4 ms·

> Yet the EU continues to stand. Your thesis seems to be "countries and states can oppress people and society won't totally collapse", which seems like a very

> Yet the EU continues to stand. Your thesis seems to be "countries and states can oppress people and society won't totally collapse", which seems like a very weak position to take. I'd hope you don't think "not collapsing" should be our goal. We want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people, right? Not life, liberty, and happiness for some, and well, at least the government remains standing, for the rest. Like, in some sense, an oppressive government standing is worse than it failing, right?

rayiner 4y ago
Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage, or questions of when life begins, and giving unelected judges power over those questions is a serious infringement on democratic self determination. In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt. That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  Seems like the root cause of this is that boundary lines of states are drawn wrong, and now encompass a diverse group of people who fundamentally can't agree on what their "society" is or what it should look like. Time to abolish the states, perhaps, and move to a loose confederation of city-states + regional rump-states that encompass former rural areas, bound together by a Common Economic Protocol. Let the blue areas in Austin, downtown Houston, Miami, Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, etc. be blue, and the red areas surrounding them be red. Conversely, let the red areas in Jefferson (northern California + southern Oregon), eastern Washington, upstate NY, etc. be red, and the dominant metro areas in those states be blue.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Red/blue divides exist within states, but there's a lot more common ground. For example, half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion. Folks in Atlanta might vote Democrat, but they don't see deeply religious people as aliens the way folks in San Francisco do. In another example, folks in San Francisco would have called Larry Hogan a fascist for sending in the Maryland national guard in response to the Freddie Gray riots. But his approval rating in majority Democrat Baltimore shot up to 70%. The bigger problem is having New York City/San Francisco in the same union with rural Georgia and Alabama. It's not workable.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      I suppose you will be cheerleading the secession of Dhaka from Bangladesh too.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt. It's reasonable to say that the purpose of the judiciary is to protect rights, even when doing so is unpopular. If the judiciary was consistent in how it did that (for example: providing equal deference to the rights created by Roe and Heller) we might see less revolt. The issue is not "elite intrusion" but inconsistency. Society's "right to decide" does not impugn my right to life and liberty. And the court is deeply inconsistent about whose rights, lives, and liberties it protects. > Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage What gives El Paso residents the right to decide what the scope of marriage is in Austin? Indeed, what gives the government the right to regulate the "scope of marriage" at all?
- mattnewton 4y ago
  > That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now. No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore. How can you look at this Supreme Court, where multiple appointments were the result of heavy lobbying by large wealthy conservative faith groups to a president who lost the popular vote, and parliamentary tricks to keep the seat open, and see it representing a return to majority rule from rule by elites.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    At a guess because it results in a country that is closer to the one desired. Never mind the fact that not a single abortion will be stopped on account of this. What will change is that there won't be any safe abortions, essentially this will cause the same number of fetuses to be aborted, it will also result in the death or in complications with a fairly large percentage of the mothers. It may (will?) even result in suicides. This is in my opinion the real tragedy, the 'pro life' (I use their moniker but I disagree with it) groups are essentially 'anti mom'.
  - belorn 4y ago
    > No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore. That minority is now in jail, and according to the laws in the US, those people have also lost their ability to vote. The people who active participated in the riot is no longer even an minority vote, but outside the voting process altogether.
    - mattnewton 4y ago
      I wish, but while some people are in jail, that minority very likely still votes from seats in congress! https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/amp/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusiv...

rayiner 4y ago

Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage, or questions of when life begins, and giving unelected judges power over those questions is a serious infringement on democratic self determination. In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt. That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now.

nostrademons 4y ago
Seems like the root cause of this is that boundary lines of states are drawn wrong, and now encompass a diverse group of people who fundamentally can't agree on what their "society" is or what it should look like. Time to abolish the states, perhaps, and move to a loose confederation of city-states + regional rump-states that encompass former rural areas, bound together by a Common Economic Protocol. Let the blue areas in Austin, downtown Houston, Miami, Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, etc. be blue, and the red areas surrounding them be red. Conversely, let the red areas in Jefferson (northern California + southern Oregon), eastern Washington, upstate NY, etc. be red, and the dominant metro areas in those states be blue.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Red/blue divides exist within states, but there's a lot more common ground. For example, half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion. Folks in Atlanta might vote Democrat, but they don't see deeply religious people as aliens the way folks in San Francisco do. In another example, folks in San Francisco would have called Larry Hogan a fascist for sending in the Maryland national guard in response to the Freddie Gray riots. But his approval rating in majority Democrat Baltimore shot up to 70%. The bigger problem is having New York City/San Francisco in the same union with rural Georgia and Alabama. It's not workable.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    I suppose you will be cheerleading the secession of Dhaka from Bangladesh too.
joshuamorton 4y ago
> In the long run, it jeopardizes the possibility of ordered progress because people perceive it as a serious intrusion into society and culture by elites—which judges are—and will resist and eventually revolt. It's reasonable to say that the purpose of the judiciary is to protect rights, even when doing so is unpopular. If the judiciary was consistent in how it did that (for example: providing equal deference to the rights created by Roe and Heller) we might see less revolt. The issue is not "elite intrusion" but inconsistency. Society's "right to decide" does not impugn my right to life and liberty. And the court is deeply inconsistent about whose rights, lives, and liberties it protects. > Taking away a society’s right to decide the scope of social institutions like marriage What gives El Paso residents the right to decide what the scope of marriage is in Austin? Indeed, what gives the government the right to regulate the "scope of marriage" at all?
mattnewton 4y ago
> That’s exactly what you see happening in the US right now. No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore. How can you look at this Supreme Court, where multiple appointments were the result of heavy lobbying by large wealthy conservative faith groups to a president who lost the popular vote, and parliamentary tricks to keep the seat open, and see it representing a return to majority rule from rule by elites.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  At a guess because it results in a country that is closer to the one desired. Never mind the fact that not a single abortion will be stopped on account of this. What will change is that there won't be any safe abortions, essentially this will cause the same number of fetuses to be aborted, it will also result in the death or in complications with a fairly large percentage of the mothers. It may (will?) even result in suicides. This is in my opinion the real tragedy, the 'pro life' (I use their moniker but I disagree with it) groups are essentially 'anti mom'.
- belorn 4y ago
  > No, with the January 6 riots? we see a minority no longer interested in the democratic process now that they don’t feel they are winning anymore. That minority is now in jail, and according to the laws in the US, those people have also lost their ability to vote. The people who active participated in the riot is no longer even an minority vote, but outside the voting process altogether.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    I wish, but while some people are in jail, that minority very likely still votes from seats in congress! https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/amp/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusiv...