Sorry, obviously my entire point has not been made clearly. My series of posts has been about how to we deal with the voters, not the laws. Bad laws have to be opposed. But we have a lot of choice on how we deal with the voters.
Completely agreed. I’m not disputing one’s right to attack such remarks and the people who made them. I’m disputing whether a direct attack is the best long-term strategy. (Although, yes, appearing hurt, rather than angry can be a very effective tactic against low-engagement bigotry.)
Well, people who are unjustly accused and imprisoned for these crimes, for one. Of course, that’s a bit “reductio ad absurdum”, and in cases like this it’s pretty obvious the gains vastly outweigh the price. But there is a price, and it’s never wise to forget that.
My very existence interferes with others. I consider the good (to me and others) of my existence to outweigh the cost of my existence to others, but absolutely I have been interfering with other people’s lives (without their permission) for both good and ill since the moment I was born.
Just what constitutes unjust interference has been a fundamental cultural concern since the beginning of mankind.
And I have to add, I fundamentally do interfere with people’s basic rights. For example, free movement. I interfere with their right to move where they want, even if I don’t own the land. i.e. I don’t support open borders (high immigration, yes, but open borders, no, because fundamentally I’m selfish.) I interfere with their ability to use land they own (zoning). I interfere with the right to two people to choose negotiate a job (minimum wage).
So, no, I believe society is the set of choice of what sort and how much interference we have in each other’s affairs, because by our existence, we’re going to be interfering a whole lot.
