Can Democracy Survive The Tantrum from the Illiberal Right?

[Machismo]

Let's use Alabama and their abortion issue which is currently in the news.

If Alabama voters want to ban abortions, should we force them to allow abortions?

What good is democracy if the voters in a large state like Alabama can't use the power of the ballot box to shape the laws in the way they see fit?

And they don't even want to ban abortion 100%, they just want to restrict it. Keep in mind that nearly every state in the union restricts abortion in some way.

Let Alabama democracy do what the voters want to do.

And don't bring up "what if they want to allow slavery?" On the scale of things the national government should get involved in, slavery is a 10, abortion isn't even a 1. 10 being something the fed should definitely get involved in.

Do you know even know how a constitutional republic works?

"If Alabama wanted to make slavery legal, should we force them to ban slavery?"

Yes, that is how bad your argument is.

Alabama put a complete ban on abortion, even for rape and incest.

Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as abortion is protected under the 14th Amendment,m just like slavery banned under the 13th Amendment. So, on a scale of 1-27, the slavery argument would be a 13, and the abortion one would be a 14.

It's astounding that you don't even have any idea how a constitutional republic actually works. Seriously, you don't have a clue.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/14/72331...s-abortion-ban

[ipaq]

Truly spoken from a racist trash.

Liberalism needs to go away.

[Endus]

Let's use Alabama and their abortion issue which is currently in the news.

If Alabama voters want to ban abortions, should we force them to allow abortions?

Given that banning abortions is an attack on women's basic human rights, yes.

What good is democracy if the voters in a large state like Alabama can't use the power of the ballot box to shape the laws in the way they see fit?

They do.

What we're discussing is the difference between State and Federal scopes. And at the Federal level, Alabama doesn't get to overrule everyone else and mistreat their citizens.

And they don't even want to ban abortion 100%, they just want to restrict it. Keep in mind that nearly every state in the union restricts abortion in some way.

Hey, look, false equivalencies.

Let Alabama democracy do what the voters want to do.

If that's really what you want, secede first.

Until that happens, they're only a State, and have to abide by Federal law.

And don't bring up "what if they want to allow slavery?" On the scale of things the national government should get involved in, slavery is a 10, abortion isn't even a 1. 10 being something the fed should definitely get involved in.

Given that we're talking about basic human rights, yes, it's absolutely something the federal government will have to step in for if States are attacking their citizens.

[Deletedaccount1]

He doesn't cite any evidence for his claims in that article. Like most articles I see in the Atlantic it is written in a way that presupposes that you are in agreement with the conclusion before you read it.

[Felya]

On the scale of things the national government should get involved in, slavery is a 10, abortion isn't even a 1. 10 being something the fed should definitely get involved in.

But, what happens if a resident of a state with banned abortion, travels to another state to have a doctor perform it? There are cross state implications, thus requiring federal government.

[Milchshake]

He doesn't cite any evidence for his claims in that article. Like most articles I see in the Atlantic it is written in a way that presupposes that you are in agreement with the conclusion before you read it.

Awww you're still triggered that Kevin Williamson got booted from the Atlantic. Desperately craving the validation of appearing in such an established magazine.

I hear the National Review has him write some words. Kinda like pitty welfare for a partisan crank.

He got like 12 billing on their Anti Socialism super issue this month.

[DKjaigen]

Given that banning abortions is an attack on women's basic human rights, yes.

It has never been a women's basic right and any women believing that is an utter narcissistic little twit and im pro abortion to an extent

[draynay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't an abortion thread, there are already a few of those out there if you want to rehash all this.

[Independent voter]

Given that banning abortions is an attack on women's basic human rights, yes.



They do.

What we're discussing is the difference between State and Federal scopes. And at the Federal level, Alabama doesn't get to overrule everyone else and mistreat their citizens.



Hey, look, false equivalencies.



If that's really what you want, secede first.

Until that happens, they're only a State, and have to abide by Federal law.



Given that we're talking about basic human rights, yes, it's absolutely something the federal government will have to step in for if States are attacking their citizens.

