EricHiggin said:
The problem with rights is they're not universal laws. They are something we made up for the good of the people, based on consensus. The reason for the rights that initially were written in, is because they were widely agreed upon. Eventually at least. This is why the Federal Gov should not be pushing states around. If the state is against rights the Gov is promoting, then the state should be given the time to make changes, or decide not to. You can bet if certain states knew that the Gov would end up with as much power as it has, and would push rights and laws, etc, that they may be against, without the power to stop it, they very well may have never joined in the first place. In terms of leaving people behind, it happens all the time, everyday, in every way. That's life. Just because the Federal Gov decided to make up a new right and push it on the states, shouldn't mean that they have to just bend over and accept it. Sure this sounds fine when the rights seem worthy to some, but what about if they don't seem worthy to others, or many even? If the Gov can just force rights on states and their people immediately, what about if and/or when they decide to force them to do something unthinkable? Should the states just blindly obey? What's good and what's not, exactly? A Federal Gov with less power means less efficiency in terms of getting done what it decides it wants to, but leaves people with more freedom and choice to their lives, and existing rights in general. If new rights truly make sense, eventually they will be agreed upon and pushed through. Until then, whoever wants those rights, is free to do as they please until then for the most part. Protest, move to another state that has instated the right for the time being, move back if your state eventually agree's to implement it, etc. Is force more preferable over choice? Is efficiency more preferable over existing rights? |
Interesting to hear you say this right after saying "rights trump efficiency". How did we get from an assertion that rights are what we should be focusing on, to "the problem with rights...."?
As for your arguments here, I don't buy it:
1) If the state is against rights the Gov is promoting, then the state should be given the time to make changes, or decide not to: Why though? There isn't really any argument here.
2) In terms of leaving people behind, it happens all the time, everyday, in every way. That's life: That isn't a defense of anything. Its kind of fucked, actually. Injustice being common is in no way a defense of injustice, and saying that justice will come eventually does nothing to those who are suffering under the current system.
3) If the Gov can just force rights on states and their people immediately, what about if and/or when they decide to force them to do something unthinkable?: Hence why we have checks and balances in our federal government system.
4) A Federal Gov with less power means less efficiency in terms of getting done what it decides it wants to, but leaves people with more freedom and choice to their lives: No it doesn't. It leaves STATES with more freedom and choice. States can then choose to use that freedom to deprive people of freedoms, as they often do.