01-31-2021, 07:16 PM
(01-31-2021, 10:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: My benchmark for honoring freedom was stated by Robert Jackson, the last Supreme Court Justice to "read the law": "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". To me, that means there are inherent limits to everything -- even rights. The printed word, no matter how well considered, is no replacement for basic common sense. Case in point: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that has lead to unintended horrors yet to be addressed. This wasn't evil in action, but an attempt to grant the widest possible freedom to the internet, and it failed miserably.
I agree with the sentiment, although lately it seems to be used a lot by people as justification for abrogating Civil Rights further. The main point, for me, is to hold these rights as a moral good that should only be infringed upon in cases where there are legitimate competing rights that can't easily coexist. I see Civil Rights Act legislation as an example of one of those. There we have the right to freedom of association (1st Amendment) coming up against the right to be treated equally (14th Amendment). One of these has to give way and society needs to determine whether the harm of not being able to freely associate is or is not outweighed by the harm of not being able to participate fully in the public and private sphere.
I don't think these decisions are easy, I just desire that they not be taken lightly and with full appreciation of the potential consequences. It is never the majority that needs it's rights protected from the minority which is why it is dangerous when society ceases to hold a shared understanding that they are important.
Quote:These are all great points, but they demand a reflective response: reverse the parties and ask how tolerant of their adversaries those kulaks will be in return for tolerance of their views? I suspect, based on recent history alone, that tolerance will be demanded of all the non-kulaks, and never granted by them in return. That's the history of the 1830s, 40s and 50s. Your question applies even moreso to the 1870s, 80s and later. In short, intolerance is intolerance. It may be that, in their righteous anger, these kulaks refuse to comply with the majority, and I have no doubt that the majority will never support the kind of nonsense being pitched by the extreme right. Will they relent and, if not, how should they be handled? Personally, I would carve-out a chunk of Red Country, and bid them adieu -- but it's not up to me, is it.
I'm sure they wouldn't be tolerant, at least not in a 4T. My level of tolerance for social persecution of those who disagree with me, though, is low. I support prosecuting them if they engage in violence but otherwise leaving them alone. If the left is right about the march of history, they'll die off on their own sooner or later.