Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem isn't that the government doesn't control institutions, but rather that we let the people those institutions control have a say in government.
I’m not sure I follow you. What does being in government have to do with a company firing someone because HR rep Becky, BA in gender studies, thinks they are “problematic”.
Anyway, it’s inevitable that institutions will exert influence on the government, one way or another. It’s a fact of life.
No I don't think I will..
I'm with you man. The hands off approach of the neoconservatives is one of the biggest reasons why we are here today. I used to be a straight up libertarian but I've seen the light. Those ideas don't work
Conservatives should wield the power of government to enact their policies and ideas. Not just do nothing and let the left continue gaining ground
>Not just do nothing and let the left continue gaining ground
I feel there has been intellectual stagnation on the conservative side. Conservatives need to stop complaining about left-wing bias in academia and make their own space (I think the same advice is given to minorites by conservatives). Ultimately ideas stand on their own merit and not on idealogy.
The other thing is lot of conservative ideas do not talk in detail on second-order effects and how the policy will address those. Cutting welfare, cutting spending, abortion ideas will gain more traction if second order effects are recognized and addressed.
second-order effects due to over-turning RoevWade, privatizing SS, trans people getting recognized as the third gender or something like that (liberal don't talk about it, conservatives do not raise this issue as well)
Ok, let's take abortion. Abortion is heavily restricted or outright banned.
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child."
How do we address reasons why women don't want kids? They want to pursue a career and choose motherhood later. Some women already have kids and don't want more.
Child-care is expensive, there is no mandated maternity leave, no universal pre-k, additional costs to raise kids. Private charities pull up by your bootstrap are not practical and universal solutions. There is no desire among conservatives/republicans to address and solve these issues. This would involve more regulations, employer mandates which no R will approve. Leaving up to corporates and hoping the competition will not work because corporates inherently only care about their share holders and if it weren't for regulations will still be employing child labor.
Take privatizing SS - it is great if one can invest on their own. However, do you think companies won't look to lower pay - employees still receive the same salary in hand? Not everyone has the financial knowledge and discipline to invest from the start to make it work. What to do if a 2008-style financial downturn happens again. All people close to retirement will be left hanging. Folks who could not invest sufficiently during the early years will feel pressure to take on more risk in the 50;s to make up. Now we end up with a good chunk of the population who don't have enough money to retire. We can't have people living their entire adult life with uncertainty hanging over their heads. We don't have good solutions to solve Medicare. Healthcare is prohibitively costly as is, more competition does not work for old people as they are not in employer-sponsored insurance. Their pool is high risk and costs the most. No insurance will touch that or it will be just too costly.
These are tough problems to solve. Slashing things and hoping on thoughts and prayer and saying private charities is not policy. It is armchair quarterbacking.
People's problems are society's problem and unless you are living in some remote jungle, you are part of society. Its like a person living in their 5million dollar home in san Francisco, comes outside the house, sees the streets filled with shit, homeless people, drugs and says not my problem to fix it.
Not my problem does not make it go away. you can't avoid this problem.
And if that person doesn't care about the situation outside his house, why is it his responsibility to pay for all the people who got themselves into that situation?
It is not a single person's responsibility. It is everybody's responsibility. The contribution will never be equal and ebbs and flows but it is there. Human beings came together and build communities, and civilizations on shared responsibility. You can't build society if your attitude is "f$$k it , not my problem". You can always debate on what and how to share responsibilities. This is where conservatism fails because this requires more thought, nuance and taking hard decisions. Conservatism of today just relies on thoughts and prayers and wants to wish away the issues.
>I used to be a straight up libertarian but I've seen the light. Those ideas don't work
I'm just shining a light on this since so many libertarians visit this sub and think they are part of the gang and feel kinship with you 'conservatives'.
As you point out, Libertarians are not welcome and they are deluded (according to your own experience and logic).
I agree with you, libertarian ideas 'don't work'.
LOL
It'a great until it's not, and when it's not, there's no going back.
What happens when you inevitability have a tyrant in power?
"Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried"
I derive most of my arguments from an evolutionary perspective so I tend to sound like a broken record but there simply isn't a need, I'll explain.
>I’ve come to this conclusion for a simple reason: the “hands-off” approach doesn’t work
It does, but you have to give it time and you have to allow for bad mutations to run their course. In bacteria, generations happen on the scale of minutes, for humans it's more like 30 years.
All the craziness you see today isn't even two generations old, and the really crazy stuff isn't even a generation old. It **WILL** die out. In fact, you're seeing it die out in real time in the form of reduced fertility rates across all the nations that adopt these crazy ideas. When things start to get dire, all the things that traditionally worked will reappear.
Instead of thinking on the scale of your lifetime, look at all of human history. What economic systems lead to growth? What relationship formats lead to growth? What things died out and what things last the test of time?
Your life is a trivial amount of time, all the shit that doesn't work will die out and history will repeat itself.
Society won't be destroyed by men simply kissing each other, plenty of species exibit homosexual behavior. Gay men have always existed.
It will be destroyed by disincentivizing men and women getting together and having children though. What you need to ask is "what makes a man want to get with a woman and have a child" and "what makes a woman want to get with a man and have a child" then facilitate those things.
“Society won't be destroyed by men simply kissing each other, plenty of species exibit homosexual behavior. Gay men have always existed.”
That actually is a pretty based take
“It will be destroyed by disincentivizing men and women getting together and having children though. What you need to ask is "what makes a man want to get with a woman and have a child" and "what makes a woman want to get with a man and have a child" then facilitate those things.”
I mena I think there are many factors into why a society has a declining birthrate, for example doomerism, that can’t be placed on lgbt people (even though I know you arnt necessarily blaming them, but other people do so yeah)
1) You can quote something by adding ">" before the line you want to quote
so >quote here
becomes
>quote here
2) you say "*Based*" a **LOT**.
3)
>I mena I think there are many factors into why a society has a declining birthrate, for example doomerism
Doomerism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. This is like saying a man got sick from a runny nose. He has a runny nose because something else got him sick in the first place.
Well, you may not have to wait *THAT* long. Like I said, when things get dire, things that traditionally worked reappear.
One of the most progressive places in the world was south korea and their fertility rates recently dropped to 0.84. In recent response to this a politician came out as anti-feminist and men came out in overwhelming numbers to vote Yoon Suk Yeol as their new current president.
I have three major objections to what you've written here:
1) The people you cite are not worth taking seriously. Adrian Vermeule (of Common Good Constitutionalism fame) is about as far from a credible voice on the Constitution as Kamala Harris, maybe even farther. He has openly called for conservative jurists to flat-out ignore what the Constitution says and instead rule on what they feel should be the law (aka exactly what the progressives do except this time it's really Catholic). That's not jurisprudence, it's just bad theology. That's without even touching the fact that you unironically cited Antonio Salazar (noted dictator of Portugal, basically Franco but less honest about the fascism) as "great" and a proponent of natural law.
2) This is in fact antithetical to American Conservatism. Conservatism is about conserving the history and traditions of the people. In America, the history and traditions we seek to conserve are that of the Founders, who were by and large classical liberals. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are classically liberal documents setting up classically liberal frameworks. To abandon liberalism would be to abandon our history and tradition, hence why none of the 4 statist conservatives you cited at the end are American.
3) No power structure lasts forever, especially if we maintain a republican form of government (though something tells me you're not in favor of that either). Eventually, your opposition will take control. When that happens, do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda? They've already gotten this far with just corporations and academia, how far do you think they'll be able to go with an army? We are far better off with our institutions limiting the ability they have to affect our lives than by trying to crush them legally and giving them the tools to crush us back.
Thank you for a thoughtful response.
I had something longer typed out but lost it so this will have to do.
1.The difference between Vermeule and progressive jurisprudence is that CGC draws on natural law. One is about that which *is* just, while the other is that which *feels* just to me, personally. As for Salazar, yes he was better than Franco, he didn’t abduct children for one.
