Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Both of which a percentage of this country (perhaps a majority, perhaps not) desires to limit. The extreme expansion of rights sought by the hard left at benefit to some and at cost to others is an infringement on the minority's property rights. The casualness of the left's argument that it should be able to censor or limit speech is frightening. I love Scott Galloway, but even he - a moderate - is suggesting platforms have a duty to police speech. Granted, this is not technically an infringement on free speech, but when a platform becomes the medium in which almost everyone communicates, the effect is squelching free speech. (Though I must note, it might have aided my psyche to preclude me from watching the Hunter Biden sex tape. [On a positive note, he appears well endowed... good for him.]).
|
Glad to hear that you disagree with the hard left, but so what.
Quote:
A majority often, if not always, includes the people with the lowest capacity for critical thinking. They vote for odd things and bad policies, when they know why they're voting at all. A good example of this was Trump's wall. Majorities have to be massaged to vote for good things and not bad things, and this is tricky because majorities aren't terribly bright. Typically, one acquires a majority in politics by bullshitting a large crowd of credulous people. Pick any huge majority voting for a candidate and you'll find a load of people who don't even understand why they cast their ballot as they did. They'll have been promised a bunch of things, often things that are short term gratuitous fixes (Health care as a right, a wall, 'yer jobs comin' back from foreigners!, etc.).
Majorities are dangerous and need to be kept in check.
|
Minorities are similar, but smaller, and lacking the democratic legitimacy that a majority has.
Quote:
|
There are not a lot of people arguing that Texas ought to be compelled to follow the sorts of rules that loons in CA seek to apply. That's why CA is relocating to TX.
|
Again, so what. My point was that both California and Texas, as different as they are, are underrepresented in the Electoral College, just as North Dakota and Vermont are overrepresented. Try to imagine talking about a more fundamental principle.
Also, the piece of land I own in California is far more valuable than any comparable piece of land in Texas. Try marking your views to that market.
