is political absolutism harmful for society.

[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 Palestine]

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.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

If the federal government didn't exist....I have no doubts you'd be arguing that California shouldn't pass important laws like that because it would alienate people in counties that have different views.

[Free Palestine]

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.

If the federal government didn't exist....I have no doubts you'd be arguing that California shouldn't pass important laws like that because it would alienate people in counties that have different views.

No.  I just don't think the federal government should be charged with such matters.  However, I think it would be fair to split California into separate states.  One liberal, the other conservative.  If you look at an election map of California, there is a clear geographic divide.

[Phony Moderate]

Even complete anarchy makes more sense than state's "rights".

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

[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?

[Associate Justice PiT]

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?

     The government always has & always will. That much is without doubt. What I am suggesting is that the moral claims of society are redefined such that actions that do not directly harm or otherwise wrong an unconsenting human being are outside of the purview of greater society.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That word doesn't mean what you all think it does.

[Free Palestine]

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.

[Franzl]

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)

[Free Palestine]

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.

[Franzl]

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

´

That's not the government then, is it?

[Free Palestine]

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

´

That's not the government then, is it?

*facepalm*

[Franzl]

And I still don't understand why individual streets shouldn't pass their own abortion laws. That way, an abortion doctor can move 3 blocks down if his neighbors disapprove of abortion.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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.

     Indeed, & the Republicans have shown few qualms with using the national government towards their ends. Just look at DOMA.

     Anyway, I think that we should attack issues on the federal level when it benefits us to do so & attack issues on the state or even local level when it benefits us to do so. The system can be the means of achieving greater freedom for everyone, if used correctly. The problem is that most people in government just want the system to line their pockets, & everybody else suffers for it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That word doesn't mean what you all think it does.

Seriously. I mean, seriously. On a political forum you'd expect the meanings of well-known political terms to be... well... known...

[Gustaf]

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

´

That's not the government then, is it?

*facepalm*

You don't know the, constitutionally extremely important, definition of government? If you love constitutions so much you should read up on them.

[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.

[Franzl]

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.

[Vepres]

Franzl, decentralization works (I'm talking on economic issues only). The US is the third most populace country in the world, and geographically it is very large as well. If you compare people's dissatisfaction with Washington DC versus their dissatisfaction with their state governments, you'll find that in most states people are far less dissatisfied with their own states than the federal government.

You do pose a fair question. Why don't counties or even neighborhoods have the powers that that states have instead? There are a number of reasons for this. First, imagine the chaos if every county had the power of a state. There are over 3000 counties, many with less than a few thousand people. That just would not work for obvious reasons. The fractured nature of such a system would cause our country to be unable to function well. Yet, people prefer more local control to control from Washington. I think the states strike a nice balance between localized control and a necessary centralization of power that is necessary for a functioning society.

Look at Norway, which has one of, if not the highest quality of life in the world. Their population is that of a medium-sized US state. Small enough to be more responsive to the population, but not so small that a government becomes irrelevant.

[Vepres]

That word doesn't mean what you all think it does.

Seriously. I mean, seriously. On a political forum you'd expect the meanings of well-known political terms to be... well... known...

Are you referring to a monarch or high government group having absolute authority over all other institutions and people?

[Franzl]

I'm not in any way opposed to federalism, Vepres. I just believe that certain universal rights must be guaranteed at federal level to ensure that all Americans are treated equally, irrespective of where they live.

For the most part, I'm in favor of decentralized government.

My question about counties and streets was more a provocation than anything....just to get an answer from Morgan about why precisely he thinks states should have all powers.