Smasharoo wrote:
Well, it was the primary idea behind the founding of our country. Aside from that though, no big deal, I guess.
You're wrong. Sorry, that's not it. Our system is founded on the idea that rights compete with each other, and a society has to decide which ones are more important to a civil society than another.
Quote:
People who actively disagree with your sentiment:
Plato, John Adams, De Toqueville, Mill, Nitche, Aynn Rand, I'll just stop there, I guess.
The entire reason Law exists as a concept is to enforce the rights of minority actors. Even the ones you don't like.
Plato, John Adams, De Toqueville, Mill, Nitche, Aynn Rand, I'll just stop there, I guess.
The entire reason Law exists as a concept is to enforce the rights of minority actors. Even the ones you don't like.
Wrong again. Laws exist within the context of liberalism to mediate between competing rights. The sociopath has a right to move his hand, pick up a hammer, and smash it into someone's skull, killing them. That right is out weighed by his potential victim's right to *not* have his head bashed in with a hammer and be killed. We first recognize that rights exist, and then act to protect them to the greatest degree possible, always being aware that in order to do this in any society consisting of more than one person, we must infringe some rights in order to protect others that we as a society deem more important.
This means that my right to run around naked with peanut butter and bananas smeared on my body singing "I'm King Henry the Eighth, I am" at the top of my lungs at 3 in the morning is outweighed by the rest of society's right to not have to see people running around naked with peanut butter and banana's smeared on their bodies singing "I'm King Henry the Eighth, I am" at the top of their lungs at 3 in the morning. These sorts of things are necessary impositions on liberty in order for a civil society to exist. And while some of those rules may seem arbitrary, they are ultimately an expression of what the society as a whole wants. And in those areas, a minority opinion does not trump the majority.
Most people don't want to share restroom facilities with people of the opposite sex. Arbitrary or not, that right outweighs the right of the small number of people who do want to do so, regardless of their stated reason for wanting to. Thus, that's our social rule. You can always work to change the minds of the people, but the wrong way to do it is to pass a law forcing them to comply with something that makes them uncomfortable. Doing that is the opposite of the principles of a free society.
Edited, Mar 14th 2013 7:48pm by gbaji