How can society progress when the government simply forces a subjective notion of good and bad? You can't really end racism if the government forces diversity. That doesn't solve any problems, it just kind of sweeps them under the rug. You can't really fix class intolerance (I'm not sure if that really is an issue anyway) by isolating them from each other. You can't fix community values by not allowing that community to value anything outside of what you yourself value. That isn't progression at all.

Government expansion isn't progression because it creates a degression of the liberties of the people where in which you stifle social development. Government regression is progressive because it creates a free thinking community where social development thrives and positive thinking is empowered.

I don't see it being a nation wide GG Allin concert as a strictly bad thing. Subjectively speaking it could offend you, but it isn't like you have the right to never be offended. You could either go somewhere where the activity that offends you isn't happening or you could try to non-violently sway them.

Two of the only things I think we should have laws against.

kinda sounds like anarchy to me. we do need laws and regulations.

Never claimed that wasn't the case. Nice try though, champ. However, the government should stay out of our private lives and not make personal choices for us. They shouldn't legislate our biasses, they shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do with our own bodies, and they shouldn't even touch religion or religious causes.

As far as laws are concerned the only laws that should even exist are ones that protect our liberties and right to maintain those liberties. That essentially means nobody should have the right to harm or kill a non-consenting party physically or fiscally. Anything and everything else should be fair game (for the citizens).

I already tackled this example. That person who was denied a job isn't physically or financially worse off than they were before applying for the job, except for the money they willingly spent or was taken from other means. You didn't harm them, you just chose not to help them.

...or it wouldn't. Though all of either of us have is speculation.

... we have historical basis? as i pointed out before, laws don't get made for no reason.

You seem to have some sort of unsaid personal issue here. How EXACTLY were you censored? (Just to give the rest of us a small glimpse as to where the hell all of this is coming from)

Taking offence to soemthing is different to outright anarchy. Its more of a Hobbsian agreement. We agree to follow the laws in order for protection.

But you do have the right to not be offended. It was always just a general understanding of what was legit and what was whining, but the left is pushing its boundries and now we have law suits because prisoners are being sternly spoken to.

I agree with Oojay. Something happened. Spit it out and cut to the chase because you're unifying the most unlikely people in this thread.

*Who wants to start a pool? I call "Rot-gut ambient band not allowed to play a venue because of "poetic" explative.