Romney vs. Obama

[leic7]

In my opinion, in the modern era, yes of course it's wrong, which I've already stated. But of course, that's just my opinion of a old age concept in the modern era. In the old days, perhaps I would have seen things very differently. I don't know how I would have felt back then, and neither do you. Hence why that earlier question was unanswerable. Nobody is avoiding anything here, you already got an answer to this particular question ages ago, but the concept of trying to force dark age concepts into the modern era is not a realistic scenario. It's not going to happen again, because morals have changed to where slavery isn't acceptable.

The problem of federal government making decisions sometimes, is determining which issues to have control over. I of course already stated that social issues should be localised as much as possible, because it's perfectly logical. When it comes to determining what to do with the single currency, that should probably be left to the federal government. Everyone shares the same currency, so a government that everyone shares should make the decisions with it. But like I've been arguing all along, just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean that other people think it's wrong. Slavery is a ridiculous example, so try use other examples I've mentioned such as drug legalisation. I don't think drug usage is wrong in the privacy of one's home, yet the federal government says even possessing is wrong. Is forcing a state who's happy with their citizens using drugs to ban drugs acceptable?

If you think I'm purposely chasing a straw-man, then you're not good at clarifying your stance.

The state government should deal with social issues, and local expenditure. The federal government should be responsible for issues regarding the single currency, for determining national security decisions, and for handling agreements between states. The federal government should not be responsible for determining what to do with drug legalisation, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, as those are social issues. Remember, if they make the wrong decision with regarding a social issue, you're going to have a hard time changing it. It's not about who makes the right or wrong decisions, it's about what decisions each government should be responsible for.

Let's assume you wanted to legally marry someone of the same sex. Let's assume the federal government banned same-sex marriage (which is a realistic scenario, as they've done worse). In that scenario, you'd pretty much have no options, other than attempting to make a country-wide campaign to try to get the federal government to change their mind. On the other hand, if on a state level, the amount of campaigning you have to do is significantly reduced, and you have a higher chance of getting gay marriage legalised. Alternatively, you could travel a few hundred miles and live in a state where you feel more socially accepted. By reducing the power of the federal government, you're enhancing citizen's rights, you're enhancing their options, and you're enhancing their political power.

Ignore right or wrong here, because the federal government frequently writes laws that are morally wrong. Instead, think about providing options for citizens.

So, in your opinion, slavery is wrong? But that's just your opinion, there's nothing objectively wrong about slavery?


I'm sure there are still people in 2012 who would say in their opinion, slavery is right, if you ask enough people.

Consider the following thought experiment: In my opinion, slavery is right. In fact, my whole family think slavery is right. Can we trust you to respect our opinion on this? Is it still your position that social issues should always be localised as much as possible, regardless of right or wrong? I ask this because my family's currently fighting against the state government on the slavery issue, and we totally believe the decision should be each family's responsibility. State vs. family, the family's clearly more local. The more you localise it, the more options each citizen would have, right? Would you sign our petition and help us condemn the state government for intervening in this local issue?

 

[Deleted-185407]

So, in your opinion, slavery is wrong? But that's just your opinion, there's nothing objectively wrong about slavery?

I'm sure there are still people in 2012 who would say in their opinion, slavery is right, if you ask enough people.

Consider the following thought experiment: In my opinion, slavery is right. In fact, my whole family think slavery is right. Can we trust you to respect our opinion on this? Is it still your position that social issues should always be localised as much as possible, regardless of right or wrong? I ask this because my family's currently fighting against the state government on the slavery issue, and we totally believe the decision should be each family's responsibility. State vs. family, the family's clearly more local. The more you localise it, the more options each citizen would have, right? Would you sign our petition and help us condemn the state government for intervening in this local issue?

Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable, but if people find it acceptable, then unfortunately the only thing I can do is try convince them that it should be deemed morally wrong.

In the scenario you've presented below, we know for a fact your family is in a severe minority. I'd entirely respect any opinion you have, as that's what people should be doing anyways. I might not agree with your thoughts on abortion, but I'd respect your opinion on it. I might not agree with your thoughts on creation/evolution, but I'd respect your opinion on it. It doesn't matter if you think someone's opinion is right or wrong, but regardless of what that opinion is, you should always respect other people's opinions. While I'm not religious, I strongly stick to "treat others the same way as you like to be treated". It's why I always say, if you don't want to get attacked again, then don't invade other countries.

