[edmcnulty101]

Competition is great, differences of opinion are great. Differences of values are great! All of this keeps the marketplace of ideas healthy!

The problems comes in when people start to develop a righteousness about their ideas and demonize the 'other' and try to force their ideas upon the 'other' because they believe they know better.

That's why I think states rights in America are so great, because they allow places with different values to express those values.

When the federal government begins to force values upon the country en masse problems begin.

[memling]

> When the federal government begins to force values upon the country en masse problems begin.

What is your opinion about the US Civil War? I'm curious about this because it is in part an abrogation of states' rights over a question of utmost moral importance. Are there some values that are so valuable that we should make them universal by any means necessary, including a war?

[edmcnulty101]

Slavery is one of those things that violates the fundamental principles of the declaration of Independence: all men are created equal, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So of course it should have been abolished and shame on the states that fought a war to preserve it.

Even in the most limited federal government has fundamental requirements.

[memling]

> Even in the most limited federal government has fundamental requirements.

I guess my question is more related to how you can tell the difference between a "valuable value" like "slavery is bad" and a less-valuable value, like "going to church is a public good and should be compulsory."[0] While one can use the Declaration as a discriminator, that it's starting a civil war of its own might give us pause (and it has some problematic language of its own[1]).

[0] See, e.g., the constitution of the state of Massachusetts: https://archive.org/details/addressofconvent00unse/page/n19/...

It contains this clause which permits the people to actually force church attendance! (Earlier it specifies Protestant ministry rather than Catholic.)

"the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend."

[1] For example, "[King George] [...] has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

[edmcnulty101]

It's a huge grey area and legal scholars have been working on it for centuries if not millenia.

Hardcore libertarians think the only reason the government should exist is to protect property rights.

At the other extreme are collectivists who think the government should exist to manage most everything to create the maximum equality.

Where the line is drawn the job of government.

The Declaration of Ind. And bill of rights are a good litmus test for the fundamental things people view govt to be responsible for.

Both conservatives and liberals are needed to keep the balance from going too far one other direction.

Which is why I hate this demonization of the other political party.

Both groups are needed to keep things in balance.