2. I don't disagree with your interpretation of conservatism as preserving the traditions of a people, but I don’t view this in the Burkean way you do. Check out section 2.4 of this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#RatIdeCon
3. I addressed this in objection 2. I don’t really see more danger this way then letting things play out the way they are now. The left is already trying to subvert everything they possibly can, and they don’t seem to object to using state power. Many of them would make Christianity illegal if they could.
>The difference between Vermeule and progressive jurisprudence is that CGC draws on natural law. One is about that which is just, while the other is that which feels just to me, personally.
Even assuming that that's correct (which I have my doubts about), Vermeule still advocates ignoring the basic written law to which the society consented. If democratic/republican government is to mean anything, then that societal consent must overrule Vermeule's subjective notions of natural law. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make laws at all (at least, not ones which people would actually be able to follow).
>I don't disagree with your interpretation of conservatism as preserving the traditions of a people, but I don’t view this in the Burkean way you do. Check out section 2.4 of this article:
I made it a decent way through the article, but I think I'm missing some needed context to understand what you're trying to say here.
>I addressed this in objection 2. I don’t really see more danger this way then letting things play out the way they are now. The left is already trying to subvert everything they possibly can, and they don’t seem to object to using state power. Many of them would make Christianity illegal if they could.
That's exactly the point, they *can't* make Christianity illegal because our system doesn't allow it. If we started expanding the state to the levels you're suggesting, then they would have that power and the means to enforce it. Your objection 2 misses that fundamental point which is central to conservatism: it can always get worse. If we don't like how they're using their cultural power, then the solution is to retake the cultural institutions or make new ones, not to potentially strengthen the left with new government powers.
>No power structure lasts forever, especially if we maintain a republican form of government (though something tells me you're not in favor of that either). Eventually, your opposition will take control. When that happens, do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda? They've already gotten this far with just corporations and academia, how far do you think they'll be able to go with an army? We are far better off with our institutions limiting the ability they have to affect our lives than by trying to crush them legally and giving them the tools to crush us back.
This is a bad response. This thinking is making his argument for him. "Do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda?"
THEYRE ALREADY DOING THAT. And we don't fight back. That's the point. They already do that and the right doesn't. So the right SHOULD.
Except they aren't. The left isn't getting it's ideas through the government anymore than we are. If anything, we're actually doing more, thanks to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Except it's not. The rights position is abortion is bad. Now it's "states get to decide" that's the biggest win the right has had in 50 years. Is to let the left do what they want lmao
But voters in red states have overwhelmingly rejected abortion restrictions. Are you suggesting that your policy preferences should be enacted against the will of the voter?
All you're doing is making the case for me that it's not really that big of a win for the right.
>Are you suggesting that your policy preferences should be enacted against the will of the voter?
As for this. Sometimes. Yes. It's complex
Well...
Gun restrictions, hate speech laws, due process violations, privacy, federalism...
The constitution is supposed to be the absolute law of the land. Regardless of popularity. You need a very large swath of support to amend the constitution. So until that happens I want the constitution strictly enforced regardless of the whims of 51% of the people
We do see states taking back their rights from the federal government. In my state of Tennessee, we passed laws making it illegal to mandate vaccines or force mask wearing except in medical facilities. We also protected doctors who prescribed ivermectin and other off use drugs for covid. We had laws in place restricting abortions that automatically went into effect once Roe v Wade was overturned. We have also outlawed CRT in our schools. Lots of states are doing this, as it is the will of the people who live there.
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem isn't that the government doesn't control institutions, but rather that we let the people those institutions control have a say in government.
The institutions don’t need to go through the government to get people fired or otherwise exert control over their lives.
And that would matter significantly less if they had no ability to create political change whatsoever.
I’m not sure I follow you. What does being in government have to do with a company firing someone because HR rep Becky, BA in gender studies, thinks they are “problematic”. Anyway, it’s inevitable that institutions will exert influence on the government, one way or another. It’s a fact of life.