Unfortunately because you're involving other citizens who aren't apart of your family, it's no longer a family issue here, and therefore has to taken a step higher. If a parent thinks their child should face a 9pm curfew, then that's a family matter, and it's not the state government's responsibility. Drug usage in the home affects only that individual, therefore should be left up the individual to decide whether or not they find drug usage acceptable in their home. However, drug usage outside of the home involves other individuals, and therefore should be taken a step higher. Do you not find that logical or more morally acceptable at all? Why should the federal government decide the outcome here?

In short, depending on what parties something affects, that's what should determine who should have the power to decide the outcome. You're going to have to use a better example than slavery, cause again, the moral of the majority of people in any given state has changed. Also, you still haven't given a single reason as to why the federal government should control pretty much everything other than "oh the federal government done something potentially positive over 100 years ago".

 

[CCNaru]

We have technology advanced enough now to not need slaves to do most of the grunt work. Southerners needed farmers and that was one of the reasons that they needed slavery way back when to keep their farming business efficient, and combined with the rich white folks' propaganda - to lead the poor white peoples' anger not unto themselves but to another target - blacks - to unite and lead over the uneducated...well...everyone.

it was never about the 'morals'. it's pure business. for personal profit, moral will never be the main deciding factor to topics like these. there will always be something to be gained by taking the route.

also, don't liberals/democrats/northerners tend to categorize/stereotype all southerners as uneducated, brainwashed racist inbred hicks that all look like Honey Boo Boo family too?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Can we stop using slavery as an example? It's not really an accurate example considering how dated it is.

Back when it was an issue it wasn't so one sided as it is today. Nowadays we consider it morally wrong but back then it wasn't. It's antiquated thinking and an antiquated example. I'm sure in a hundred years we'll look back on some of the things we do today and see them as incredibly barbaric and wrong. I mean denying certain people the right to marry based on sexual orientation? That's disgusting!

So don't use slavery as an example because you're about 150 years outdated. Saying "If you support state government's rights then YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY!" is childish as well. There's plenty of examples of state rights vs. federal government, don't use one that's 150 years old and that was a moral issue that was met with heavy division back then but considered entirely one sided nowadays.

 

[leic7]

Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable, but if people find it acceptable, then unfortunately the only thing I can do is try convince them that it should be deemed morally wrong.

In the scenario you've presented below, we know for a fact your family is in a severe minority. I'd entirely respect any opinion you have, as that's what people should be doing anyways. I might not agree with your thoughts on abortion, but I'd respect your opinion on it. I might not agree with your thoughts on creation/evolution, but I'd respect your opinion on it. It doesn't matter if you think someone's opinion is right or wrong, but regardless of what that opinion is, you should always respect other people's opinions. While I'm not religious, I strongly stick to "treat others the same way as you like to be treated". It's why I always say, if you don't want to get attacked again, then don't invade other countries.

Unfortunately because you're involving other citizens who aren't apart of your family, it's no longer a family issue here, and therefore has to taken a step higher. If a parent thinks their child should face a 9pm curfew, then that's a family matter, and it's not the state government's responsibility. Drug usage in the home affects only that individual, therefore should be left up the individual to decide whether or not they find drug usage acceptable in their home. However, drug usage outside of the home involves other individuals, and therefore should be taken a step higher. Do you not find that logical or more morally acceptable at all? Why should the federal government decide the outcome here?

In short, depending on what parties something affects, that's what should determine who should have the power to decide the outcome. You're going to have to use a better example than slavery, cause again, the moral of the majority of people in any given state has changed. Also, you still haven't given a single reason as to why the federal government should control pretty much everything other than "oh the federal government done something potentially positive over 100 years ago".

Oh, I know the majority of people in my state are against slavery... that's why my family is fighting the issue! My family is for slavery and we definitely do not involve other citizens who aren't a part of our family, we believe in using only family members as slaves. We have a super democratic vote on the issue in the family every year, and the result's always 9:1 in favour of slavery. Of course, that one vote against it always comes from the family slave, but this is still only a family issue, right? Would you support our fight against the state government's intervention?

My position isn't "the federal government should control pretty much everything", please don't relapse into the Straw Man fallacy.

 

[Black-Ice]

Obama wins and the topic goes to slavery.
Interesting,

 

[retKHAAAN]

Can we stop using slavery as an example? It's not really an accurate example considering how dated it is.

Back when it was an issue it wasn't so one sided as it is today. Nowadays we consider it morally wrong but back then it wasn't. It's antiquated thinking and an antiquated example. I'm sure in a hundred years we'll look back on some of the things we do today and see them as incredibly barbaric and wrong. I mean denying certain people the right to marry based on sexual orientation? That's disgusting!

So don't use slavery as an example because you're about 150 years outdated. Saying "If you support state government's rights then YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY!" is childish as well. There's plenty of examples of state rights vs. federal government, don't use one that's 150 years old and that was a moral issue that was met with heavy division back then but considered entirely one sided nowadays.

Not so much a comment on slavery as a practice, but...

Come to America to escape persecution and tyranny
Take land by force
Build a country and infrastructure on the backs of slaves and "foreigners"
Get pissed at government for giving handouts to people who sit on their asses or come here illegally (among other things, obviously)
Antiquated or not, you have to appreciate the irony...

 

[Deleted-185407]

Oh, I know the majority of people in my state are against slavery... that's why my family is fighting the issue! My family is for slavery and we definitely do not involve other citizens who aren't a part of our family, we believe in using only family members as slaves. We have a super democratic vote on the issue in the family every year, and the result's always 9:1 in favour of slavery. Of course, that one vote against it always comes from the family slave, but this is still only a family issue, right? Would you support our fight against the state government's intervention?

My position isn't "the federal government should control pretty much everything", please don't relapse into the Straw Man fallacy.

Your examples are just getting more and more unrealistic and ridiculous, and really don't help prove your point at all. Use modern examples, not outdated examples. That way, we probably understand your point of view a bit more clearly. I could probably argue that even turning a family member into a slave doesn't help prove your point, as ultimately that kid will become a full member of society, and the rest of local society is impacted by the mental health of that individual, thus turning it into a state matter. But at that point we're debating something that's nowhere near realistic whatsoever. So use a modern example if you want to prove that the federal government should have control over everything.

You've never clarified what role the federal government should have. You say they should control "some" stuff, and you're implying that the states and its citizens are untrustworthy. Being vague leads to a complete mess, and effectively leads the federal government to having control over everything. Be precise if you think you're being straw-manned. From my understanding of your posts, you're basically saying that the federal government is always morally correct, and should impose its morals onto the states. If the federal government morally disagrees with a state's decision, then you're saying that they should be allowed to force that state to change its laws. What's the point of even having state governments in that case if states can't make a decision that goes against the norm?

What if the rest of the world thinks America is being stupid by invading other countries? Should the rest of the world (including neutral countries) force you to change your ways? According to your arguments, we should.

 

[leic7]

Your examples are just getting more and more unrealistic and ridiculous, and really don't help prove your point at all. Use modern examples, not outdated examples. That way, we probably understand your point of view a bit more clearly. I could probably argue that even turning a family member into a slave doesn't help prove your point, as ultimately that kid will become a full member of society, and the rest of local society is impacted by the mental health of that individual, thus turning it into a state matter. But at that point we're debating something that's nowhere near realistic whatsoever. So use a modern example if you want to prove that the federal government should have control over everything.

You've never clarified what role the federal government should have. You say they should control "some" stuff, and you're implying that the states and its citizens are untrustworthy. Being vague leads to a complete mess, and effectively leads the federal government to having control over everything. Be precise if you think you're being straw-manned. From my understanding of your posts, you're basically saying that the federal government is always morally correct, and should impose its morals onto the states. If the federal government morally disagrees with a state's decision, then you're saying that they should be allowed to force that state to change its laws. What's the point of even having state governments in that case if states can't make a decision that goes against the norm?

What if the rest of the world thinks America is being stupid by invading other countries? Should the rest of the world (including neutral countries) force you to change your ways? According to your arguments, we should.

My example is what's commonly known as a "thought experiment", or a "hypothetical scenario", it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be extreme, but true to the core principles in question...in order to test the boundaries of one's reasoning. That's the first thing any student should've learned in a philosophy or a law class.


The core principle that I'm testing is this: it is always better to let a smaller governing body (vs. a larger governing body) make decisions on issues concerning individuals within the group, regardless of right or wrong.

Can you please confirm or deny the above is indeed your position? What I challenge is specifically the adverb "always" in that position, and if that wasn't even your position to begin with, then I would have no reason to be doing this.

IF you believe the smaller group (of the two) should always have control over their own social issues -- logically, it follows that you would believe my family (the smaller group compared to the state) should be able to enslave our own family members, provided we would never let our slaves set foot outside the house, ever. So, do you believe my family should have control over this issue? Yes or no?

Another question I hope to get a straightforward answer from you is: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy? Yes or no?

I've no idea how you got "the states and its citizens are untrustworthy" from reading my posts, without at least also getting "the federal government and its citizens are untrustworthy"? What I said was, whoever should have more control over which issue depends on who's right and who's wrong. Wouldn't a more sensible interpretation of that be I was implying they're both fallible, hence the need to check who's right and who's wrong? Where's the logic in your interpretation? Is it because I've used one (1) example of an issue about which the state government was wrong and the federal government was right? Did that example confuse you so much that you started to imagine when I said the state government's wrong that one time on that one issue it automatically means I was saying the state government's wrong all the time on all issues?

If a government (of any level) makes a wrong decision, that decision ought to be reversed, either through the powers from inside, or outside. So, if America (or any other country) makes a terribly wrong decision, either the American people would have to fight to change it, or the international community would be compelled to get involved. That's what I said in an earlier post.

A wrong decision in the context of public policy, is a decision with consequences that evaluate to a "yes" to the question: "Is [outcome of policy] bad for the well-being of our society?"

 

[Deleted-185407]

My example is what's commonly known as a "thought experiment", or a "hypothetical scenario", it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be extreme, but true to the core principles in question...in order to test the boundaries of one's reasoning. That's the first thing any student should've learned in a philosophy or a law class.


The core principle that I'm testing is this: it is always better to let a smaller governing body (vs. a larger governing body) make decisions on issues concerning individuals within the group, regardless of right or wrong.

Can you please confirm or deny the above is indeed your position? What I challenge is specifically the adverb "always" in that position, and if that wasn't even your position to begin with, then I would have no reason to be doing this.

IF you believe the smaller group (of the two) should always have control over their own social issues -- logically, it follows that you would believe my family (the smaller group compared to the state) should be able to enslave our own family members, provided we would never let our slaves set foot outside the house, ever. So, do you believe my family should have control over this issue? Yes or no?

Another question I hope to get a straightforward answer from you is: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy? Yes or no?

I've no idea how you got "the states and its citizens are untrustworthy" from reading my posts, without at least also getting "the federal government and its citizens are untrustworthy"? What I said was, whoever should have more control over which issue depends on who's right and who's wrong. Wouldn't a more sensible interpretation of that be I was implying they're both fallible, hence the need to check who's right and who's wrong? Where's the logic in your interpretation? Is it because I've used one (1) example of an issue about which the state government was wrong and the federal government was right? Did that example confuse you so much that you started to imagine when I said the state government's wrong that one time on that one issue it automatically means I was saying the state government's wrong all the time on all issues?

If a government (of any level) makes a wrong decision, that decision ought to be reversed, either through the powers from inside, or outside. So, if America (or any other country) makes a terribly wrong decision, either the American people would have to fight to change it, or the international community would be compelled to get involved. That's what I said in an earlier post.

A wrong decision in the context of public policy, is a decision with consequences that evaluate to a "yes" to the question: "Is [outcome of policy] bad for the well-being of our society?"

There's no point discussing extreme situations because it's highly unrealistic, and there's always going to be flaws with any position. Even in your example, if that slave was to never set foot outside the house, how would the federal government be able to know that you're turning your family member into a slave? Hence, it's a silly example, hardly applicable, not going to happen, and would not be because of the policies I'd promote. We're trying to discuss what is realistically the best option, and using unrealistic examples doesn't help prove a point to be incorrect. It just proves you have no serious counter-argument. In terms of morals, of course I think the state government was wrong, and that the federal government was correct in its moral thinking. However, I don't think it's moral for the federal government to forcefully change the morals of other people. Not to mention, neither of us lived back then, so neither of us truly know what was morally acceptable.

