5 ms·

So stop participating in society? Wasn’t that your advice re. watching sports?

• scarface74 4y ago
  No the answer is limited government that doesn’t make laws because someone’s sensitivities are harmed by watching ads. Just like we overturned laws because someone’s sensitivities were harmed because other people were drinking and even conservative states think it’s no one’s business if another person decides to smoke weed.
  • halpmeh 4y ago
    Both the ban on drinking and its repeal were constitutional amendments (18th and 21st). So both cases were enacted via large majority opinion.
    • scarface74 4y ago
      So how does that reasoning apply to Jim Crow laws, laws against miscegenation and homosexual sex? Should we always let the rules of majority negatively affect the minority
      • vintermann 4y ago
        So let's say there are some issues that are not anyone else's business (and so not government's business). Fine. But who gets to decide which ones? Who gets the final word? I think that the question of which questions are the public's business, is itself necessarily the public's business. Which minority concerns are rights which should not be infringed on by the majority, must still be decided by majority. There's no way around it. Constitutions don't interpret themselves or enforce themselves, much less write themselves, so they don't get you out of this pickle. At "best" they let you abdicate your responsibility for deciding that question. As I recall, many of those abuses of minorities you list, were protected by such abdication, in that people would rather abide by the US's antimajoritarian process rules than use their majority to immediately fix the abuses.