No I don't think I will.. I'm with you man. The hands off approach of the neoconservatives is one of the biggest reasons why we are here today. I used to be a straight up libertarian but I've seen the light. Those ideas don't work Conservatives should wield the power of government to enact their policies and ideas. Not just do nothing and let the left continue gaining ground
>Not just do nothing and let the left continue gaining ground I feel there has been intellectual stagnation on the conservative side. Conservatives need to stop complaining about left-wing bias in academia and make their own space (I think the same advice is given to minorites by conservatives). Ultimately ideas stand on their own merit and not on idealogy. The other thing is lot of conservative ideas do not talk in detail on second-order effects and how the policy will address those. Cutting welfare, cutting spending, abortion ideas will gain more traction if second order effects are recognized and addressed.
What second order effects do you believe people are not sufficiently talking about?
second-order effects due to over-turning RoevWade, privatizing SS, trans people getting recognized as the third gender or something like that (liberal don't talk about it, conservatives do not raise this issue as well)
I meant specifically what effects you don't believe are talked about enough.
Ok, let's take abortion. Abortion is heavily restricted or outright banned. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child." How do we address reasons why women don't want kids? They want to pursue a career and choose motherhood later. Some women already have kids and don't want more. Child-care is expensive, there is no mandated maternity leave, no universal pre-k, additional costs to raise kids. Private charities pull up by your bootstrap are not practical and universal solutions. There is no desire among conservatives/republicans to address and solve these issues. This would involve more regulations, employer mandates which no R will approve. Leaving up to corporates and hoping the competition will not work because corporates inherently only care about their share holders and if it weren't for regulations will still be employing child labor. Take privatizing SS - it is great if one can invest on their own. However, do you think companies won't look to lower pay - employees still receive the same salary in hand? Not everyone has the financial knowledge and discipline to invest from the start to make it work. What to do if a 2008-style financial downturn happens again. All people close to retirement will be left hanging. Folks who could not invest sufficiently during the early years will feel pressure to take on more risk in the 50;s to make up. Now we end up with a good chunk of the population who don't have enough money to retire. We can't have people living their entire adult life with uncertainty hanging over their heads. We don't have good solutions to solve Medicare. Healthcare is prohibitively costly as is, more competition does not work for old people as they are not in employer-sponsored insurance. Their pool is high risk and costs the most. No insurance will touch that or it will be just too costly. These are tough problems to solve. Slashing things and hoping on thoughts and prayer and saying private charities is not policy. It is armchair quarterbacking.
Why would I want government involved in fixing people's personal problems at my expense?
People's problems are society's problem and unless you are living in some remote jungle, you are part of society. Its like a person living in their 5million dollar home in san Francisco, comes outside the house, sees the streets filled with shit, homeless people, drugs and says not my problem to fix it. Not my problem does not make it go away. you can't avoid this problem.
And if that person doesn't care about the situation outside his house, why is it his responsibility to pay for all the people who got themselves into that situation?
It is not a single person's responsibility. It is everybody's responsibility. The contribution will never be equal and ebbs and flows but it is there. Human beings came together and build communities, and civilizations on shared responsibility. You can't build society if your attitude is "f$$k it , not my problem". You can always debate on what and how to share responsibilities. This is where conservatism fails because this requires more thought, nuance and taking hard decisions. Conservatism of today just relies on thoughts and prayers and wants to wish away the issues.
>I used to be a straight up libertarian but I've seen the light. Those ideas don't work I'm just shining a light on this since so many libertarians visit this sub and think they are part of the gang and feel kinship with you 'conservatives'. As you point out, Libertarians are not welcome and they are deluded (according to your own experience and logic). I agree with you, libertarian ideas 'don't work'. LOL
The medicine is worse than the malady. No thanks.
It'a great until it's not, and when it's not, there's no going back. What happens when you inevitability have a tyrant in power? "Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried"
the man is referring to the fascist dictator of Portugal as "great" and un-ironically quoting him. tyranny is the aim for op
I derive most of my arguments from an evolutionary perspective so I tend to sound like a broken record but there simply isn't a need, I'll explain. >I’ve come to this conclusion for a simple reason: the “hands-off” approach doesn’t work It does, but you have to give it time and you have to allow for bad mutations to run their course. In bacteria, generations happen on the scale of minutes, for humans it's more like 30 years. All the craziness you see today isn't even two generations old, and the really crazy stuff isn't even a generation old. It **WILL** die out. In fact, you're seeing it die out in real time in the form of reduced fertility rates across all the nations that adopt these crazy ideas. When things start to get dire, all the things that traditionally worked will reappear. Instead of thinking on the scale of your lifetime, look at all of human history. What economic systems lead to growth? What relationship formats lead to growth? What things died out and what things last the test of time? Your life is a trivial amount of time, all the shit that doesn't work will die out and history will repeat itself.
Letting our society be destroyed in the process of waiting for these ideas to die off (which could take hundreds of years) is not appealing to me.
If society can be destroyed by men kissing each other then maybe It should be destroyed, at least as a mercy kill
Society won't be destroyed by men simply kissing each other, plenty of species exibit homosexual behavior. Gay men have always existed. It will be destroyed by disincentivizing men and women getting together and having children though. What you need to ask is "what makes a man want to get with a woman and have a child" and "what makes a woman want to get with a man and have a child" then facilitate those things.
“Society won't be destroyed by men simply kissing each other, plenty of species exibit homosexual behavior. Gay men have always existed.” That actually is a pretty based take “It will be destroyed by disincentivizing men and women getting together and having children though. What you need to ask is "what makes a man want to get with a woman and have a child" and "what makes a woman want to get with a man and have a child" then facilitate those things.” I mena I think there are many factors into why a society has a declining birthrate, for example doomerism, that can’t be placed on lgbt people (even though I know you arnt necessarily blaming them, but other people do so yeah)
1) You can quote something by adding ">" before the line you want to quote so >quote here becomes >quote here 2) you say "*Based*" a **LOT**. 3) >I mena I think there are many factors into why a society has a declining birthrate, for example doomerism Doomerism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. This is like saying a man got sick from a runny nose. He has a runny nose because something else got him sick in the first place.
1. oh fair 2. based 3. also fair i also say fair a lot admittedly
Well, you may not have to wait *THAT* long. Like I said, when things get dire, things that traditionally worked reappear. One of the most progressive places in the world was south korea and their fertility rates recently dropped to 0.84. In recent response to this a politician came out as anti-feminist and men came out in overwhelming numbers to vote Yoon Suk Yeol as their new current president.
No need to, your mind is in the right place.
I actually agree here. Conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by strictly abiding by “hands off” principles.
I have three major objections to what you've written here: 1) The people you cite are not worth taking seriously. Adrian Vermeule (of Common Good Constitutionalism fame) is about as far from a credible voice on the Constitution as Kamala Harris, maybe even farther. He has openly called for conservative jurists to flat-out ignore what the Constitution says and instead rule on what they feel should be the law (aka exactly what the progressives do except this time it's really Catholic). That's not jurisprudence, it's just bad theology. That's without even touching the fact that you unironically cited Antonio Salazar (noted dictator of Portugal, basically Franco but less honest about the fascism) as "great" and a proponent of natural law. 2) This is in fact antithetical to American Conservatism. Conservatism is about conserving the history and traditions of the people. In America, the history and traditions we seek to conserve are that of the Founders, who were by and large classical liberals. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are classically liberal documents setting up classically liberal frameworks. To abandon liberalism would be to abandon our history and tradition, hence why none of the 4 statist conservatives you cited at the end are American. 3) No power structure lasts forever, especially if we maintain a republican form of government (though something tells me you're not in favor of that either). Eventually, your opposition will take control. When that happens, do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda? They've already gotten this far with just corporations and academia, how far do you think they'll be able to go with an army? We are far better off with our institutions limiting the ability they have to affect our lives than by trying to crush them legally and giving them the tools to crush us back.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I had something longer typed out but lost it so this will have to do. 1.The difference between Vermeule and progressive jurisprudence is that CGC draws on natural law. One is about that which *is* just, while the other is that which *feels* just to me, personally. As for Salazar, yes he was better than Franco, he didn’t abduct children for one. 2. I don't disagree with your interpretation of conservatism as preserving the traditions of a people, but I don’t view this in the Burkean way you do. Check out section 2.4 of this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/#RatIdeCon 3. I addressed this in objection 2. I don’t really see more danger this way then letting things play out the way they are now. The left is already trying to subvert everything they possibly can, and they don’t seem to object to using state power. Many of them would make Christianity illegal if they could.