Who said it's a basic human right? Who decides that? The UN? We didn't decide that.

If the people in Alabama want to limit abortion, who am I tell them they can't? I don't want them to tell me how to live either.

I'm tired of the Supreme Court handing down edicts like the kings of old. I like democracy and I like local democracy where groups can decide how they want to live.

[Milchshake]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't an abortion thread, there are already a few of those out there if you want to rehash all this.

That was one of the underlying points of the article.
The Illiberal Right has nothing to offer but Culture War. They always lose arguments on Governance, Civil Rights, Voter Representation, and Economics.

So they sound the horns of culture war to distract their base, or to drown out the arguments they cant win.

Bad Faith 101.

[PC2]

Liberalism needs to go away.

It's either liberalism or fascism or communism. Liberal democracy is the only one that can survive over the long run because it's the only one that can adapt to new circumstances without violence or revolution.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I am a liberal in the sense I believe in society and communities holding the key to progress and problem solving. I also believe we are all equal, while not all being the same, I hold that the bee and the flower both have value, and one is not more important than the other.

I am authoritarian because I believe in the rule of law in that the individual is not allowed more liberty at the expense of another by way of harm, the over all limits are where laws are written for everything, in place of where a humans intellect should guide.

People otherwise should have the right to live their lives however they choose, even if that leads down a path I wouldn't take.

I see the environment as being more than just the whether, but the climate, both natural and mankind.


Lastly rights, should never be a privilege. They should be a social contract and agreed on by everyone, but that probably won't happen for a long time.

[Gestopft]

The Illiberal Right has nothing to offer but Culture War.

That's not true; they also have oligarchy.

[Acidbaron]

Unpopular opinion, we need to go back to a sort of elitist voting system. But instead of money being what makes you elite, it's your level of understanding of government, education and general knowledge all factor in.

So to put it differently, people who bother to inform themselves properly get 10 votes, people who get all their news from propaganda channels like Fox news get 1.

[Theodarzna]

Probably not, since Liberalism is inherently flawed and the Left and Right both will rip its bloated corpse apart before finally duking it out.

[Deletedaccount1]

Awww you're still triggered that Kevin Williamson got booted from the Atlantic. Desperately craving the validation of appearing in such an established magazine.

I hear the National Review has him write some words. Kinda like pitty welfare for a partisan crank.

He got like 12 billing on their Anti Socialism super issue this month.

I don't even read Kevin Williamson. I'm just saying that every Atlantic article I've seen seems to cater to a specific crowd that already agrees with the material rather than trying to convince people who disagree.

[ipaq]

Yup because Fascism is where's at.

Wanting liberalism gone isn't racist. Anyone that's not rich should want it gone.

[Slybak]

So the left is a human with a stick and the right is a bear in a cage, the left pokes the right gets piss, and justifies that the bear is dangrous, evil and needs to stay locked away. Then they laugh at the silly angry bear in the cage.

I just watched a PragerU video and I'm so mad that the right is populated with annoying people that I'm starting the American chapter of the Khmer Rouge. Blame them if you get sent to the collectivized farms or shot for needing prescription eyewear because they didn't leave me any choice.

[downnola]

That was one of the underlying points of the article.
The Illiberal Right has nothing to offer but Culture War. They always lose arguments on Governance, Civil Rights, Voter Representation, and Economics.

So they sound the horns of culture war to distract their base, or to drown out the arguments they cant win.

Bad Faith 101.

They're pretty good at losing arguments when it comes to the "culture war," so not sure why anyone would think that it's their secret weapon. If anything it's the one area that they consistently lose ground on.

[DisposableHero]

Why do you hate individual liberty?

If maximum (or even majority) participation in the labor force is not required for the survival of society, and yet participation in the labor force is enforced by threat of withholding basic necessities of survival like food, shelter, and health care, I would argue that the current "liberal" society and its supporters are actually the ones who hate individual liberty. If you're unwilling to allow people to live in a world unless they are beholden to the interests of the wealthy to survive, you're certainly not on the side of individual liberty.