is political absolutism harmful for society.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Often times in politics individuals will take such phrases as "non-interventionism" or actual values such as "liberty, equality, security, order, and etc", and attempt to apply them in an absolute sense. For example non-interventionism now implies that our country should never get involved in anything internationally even when the benefits outweigh the costs. Another example would be that some individuals will hold one value supreme over any other value without compromise. Is this the right approach, and do americans think too often in absolute terms while adhering to a rigid ideology?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Yes.  Political absolutism, such as in the case of people who feel same-sex marriage should be legalized (or banned) on a national level, is harmful to liberty.  In such a vast nation as the United States, people in say, Alabama, should not be forced to allow abortion or same-sex marriage, simply because their will is outweighed by that of others outside of their respective region.

I agree with the concept of extending liberties to gays/lesbians/bisexuals when it comes to such things as marriage, but this is because i think people should equally treated. In other words as citizens we should all share the same rights, and our government should provide equal protection under the law.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Yes.  Political absolutism, such as in the case of people who feel same-sex marriage should be legalized (or banned) on a national level, is harmful to liberty.  In such a vast nation as the United States, people in say, Alabama, should not be forced to allow abortion or same-sex marriage, simply because their will is outweighed by that of others outside of their respective region.

I agree with the concept of extending liberties to gays/lesbians/bisexuals when it comes to such things as marriage, but this is because i think people should equally treated. In other words as citizens we should all share the same rights, and our government should provide equal protection under the law.

     We already do share the same rights; we all can marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex.

     With that said, I would like to see a universal breakdown of restrictions on human behaviour, because as necessary as it may be to an extent, I do not see it as good or just policy to force people to be subservient to the wills of their neighbours. What makes it any more moral for my neighbour to force his morality on me than on somebody living 3,000 miles away?

you are assuming that you are being forced to conform to someone else's morality. Sure landlords can be a pain in the butt, but the market will often give you the option to change land lords. The same can be said of our social contract....you can leave it when ever you want. Finally the social contract gives us something that the landlord wont, and this is the democratic option.

//We already do share the same rights; we all can marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. //
are u serious?
Why not make it so that everyone has the right to marry anyone they want, man or woman? Doesn't get any freer than that.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

//We already do share the same rights; we all can marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex. //
are u serious?

He has a point. It's equality, under a strict definition. Doesn't make it right, of course.

The conservative ideal of equality probably means that we should treat everyone the same, despite obvious differences that need to be accounted for. Its like saying " a mute already has the right to free speech, and then refusing to give him a pen".

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

often times the state level of government has enforced various things from slavery to sodomy laws, and thus if the minority is not fairly represented at the state level they can take their issue to the supreme court. The idea is that each level of government is a check/balance against another level of government and vice versa.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

With that said, I would like to see a universal breakdown of restrictions on human behaviour, because as necessary as it may be to an extent, I do not see it as good or just policy to force people to be subservient to the wills of their neighbours. What makes it any more moral for my neighbour to force his morality on me than on somebody living 3,000 miles away?

As would I, but I believe it would be destructive to republican government to bring about that goal in any way except through the consent of the governed.  I do not believe it's fair to nationalize certain issues, and thus throw one side or another under the bus simply because they happen to be in the minority.

Why do state lines matter? So if Alabama, say, bans abortion....what about the 40% minority in Alabama that support legalized abortion?

I don't know, but the majority shouldn't be alienated in favor of the minority.

I think some state boundaries should be redrawn.  For example, California, Oregon, and Washington should be split.  There is a clear geographic division between the "liberal" part and the "conservative" part, in each of these states, and one side is alienated in favor of another.

A certain portion of the population will always be "alienated". Why should it be done at state level? Why not at county level....or have different laws for every street, while we're at it?

Yes, but there's a difference between when a population of a state is alienated by laws put in place by a majority, and when a large section of the American population is alienated by laws put in place by a faint majority.  Forcing a population to accept something they truly believe to be murder is nothing short of tyranny.