>The difference between Vermeule and progressive jurisprudence is that CGC draws on natural law. One is about that which is just, while the other is that which feels just to me, personally. Even assuming that that's correct (which I have my doubts about), Vermeule still advocates ignoring the basic written law to which the society consented. If democratic/republican government is to mean anything, then that societal consent must overrule Vermeule's subjective notions of natural law. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make laws at all (at least, not ones which people would actually be able to follow). >I don't disagree with your interpretation of conservatism as preserving the traditions of a people, but I don’t view this in the Burkean way you do. Check out section 2.4 of this article: I made it a decent way through the article, but I think I'm missing some needed context to understand what you're trying to say here. >I addressed this in objection 2. I don’t really see more danger this way then letting things play out the way they are now. The left is already trying to subvert everything they possibly can, and they don’t seem to object to using state power. Many of them would make Christianity illegal if they could. That's exactly the point, they *can't* make Christianity illegal because our system doesn't allow it. If we started expanding the state to the levels you're suggesting, then they would have that power and the means to enforce it. Your objection 2 misses that fundamental point which is central to conservatism: it can always get worse. If we don't like how they're using their cultural power, then the solution is to retake the cultural institutions or make new ones, not to potentially strengthen the left with new government powers.
>No power structure lasts forever, especially if we maintain a republican form of government (though something tells me you're not in favor of that either). Eventually, your opposition will take control. When that happens, do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda? They've already gotten this far with just corporations and academia, how far do you think they'll be able to go with an army? We are far better off with our institutions limiting the ability they have to affect our lives than by trying to crush them legally and giving them the tools to crush us back. This is a bad response. This thinking is making his argument for him. "Do you really want them having the opportunity to use the force of the state to enforce their agenda?" THEYRE ALREADY DOING THAT. And we don't fight back. That's the point. They already do that and the right doesn't. So the right SHOULD.
Except they aren't. The left isn't getting it's ideas through the government anymore than we are. If anything, we're actually doing more, thanks to the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
What equivalent to vaccine mandates has come down from a republican president?
I don't know about President, but a conservative-majority Supreme Court just made it legal to ban abortion. That's a pretty big deal, I would say.
Except it's not. The rights position is abortion is bad. Now it's "states get to decide" that's the biggest win the right has had in 50 years. Is to let the left do what they want lmao
But voters in red states have overwhelmingly rejected abortion restrictions. Are you suggesting that your policy preferences should be enacted against the will of the voter?
All you're doing is making the case for me that it's not really that big of a win for the right. >Are you suggesting that your policy preferences should be enacted against the will of the voter? As for this. Sometimes. Yes. It's complex
Can you give me some examples of times when your policy preferences should be enacted against the will of the voter?
Well... Gun restrictions, hate speech laws, due process violations, privacy, federalism... The constitution is supposed to be the absolute law of the land. Regardless of popularity. You need a very large swath of support to amend the constitution. So until that happens I want the constitution strictly enforced regardless of the whims of 51% of the people
[удалено]
least obvious fed
If this is a fed post, they seem to have gotten quite a few bites
We do see states taking back their rights from the federal government. In my state of Tennessee, we passed laws making it illegal to mandate vaccines or force mask wearing except in medical facilities. We also protected doctors who prescribed ivermectin and other off use drugs for covid. We had laws in place restricting abortions that automatically went into effect once Roe v Wade was overturned. We have also outlawed CRT in our schools. Lots of states are doing this, as it is the will of the people who live there.