My position is, is that social issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people the issue involves. Take a child's curfew for example. It's not the federal government's responsibility to be your child's parents. It's the parent's responsibility to enforce family policies onto their child. Besides, a parent may want to raise their child much differently than another parent, because everyone grows up differently and have different opinions on what the correct approach is. Some parents think it's immoral to spank your child's bottom when they misbehave. Other people think it's perfectly fine, because it doesn't actually physically hurt the child at all. Those are times when the federal government, nor state governments, need to be involved unless the family member is not being given their rights. Remember, nobody is arguing that human rights should be abolished. But if were to talk about human rights, I have the right to my privacy, yet the federal government is trying to bring in policies to remove my right to privacy. Food for thought there.

Anywho, we're back to the topic of how do we determine whether or not someone is morally right or morally wrong. We all grow up differently, so all of our opinions are different. You have different opinions and morals to me. Let's take gay marriage. The concept of seeing same-sex couples might be sickening to some people. It's not to me, but I completely respect their moral views. Let's take internet privacy, the federal government have no issues with spying on their citizens, yet you and me may feel very differently. I think it's sickening that your country think it's alright to invade other countries, yet you might feel differently. You think it's right to invade other countries and to enforce your policies onto them. I think it's wrong. Right/Wrong isn't clear, and is purely subjective.

But you did say, that if anyone makes an incorrect decision, the American people would have to fight to change it. I agree, but if you keep it to the federal level, you're significantly reducing their chances of actually making a change. Unless you're extremely wealthy, trying to get your message across to enough people nation-wide is difficult. A lot of people also have no real interest in politics, which makes it even more challenging. However, but reducing social issues to the state level, you're at least providing a stronger opportunity to allow people to change things.

More food for thought, the reason terrorists exist is because they're trying to fight against the people invading their country.

 

[LightyKD]

Has anyone noticed the change in the President's hair.

A few weeks ago during is interview on the Daily Show...

Yesterday...

I guess "Barry O" was like "Fuq dat $#!+. It's the 21st century, we got Just for Men!" Maybe he didn't want to look old when it comes time for his Presidential picture to join the others Either way, I just find the situation funny because, for months, reporters talked about how the Presidency is so stressful that many Presidents go in with color and come out grey. Eventually, when Obama stated to turn grey, most of them were like, "See, we told ya so!"

 

[dickfour]

Congratulations the people that supported Obama won four more yeas of a bad economy.

 

[BlueStar]

Four more years of Republicans crying every time there's good economic news.

 

[Engert]

Welcome to U.S.A.
United States of Amnesia.

 

[Coltonamore]

Welcome to U.S.A.
United States of Amarica.

fixed

 

[KingVamp]

Welcome to U.S.A.
United States of Amnesia.

Didn't worry, ObamaCare covers that.


Look at this.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Has anyone noticed the change in the President's hair.

A few weeks ago during is interview on the Daily Show...
*snip*

Yesterday...
*snip*

I guess "Barry O" was like "Fuq dat $#!+. It's the 21st century, we got Just for Men!" Maybe he didn't want to look old when it comes time for his Presidential picture to join the others Either way, I just find the situation funny because, for months, reporters talked about how the Presidency is so stressful that many Presidents go in with color and come out grey. Eventually, when Obama stated to turn grey, most of them were like, "See, we told ya so!"

Stress, man. It's a killer.

 

[leic7]

There's no point discussing extreme situations because it's highly unrealistic, and there's always going to be flaws with any position. Even in your example, if that slave was to never set foot outside the house, how would the federal government be able to know that you're turning your family member into a slave? Hence, it's a silly example, hardly applicable, not going to happen, and would not be because of the policies I'd promote. We're trying to discuss what is realistically the best option, and using unrealistic examples doesn't help prove a point to be incorrect. It just proves you have no serious counter-argument. In terms of morals, of course I think the state government was wrong, and that the federal government was correct in its moral thinking. However, I don't think it's moral for the federal government to forcefully change the morals of other people. Not to mention, neither of us lived back then, so neither of us truly know what was morally acceptable.

