|
Here's the thing. Aside from nitpicky, circular-reasoning arguments about the definition and source of "rights," the point is what role popular opinion plays in our country's legislation.
Let's put aside the issue of constitutional interpretation too -- even if you're in love with the US constitution (and I have a lot of respect for it too) the fact is that it's experimental, it's constantly under review, and it wasn't handed down by divine authority. It is not imprimatur.
The point of this is to question whether it is possible, if it is proper, if it is ethically sound to prevent a majority of citizens within a governmental unit - state, country, etc. - to pass a law that goes against what others perceive as being natural rights.
Let's say for the sake of argument that 60% of a state's residents voted to make --oh, I dunno what -- anchovies on pizza illegal. Yet you, who love anchovies, and a lot of other people think it's your right to be able to order whatever pizza topping you want, and since it doesn't affect other people's pizza experience, you think it's a stupid law. Which it is. But if 60% of the people want it outlawed, you can't change that just by virtue of "having rights." Nope - your options are to go someplace that does allow anchovies, campaign to have the law rescinded, or eat them on the sly.
The point is that it is not possible to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things.
The point is that it is not desirable to keep a government that legislates by popular vote from doing some stupid things. Why? Because to some, it's not stupid. The anti-anchovy activists believe in their cause. They are just as convinced that they have the right to ban toppings they don't enjoy. And maybe they do. It's totally a matter of opinion.
How would they have this right? To follow your logic, Radar, perhaps they have the right to ban anchovies in retaliation to another group's assertion of "rights" that pissed them off.
|