At teh state level, they have the same thing, but to a lesser degree and they would need to move furhter in order to do so.
At the federal level, all ability to choose to remain in country has been removed and they have no legitimate ability to have their voices heard as they can only vote for 3 out of 535 representatives no matter where they live in the nation.
The scale is not the only difference, the ability to exact change is significantly reduced as the sphere of influence increases in scale.
That's why I am in favor of this type of legislation only being enacted at the most local of levels, not at the greater levels. At each expansion of geographic authority, we reduce the rights of the people to influence their own demographic and further reduce their personal choices.
If I need to move one town over in order to dance, my life is interupted far less significantly than if I need to change states or even countries.
Conversely, if I want to have the right to live in a dance-free environment, my life would be far less intereupted if I only had to move one town over to do so.
If enough people want the right to live in a dance-free environment enough, towns will be created that cater to this desire.
Who am I to say they don;t have the right to live in a dance-free environment?
This is where I differ form most people. I define rights as including both views. I think people have a right to choose live in a place that has the same morality as they do. I don't think we have a right to prevent them from making this choice.
I believe that the right to choose extends far further than those choices I think are appropriate or valid.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
This is just a stunt for PJTV like it was for the rest of the media. It wasn't the fact that he asked a question, it's the fact that the media created a huge wave out of it in order to debias it's pro obamaness.
Last edited by MBona; 01-16-09 at 10:52 AM.
The jist of my statement is that those that preach that 'you cannot legislate morality' almost always support legislating morality of some sort -- what they -really- oppose is the legislation of morality they don't agree with.
This is illustrated by the exchange between IT2002 and myself.
I think a case can be made for helping out those who can't help themselves without it being a moral decision. I think society benefits from this regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong".
It's cheaper to provide preventive health care than to let a health issue become something major and then they can't pay so the cost gets passed on to everyone else. Should education be pay as you go?
Originally Posted by Jerry
So... legislating morality IS OK -- so long as you think it is a good idea.I think a case can be made for helping out those who can't help themselves without it being a moral decision. I think society benefits from this regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong".
Your opposition to legislating morality is, therefore, situational rather than absolute.
I suppose all laws can be interprited to be legislating morality. That isn't what I am talking about though. What my original comment was intended to mean was that legislating victimless behaviors is what I stand against.
Originally Posted by Jerry