My position is, is that social issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people the issue involves. Take a child's curfew for example. It's not the federal government's responsibility to be your child's parents. It's the parent's responsibility to enforce family policies onto their child. Besides, a parent may want to raise their child much differently than another parent, because everyone grows up differently and have different opinions on what the correct approach is. Some parents think it's immoral to spank your child's bottom when they misbehave. Other people think it's perfectly fine, because it doesn't actually physically hurt the child at all. Those are times when the federal government, nor state governments, need to be involved unless the family member is not being given their rights. Remember, nobody is arguing that human rights should be abolished. But if were to talk about human rights, I have the right to my privacy, yet the federal government is trying to bring in policies to remove my right to privacy. Food for thought there.

Anywho, we're back to the topic of how do we determine whether or not someone is morally right or morally wrong. We all grow up differently, so all of our opinions are different. You have different opinions and morals to me. Let's take gay marriage. The concept of seeing same-sex couples might be sickening to some people. It's not to me, but I completely respect their moral views. Let's take internet privacy, the federal government have no issues with spying on their citizens, yet you and me may feel very differently. I think it's sickening that your country think it's alright to invade other countries, yet you might feel differently. You think it's right to invade other countries and to enforce your policies onto them. I think it's wrong. Right/Wrong isn't clear, and is purely subjective.

But you did say, that if anyone makes an incorrect decision, the American people would have to fight to change it. I agree, but if you keep it to the federal level, you're significantly reducing their chances of actually making a change. Unless you're extremely wealthy, trying to get your message across to enough people nation-wide is difficult. A lot of people also have no real interest in politics, which makes it even more challenging. However, but reducing social issues to the state level, you're at least providing a stronger opportunity to allow people to change things.

More food for thought, the reason terrorists exist is because they're trying to fight against the people invading their country.

You mean, there's no point using thought experiments, except to show the flaws in your position, right? Do you want a critique of your position, or do you already know it's flawed thus no need for further scrutiny?

What constitutes "the federal government forcefully changing the morals of other people"?

Right/wrong decisions in the context of public policy have a specific form:
"right" = good for the well-being of society;
"wrong" = bad for the well-being of society;
Agree or disagree?

Yes, everyone has their own opinions/views/feelings/intuitions on stuff. If you ask people, "Are Omega-3 fatty acids supplements good for our health?" or "Is premium gasoline better for our cars?" or "Can we trisect a 60-degree angle using only a compass and a straightedge?", you'll get all sorts of different answers. The fact that there are different opinions is never in question, the question is, how do we prioritize them? If we, collectively, have to act on something, which opinion should we take? If we ask, "Does the legalisation of same-sex marriage improve the quality of life for people in our society?" and have to act on it, which opinion should we take? If we get a class of students to write reports on those questions, should all of them be getting "A" grades for their reports?

I ask again: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy?

re: proximity making it easier for someone to exert influence on a smaller group (state government) than a larger group (federal government), I agree. But I disagree that that influence necessarily translates directly into a greater prospect of change. While it's easier for someone to excert their influence to promote change in a smaller group, it is also easier for this person to excert their influence to resist change in the same group. The powerful force that enables change is also the very powerful force that impedes change. That's why we see relatively small pockets of the population hold on to century-old ideas looooong after the larger population have moved on with theirs. Sometimes, it's easier to have a smaller group change their mind; but sometimes, it's actually more difficult to change smaller groups than it is to change the larger group.

 

[Deleted-185407]

You mean, there's no point using thought experiments, except to show the flaws in your position, right? Do you want a critique of your position, or do you already know it's flawed thus no need for further scrutiny?

What constitutes "the federal government forcefully changing the morals of other people"?

Right/wrong decisions in the context of public policy have a specific form:
"right" = good for the well-being of society;
"wrong" = bad for the well-being of society;
Agree or disagree?

Yes, everyone has their own opinions/views/feelings/intuitions on stuff. If you ask people, "Are Omega-3 fatty acids supplements good for our health?" or "Is premium gasoline better for our cars?" or "Can we trisect a 60-degree angle using only a compass and a straightedge?", you'll get all sorts of different answers. The fact that there are different opinions is never in question, the question is, how do we prioritize them? If we, collectively, have to act on something, which opinion should we take? If we ask, "Does the legalisation of same-sex marriage improve the quality of life for people in our society?" and have to act on it, which opinion should we take? If we get a class of students to write reports on those questions, should all of them be getting "A" grades for their reports?