// Forcing a population to accept something they truly believe to be murder is nothing short of tyranny.//
what makes you so sure they accept murder?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

With that said, I would like to see a universal breakdown of restrictions on human behaviour, because as necessary as it may be to an extent, I do not see it as good or just policy to force people to be subservient to the wills of their neighbours. What makes it any more moral for my neighbour to force his morality on me than on somebody living 3,000 miles away?

As would I, but I believe it would be destructive to republican government to bring about that goal in any way except through the consent of the governed.  I do not believe it's fair to nationalize certain issues, and thus throw one side or another under the bus simply because they happen to be in the minority.

Why do state lines matter? So if Alabama, say, bans abortion....what about the 40% minority in Alabama that support legalized abortion?

I don't know, but the majority shouldn't be alienated in favor of the minority.

I think some state boundaries should be redrawn.  For example, California, Oregon, and Washington should be split.  There is a clear geographic division between the "liberal" part and the "conservative" part, in each of these states, and one side is alienated in favor of another.

A certain portion of the population will always be "alienated". Why should it be done at state level? Why not at county level....or have different laws for every street, while we're at it?

Yes, but there's a difference between when a population of a state is alienated by laws put in place by a majority, and when a large section of the American population is alienated by laws put in place by a faint majority.  Forcing a population to accept something they truly believe to be murder is nothing short of tyranny.

// Forcing a population to accept something they truly believe to be murder is nothing short of tyranny.//
what makes you so sure they accept murder?

I'm talking about abortion.  Derp

I know that and thus I would like you to answer my question. Nobody is forcing pro-lifers to think that abortion should be legal/is moral.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I know that and thus I would like you to answer my question. Nobody is forcing pro-lifers to think that abortion should be legal/is moral.

They're being forced to allow something they believe is murder to happen, though.

No, they always have the option of voting, or getting organized to create an abortion ban.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I know that and thus I would like you to answer my question. Nobody is forcing pro-lifers to think that abortion should be legal/is moral.

They're being forced to allow something they believe is murder to happen, though.

No, they always have the option of voting, or getting organized to create an abortion ban.

Which, if the abortion issue is nationalized, as it has been, would have to be conducted at the national level, which would only alienate those who support abortion rights, and would otherwise make up a majority of their respective states, but who would be a minority at the national level in such a scenario.

in any event this thread is starting to go off topic, but i would be interested to see you answer franzi's question.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I know that and thus I would like you to answer my question. Nobody is forcing pro-lifers to think that abortion should be legal/is moral.

They're being forced to allow something they believe is murder to happen, though.

No, they always have the option of voting, or getting organized to create an abortion ban.

Which, if the abortion issue is nationalized, as it has been, would have to be conducted at the national level, which would only alienate those who support abortion rights, and would otherwise make up a majority of their respective states, but who would be a minority at the national level in such a scenario.

in any event this thread is starting to go off topic, but i would be interested to see you answer franzi's question.

There needs to be some sort of subnational entity that can better reflect the views of the governed, than the national government can.  Whether it be states, counties, whatever doesn't matter.  I believe that decentralized government is better, especially in a large nation like the United States.  Having uniform laws for the entire nation because of some "common identity" or whatever is only damaging to democracy and republican government.  It is also only the result of political absolutists, the types this thread is about.  Absolutists want abortion legalized/banned across the entire nation, because they cannot comprehend the possibility that people concentrated in certain areas disagree, and that their views are not absolute truth.

I guess on some issues people are just unwilling to compromise.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

With that said, I would like to see a universal breakdown of restrictions on human behaviour, because as necessary as it may be to an extent, I do not see it as good or just policy to force people to be subservient to the wills of their neighbours. What makes it any more moral for my neighbour to force his morality on me than on somebody living 3,000 miles away?

As would I, but I believe it would be destructive to republican government to bring about that goal in any way except through the consent of the governed.  I do not believe it's fair to nationalize certain issues, and thus throw one side or another under the bus simply because they happen to be in the minority.

     People will always get thrown under the bus anyway. The beauty of getting the government out of the business of regulating private aspects of people's lives is that people get to decide for themselves. If it really bothers Kansas so much that homosexual persons get to marry, then they ought to secede. I bet you anything that they wouldn't.

so who/what is going to democractly enforce the moral claims of society?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Nationalization of issues works both ways, you know.  It's a double-edged sword.  A conservative government can pass Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and abortion, as easily as the Supreme Court can stealth-amend the Constitution to provide those rights.

