.
>It doesn't matter what people want. What matters is who has the power to enforce the rules and what the rules and consequences are. Many people in the church want female priests but guess what? They get excommunicated. The world is determined from the top down, not the bottom up. Collectives don't matter if the society rules them with an iron fist. The world is about how has the power.
I wonder how society ever changed then. Every society was ruled by an iron fist. Now, most of them aren't. What happened? Why can't we go back?
kek, great example. the Tao at work.
North Korea does it.
yeah, and they have to keep shit locked down tight, lest any contagion come in and wreak havoc. it's a very expensive way of doing things, and it makes for a brittle society. is it worth it?
Considering how rich and successful South Korea is compared to North Korea - no.
>You're gambling with an unknown factor, whether the will to suppress abortion is greater than the will to embrace it. And guess what's powering the will to abortion? Our libidinal economy, our libidinal society, our lack of other cultural forces which promote the virtues of an alternative lifestyle. Think about how much money will have to be spent policing it, which will ultimately have no effect because few people want to do without casual sex. It's a losing battle. People are just going to get angry that you're taking away things they find fun for what they perceive to be no reason. And they will subvert it, undermine it, and actively clamor for reform until the politicians cave in and the laws change.
by and far only women actually care about that and they're more collective and less likely to question things anyway. if men say abortion=bad, most will go along with it because it's the nature of the female to follow, not lead.
Exactly like prohibition. Under prohibition, much less people were dying due to complications like cirrohsis which were related to alcoholism. Prohibition worked. Your argument is absurd because it amounts to "laws are useless because people will just break them".
Anon, why not just make nothing illegal then?
Fornication is also a bad example because that's also easy to regulate. In places where fornication is illegal, it happens at the family level. Families disown or even kill their kids when they do that, and it's legal for this to happen. It's more of a cultural problem than a legal problem. but the law reflects the culture. People got rid of cohabitation laws because at some point, Americans decided that women and children don't deserve those legal protections. The consequence is more social instability, violent crime, and lower education per capita. Anyway, your argument "people are just going to do it anyway" could be applied to literally anything at all.
Then why was it repealed?
>Your argument is absurd because it amounts to "laws are useless because people will just break them".
Your argument is absurd because society is more than just its written laws. You have no concern about the practicality of enforcement.
>Anon, why not just make nothing illegal then?
Because it's easy to make most of the common sense things illegal to keep people honest. Since most people don't want to murder anybody anyway. And so on.
>Then why was it repealed?
Because people wanted to drink alcohol more than they wanted to protect people from cirrohsis and domestic abuse.
There we go. So Prohibition didn't work. Hence my entire critique. It is VERY DIFFICULT to close Pandora's box. Banning shit is not how you usually fix these kinds of problems. What we need is some kind of cultural cleanse.
Prohibition DID work and I explained how. We just decided that the social issues that come with alcohol are more less important than someone's ability to use that drug.
The whole point of the thread is arguing whether banning things is a viable political solution. If the political solution doesn't last, then it didn't work. It's that simple.
Therefore no political solution has ever worked since all political institutions eventually decay.
I mean, it depends on how you measure things. But yes, civilization goes through cycles of growth and decay.
the goal of prohibition was to decrease rates of domestic violence and health problems associated with alcoholism, which it succeeded in, where do people get the idea that the government expected no person to ever taste a drop of alcohol ever again? is murder illegal because the government expects not a single person to ever get killed until the end of time, or is it simply to improve a situation which would be worse otherwise? you people are dull and just repeat things
Prohibition meant zero alcohol. Not aiming to get it below epidemic levels, like Norway today.
>You neglect the fact that abortion is now firmly established in American culture now. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it is
Roe vs Wade was not quite 50 years ago. That's not even one human lifetime. There are millions of people including most in a position of power in government who were alive for and remember a pre-Roe world.
Yeah, like the time they banned alcohol in the US and everyone just stopped drinking, or when they created gun-free zones and no mass shootings ever happened there
yeah but you're forgetting that just like abortions, divorce also had an initial skyrocket followed by a large downward trend in frequency
people act according to consequences when they're there, but when there aren't consequences they act according to their morals and beliefs, and the honeymoon period of something being newly available is the exception rather than the rule
The downward trend never went back to how it was before it was illegal to do though.
Who cares if they don't remember it? If politicians from the top can ban it everyone else can cry all they want. Get angry and riot? Okay here's some tear gas and a tank.
I love how people support corporate overlords just because they want more competition in the job market to pay less money, and so ban abortion on moral grounds.
>Abortion is another example. Before the 70s
The modern abortion procedure began to appear in the 50s with the rise of the cities. It became common in the 60s and about to on supporters got roe in the 70s. It was actually pretty quick process from abortion becoming prominent to abortion becoming legal. The legislation follows the culture.
>There were so few
That's the thing about illegal stuff, no official records, anon. You can CLAIM there were less abortions, sure, but unless you have all the numbers from every single alley doctor that made an illegal abortion, then your statement will always be at least faulty due to lack of sufficient data.
Abortion should be banned for no other reason that it makes women suffer.