I ask again: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy?

re: proximity making it easier for someone to exert influence on a smaller group (state government) than a larger group (federal government), I agree. But I disagree that that influence necessarily translates directly into a greater prospect of change. While it's easier for someone to excert their influence to promote change in a smaller group, it is also easier for this person to excert their influence to resist change in the same group. The powerful force that enables change is also the very powerful force that impedes change. That's why we see relatively small pockets of the population hold on to century-old ideas looooong after the larger population have moved on with theirs. Sometimes, it's easier to have a smaller group change their mind; but sometimes, it's actually more difficult to change smaller groups than it is to change the larger group.

Your highly unrealistic example only shows a potential flaw in an extreme scenario, which quite frankly will probably never happen. Therefore, there's no point discussing it, because it's not going to be a realistic critique. Your example not only potentially shows a flaw in my ideals, but it also shows the exact same flaw in your ideals. I repeat my question from earlier: How would the federal government know that a family has a slave that has never set foot outside a property, and never will set foot outside that property? Besides, I still stand by my earlier argument that the slave's mental health would be potentially dangerous to the surrounding society, and therefore should be up to the state to decide. After all, you state that the slave will never set foot, but that doesn't mean they definitely won't. So you see, we're getting into a pointless unrealistic scenario that can go in circles because it's unrealistic. It proves nothing, and only shows a potential flaw in both sides.

As I keep trying to tell you, your definition of what's good for society is not the same as mine. Your definitions of what's good for the society is not the same as the people's definition of over 100 years ago. I agree that "right" is good for society, and "wrong" is bad for society, but we're going to have different beliefs on what is correct. I believe drug legalisation would be very good for society, as it means we're not arresting people for possessing and recreational use in the privacy of their homes, while also able to tax drugs and use them for medical purposes. But of course, you'll have the opposite side saying that the legalisation of drugs might encourage more people to take drugs and could endanger the lives of people. There's no right or wrong here, and that's why I'd rather use a modern example where there are clear divides, as that will help you understand my position.

Should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority? Absolutely not. If that moral minority absolutely believes what they're doing is the correct thing, then by all means they should do what they want. But of course, as I explained before with family issues, we still have to acknowledge scope when it comes to various issues. If you're a citizen who lives in a completely different state, the social issues of another state should not impact you at all due to the distance. However, if you were a citizen of that state, then you should have the right to be heard, because the odds are the social issues may be more of a frequent sight for you, and you are therefore involved (obviously this depends on the issue, but it's to explain scope). Remember, states can be very innovative, and we want to encourage innovation, especially if you want to get your country out of an economic mess. Drug legalisation for example is one innovative example, but because the federal government has the final say, the states are constricted.

Your last point about creating change, again, doesn't help prove that the federal government should have the final say about everything. The federal government has introduced a lot of negative things, and because the vocal minority who care about these things don't have the resources to advertise heavily and to create awareness about these issues nation-wide, nothing will be sorted. Remember, a lot of people don't care about politics at all, and will shut off instantly when talking about politices. By letting the federal government have the final say, you're placing a huge burden on the people who care about these issues. Besides, what if the majority of US citizens wanted to re-introduce slavery? Should the federal government go ahead and re-introduce it, and force it on states? You're saying they should.

So getting to my point, you haven't stated a single reason why the federal government should have the final say on everything. The reasons you've given also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control. Maybe try give me a list of pros and cons, like so:

States having the final say:
+ Encourages innovation to try get the country out of the mess
+ Encourages people to become more politically active as their chances of changing things improve
+ Encourages the state to implement policies they feel fits their morals
- States might make a decision that other states might not feel is correct

Federal Government having final say:
+ Can override any potential mistake that the states make for the benefit of everyone
- Disrespects the citizens of states, as their laws and morals have to comply with the rest of the nation
- Stifles innovation, as now only 1 entity instead of 50 entities can truly make decisions, as they have the final say
- Discourages people from becoming involved in politics, as they now need 50 times the resources to make any real change

 

[GeekyGuy]

Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable...

You're obviously unfamiliar with the foreign policy of the U.S. government and colonies under our rule. We very much, as a collective people, find slavery quite acceptable. You don't have to look far to see it. Heck, the prison system within our own sovereign states is based upon a slave system. We just choose to ignore it exists. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for it as a nation.