How can a government pass Constitutional amendments?

(Not that it would matter even if it could.....of course one has to accept that sometimes you get your way, other times you don't. I love democracy)

Two-thirds majority in both houses, three-fourths majority of the states.  Durr.

I find scant justifications for nationalization of issues such as abortion, other than those that boil down to this kind of pompous moral absolutism.  There is no reason why we need to have uniform laws across the country, just because we might have some sort of "common identity" or whatever.  Different regions of the United States have people with different views, and those people should be able to make laws that reflect their views.

Not only that, but state governments tend to theoretically be more accessible than the federal government.  The lower house of the Montana legislature has a representative for every ten thousand people, as opposed to the close to seven-hundred thousand for every Congressional district.

//Not only that, but state governments tend to theoretically be more accessible than the federal government.//
what do you mean by this?

// The lower house of the Montana legislature has a representative for every ten thousand people, as opposed to the close to seven-hundred thousand for every Congressional district.//
maybe we should add more people to our congress than

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In any event after reading several economic books, and having a discussion with an individual who has a PHD in the field I learned to be less absolutist.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In any event after reading several economic books, and having a discussion with an individual who has a PHD in the field I learned to be less absolutist.

I say it all the time...you really should have a PhD already. You might also consider trying to get a Nobel prize, as smart as you seem to be.

yah

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

In any event after reading several economic books, and having a discussion with an individual who has a PHD in the field I learned to be less absolutist.

I'm sorry someone with a Ph.D had their way with you. Stand up for your beliefs and don't be trampled by the so called experts. Even if you are way out on the left. Those who think they know everything are the most dangerous to society. It's like Obama saying the media releases too much information. My friend there is no such thing as too much information. We are humans and not sheep. Do and believe what you think is right.

From economics I learned that it is a bad idea to always be against something, or for something. In the end certain principles or political ideologies are not inherently good or bad, but instead are only sometimes correct. For example non-interventionism should be considered a practical mean to obtain a goal,but not an actual absolute end. This is because such things as non-interventionism is sometimes the right policy for some circumstances, but wrong in other circumstances.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I hate to even partially agree with Hoffman, but the most important thing to remember in almost any field is humility and the recognition that your most deeply-held beliefs might prove to be wrong.  The other thing is flexibility and the ability to throw out positions in the face of a changing reality.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?-john maynard keynes

In any event I have always held a bias against individuals who have strong opinions, or are so full of conviction. I'll always listen to what someone has to say but i am much more interesting in an individual who will sometimes express doubt into what they previously stated. Like a linguistic i am more interested in the errors that some one makes, and not the actual substance of the language.

In the end if an individuals wish to be right all the time i suggest they train themselves within the field of probability. This is a very interesting field because it has been shown that even great minds sometimes make simple mistakes, and perhaps this should humble us all.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I hate to even partially agree with Hoffman, but the most important thing to remember in almost any field is humility and the recognition that your most deeply-held beliefs might prove to be wrong.  The other thing is flexibility and the ability to throw out positions in the face of a changing reality.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?-john maynard keynes

In any event I have always held a bias against individuals who have strong opinions, or are so full of conviction. I'll always listen to what someone has to say but i am much more interesting in an individual who will sometimes express doubt into what they previously stated. Like a linguistic i am more interested in the errors that some one makes, and not the actual substance of the language.

In the end if an individuals wish to be right all the time i suggest they train themselves within the field of probability. This is a very interesting field because it has been shown that even great minds sometimes make simple mistakes, and perhaps this should humble us all.

     I agree. Self-righteous people annoy me to no end, because the real world is a very diverse place with many different people holding many different priorities, backgrounds, & interests. To hold that any one belief is inherently correct is to deny the complexity of reality & the essential role that perspective plays in our comprehension of the world.

in the end we could all be wrong but as long as ethical and material progress continues despite what we think than it probably isn't that important what a political ideology may think to be true or false.