"Rights" enforcement without a State would be utter chaos. Just look at how different local & state laws are from each other. "states rights" was literally an argument for people to impose racist policies without outside interference. This is why are have Federal laws.https://twitter.com/exiliaex/status/1241720820109623306 …
-
-
Replying to @RationalDis
"some states bad, so big state make them good, therefore state good" this isnt an argument
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @exiliaex
Oh, you're right. Everyone buying a gun to enforce their own idea of rights by themselves is the way to go. I can start to get condescending too if you want Lexi
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RationalDis
im sorry if i came off as condescending. what you said just wasnt an argument against my point. both things you pointed to were states.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @RationalDis
My point is that when you leave groups to decide what "Rights" are you get wildly different decisions e.g. people in the south wanted segregation. If something is decided to be a right it has to be equally enforced everywhere. You can't do that without a State
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RationalDis
i agree! different states will disagree on whats a right. its separate from my point that states arent how rights are protected. states give the illusion of protection.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Oh god, is this a symantec difference? Sure individual people can "protect" their rights by themselves, but a State has more power to enforce rights over more people. Do you think those two things are exactly the same?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.