Replies

An example of a principle we forget in this debate:

Suppose the US had a law against abortion, would it 'follow then' that the US 'may' "morally" put economic sanctions on countries or even wage war on a country that allows abortion?

In short I'm bringing up the concept of "sphere of application" for certain "group rights" and how the scope is dependent on the right being claimed.

If we orient ourselves toward granular government and concert our efforts against allowing mass democracy to bulldoze over the availability of choice, we have to manage the co-existance problems and what you might call the transition/implementation problem. The latter I think calls on a different form of lawmaking that is not so binary and tries to phase-in or out various prohibitions.

So, recognizing a community has the right to live 'porn-free' or drug-free, but denying blanket democratic imposition of these rights on any larger scale, we go on to say: If a community is evolving toward a prohibition or repeal, they must proceed using a guideline for transition-- one that doesnt "turn people into criminals overnight" nor "let the drug trade out of a cage".

"Suppose the US had a law against abortion, would it 'follow then' that the US 'may' "morally" put economic sanctions on countries or even wage war on a country that allows abortion? "

No, because the U.S. Government only has a moral mandate to enforce laws in territory over which it has soveriegnty.

So, recognizing a community has the right to live 'porn-free' or drug-free, but denying blanket democratic imposition of these rights on any larger scale, we go on to say: If a community is evolving toward a prohibition or repeal, they must proceed using a guideline for transition-- one that doesnt "turn people into criminals overnight" nor "let the drug trade out of a cage".

This sounds like the kind of federal relationship that existed between the states and the national government prior to the Civil War. I would be in favor of restoring such genuine federalism.