5 ms·

> If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack. Well, of course. People would start taking control of their own live

> If Idaho suddenly did this people would freak out, would call it communism, and attack. Well, of course. People would start taking control of their own lives, and we don't want that. What would come next? The right to control their own body? How ludicrous. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/23/1246611400/whats-at-stake-as-the-supreme-court-hears-idaho-case-about-abortion-in-emergenci https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/04/23/1246611...

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
You can make that argument in both directions. Better be careful what you are arguing for. The same arguments for 'States' to have the right to legalize pot is the same arguments the South uses for slavery. Texas could secede and enslave Mexicans and remove women's rights. That would be 'taking control' as they desire it. California could secede and give everyone free pot and mandatory beach days. That would be their 'taking control' as they desire it. If everyone is allowed to do their own thing, all states go their own way, all counties, all people. It's just anarchy.
- huimang 2y ago
  Respecting human rights and self-autonomy is not the same thing as removing rights from people to benefit the companies/government and I wish people would stop arguing in bad faith that they're remotely similar.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    You might need to clarify that position. It is a problem when someone wants 'autonomy' in order to enforce reduced 'right's on others, or another way, my 'autonomy' is greater than your 'autonomy'. So, lets say I'm commanded by my god to enforce that you must have kids. And I get enough people together to secede, in order to enforce these beliefs onto others. Then the people caught in this situation do have rights taken away. Or, other people cross dressing offends me, thus I should have the right to pass laws to prevent them doing that, my 'autonomy' outweighs theirs. It does get confusing, when some groups say they want 'autonomy' over their body when it comes to vaccines, but when it comes to 'autonomy' over having kids, suddenly it is a metaphysical law from god that can't be compromised. Both are cases of bodily 'autonomy', and one group believes since it is a law from god, that it should be enforced onto others by government laws, which is really taking rights away. When the group that thinks your 'autonomy' is an affront to their god, and you become the problem to be 'removed', and they are now running the government, now the government is taking away rights and infringing on the individual's 'autonomy'.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    ""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments."" I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument. If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiting my health insurance and giving everyone guns, then that does also infringe on my individual rights. I'm placed in a situation of not being in a safe area with access to resources to live a healthy life. And yes, in todays world that is a 'States' right, and everyone can move. But you can't say those are separate. If a 'State' wants to cause harm to it's own citizens, then that becomes then a conflict between the "State" and the "Central" government, who must also insure everyone has some equal measure of safety and welfare. You're forgetting that some peoples 'morality' causes harm to others. Which can then bring into conflict the state and the central gov. Like when in Ameristan the 'state' gov starts persecuting people, maybe even disenfranchising the ability to vote at all, then the Central gov has to step in. Now there is Central-Local-Individual conflict.
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system. The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers. The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated. Arguing that an individual is free because god gave him that right is very different than arguing that a state can do something because of federalism. The justification on one side is that the individual’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and security is sacrosanct. The argument on the other side is that the polis takes priority over the individual. They are opposite arguments that must be balanced, not “the same argument.” What they are is two sides of the same dispute, which is what I think you might mean. am I close?
- immibis 2y ago
  Counterpoint: Good things are good and bad things are bad. It doesn't matter the mechanism. Legalizing slavery is still bad even if it's illegal. Legalizing pot is still good even if it's illegal. When you make rules that restrict both good and bad people, it tends to be bad, because the good people feel restricted by the rules while the bad people tend to just ignore them.
wudangmonk 2y ago
It doesn't really make sense to compare it to something in the U.S where both parties fight over meaningless stuff like who can go into which bathrooms and which books you can burn. In Mexico the local government is the problem since they are often part of the cartels so the only way to change things is for these communities to setup a local milita, kick out the goverment/police and put a very utilitarian government in its place.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

You can make that argument in both directions. Better be careful what you are arguing for. The same arguments for 'States' to have the right to legalize pot is the same arguments the South uses for slavery. Texas could secede and enslave Mexicans and remove women's rights. That would be 'taking control' as they desire it. California could secede and give everyone free pot and mandatory beach days. That would be their 'taking control' as they desire it. If everyone is allowed to do their own thing, all states go their own way, all counties, all people. It's just anarchy.

huimang 2y ago
Respecting human rights and self-autonomy is not the same thing as removing rights from people to benefit the companies/government and I wish people would stop arguing in bad faith that they're remotely similar.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  You might need to clarify that position. It is a problem when someone wants 'autonomy' in order to enforce reduced 'right's on others, or another way, my 'autonomy' is greater than your 'autonomy'. So, lets say I'm commanded by my god to enforce that you must have kids. And I get enough people together to secede, in order to enforce these beliefs onto others. Then the people caught in this situation do have rights taken away. Or, other people cross dressing offends me, thus I should have the right to pass laws to prevent them doing that, my 'autonomy' outweighs theirs. It does get confusing, when some groups say they want 'autonomy' over their body when it comes to vaccines, but when it comes to 'autonomy' over having kids, suddenly it is a metaphysical law from god that can't be compromised. Both are cases of bodily 'autonomy', and one group believes since it is a law from god, that it should be enforced onto others by government laws, which is really taking rights away. When the group that thinks your 'autonomy' is an affront to their god, and you become the problem to be 'removed', and they are now running the government, now the government is taking away rights and infringing on the individual's 'autonomy'.
singleshot_ 2y ago
fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  ""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments."" I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument. If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiting my health insurance and giving everyone guns, then that does also infringe on my individual rights. I'm placed in a situation of not being in a safe area with access to resources to live a healthy life. And yes, in todays world that is a 'States' right, and everyone can move. But you can't say those are separate. If a 'State' wants to cause harm to it's own citizens, then that becomes then a conflict between the "State" and the "Central" government, who must also insure everyone has some equal measure of safety and welfare. You're forgetting that some peoples 'morality' causes harm to others. Which can then bring into conflict the state and the central gov. Like when in Ameristan the 'state' gov starts persecuting people, maybe even disenfranchising the ability to vote at all, then the Central gov has to step in. Now there is Central-Local-Individual conflict.
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system. The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers. The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated. Arguing that an individual is free because god gave him that right is very different than arguing that a state can do something because of federalism. The justification on one side is that the individual’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and security is sacrosanct. The argument on the other side is that the polis takes priority over the individual. They are opposite arguments that must be balanced, not “the same argument.” What they are is two sides of the same dispute, which is what I think you might mean. am I close?
immibis 2y ago
Counterpoint: Good things are good and bad things are bad. It doesn't matter the mechanism. Legalizing slavery is still bad even if it's illegal. Legalizing pot is still good even if it's illegal. When you make rules that restrict both good and bad people, it tends to be bad, because the good people feel restricted by the rules while the bad people tend to just ignore them.

wudangmonk 2y ago

It doesn't really make sense to compare it to something in the U.S where both parties fight over meaningless stuff like who can go into which bathrooms and which books you can burn. In Mexico the local government is the problem since they are often part of the cartels so the only way to change things is for these communities to setup a local milita, kick out the goverment/police and put a very utilitarian government in its place.