Makes sense, right?
The more power is consolidated, the stronger it becomes. Therefore, power should be optimally decentralized. Global society is far too hierarchal, like many skyscraper pyramids. Power should be distributed to the lowest efficient and effective levels, like a rhizome or neural net. Rolling hills, not monolithic mountain peaks.
Every action is good for some and evil for others. Best solutions are more than "the most good for the most people". Sometimes the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It all depends on how the power is used, by whom or what, towards whom or what, and what the consequences are.
This is the balance between positive liberties and negative liberties.
Take, for instance, the often cited claim that the US Civil War was about states' rights. This is a misdirection from the underlying reasons. It is deceptive by omission of the fact that the the South wanted their states' rights to spread chattel slavery, an evil institution, not a peculiar institution. So the question must always be asked: what freedom does your freedom infringe upon?
Years ago you could smoke anywhere, thus subjecting non-smokers to carcinogens. There was a big hullabaloo about smoker's rights and business owner's rights when non-smoking areas were legislated. The right to not be subjected to carcinogens won over the right to pollute the environment with carcinogens.
I'm waiting for the EPA to catch up...
The same is applied to weapons. Guns advocates want anyone to have any weapon, even though the drafters of the Amendment could jot possibly imagine the easily attainable technology that is available today. (Plus, let's not forget that bit about a well-regulated militia; ie, National Guard). Clearly society is not as safe when civilians can own an armored tank or tactical nuclear device or a military-grade rifle that rapid fires high-velocity muzzle rounds specifically designed to cause maximum carnage.
Therefore, society's right to be safe must win over a gun advocate's right to fantasize about an apocalypse and/or coup.
How about law enforcement? Their right to unionize and protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits must not win over the public's right, especially minority communities, to protect themselves from over-policing, profiling, police brutality, and extrajudicial killings. Qualified immunity and other protections of the "thin blue line" violate the principle of consolidated power. Representative communities must police the police; the police can never police themselves.
Let's try speech. You cannot yell fire in a theater or "Hi, Jack" in an airport. That would cause terror. People's right to not be terrorized wins over an insane clown's right to say anything they want.
You cannot intentionally deceive the public. This is called slander and libel. People's right to truth and protection from falsehood wins over psychopaths rights to mislead. I'm waiting for the FCC to break up the media monopolies and shut down Faux News.
You also cannot incite people to riot. People's right to civility wins over Donald Trump's wet dream to illegally stay in power. I'm curious what he will be convicted of.
You also cannot tell the public that a tragic disaster never happened, thus subjecting the victims to yet more potential harm from unenlightened believers. The right not to be the subject of hate speech wins over the right to spew hate. Alex Jones, QAnon, and the alt-right have no market in a fair and just society.
Words have power. Freedom to is limited by freedom from. There is a balance that must be judged rationally.
I woke up in Idiocracy. This is a dystopia. I'm just waiting for the apocalypse to end and the director to be fired.
Quick update, just read this article:
There is a balance between freedom to and freedom from. The freedom to be educated in a safe space is more important than the freedom to dehumanize someone. The freedom to exchange ideas is more important than the freedom from being merely offended.
Clearly, the difference is a matter of debate, but the one example cited in the article is ridiculous. It is dehumanizing to refuse to refer to someone by the gender pronouns they identify with. It is no great inconvenience. Conservatives have become the over-sensitive snowflakes!
Religion does not provide shelter to discriminate or hate. Religion that discriminates and hates is not spirituality, but a toxic cultural virus; a toxic meme. We are not required to tolerate intolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment