I'd refer to the Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I define those values as best interests of society
Okay, lets see if this holds true:
I think all that drug illegalization does is throw a bunch of otherwise harmless people in jail and turn them into actual criminals when they are released. It also costs a lot of people and puts a hell of a lot of money into the pockets of drug cartles and other really, really bad people. Making alcohol illegal created organized crime in the states, after all.
Oh no!!!! There goes domestic tranquility, a common defense, posterity, and the general welfare. Oh no!!! Dissention in the ranks.
Does freedom of speech insure domestic tranquility? And how can anything be more than perfect? Has the second amendment insured domestic tranquility? I bed if we got rid of one amendment you don’t hear much about, and we quartered troops in everyone’s house, we could insure domestic tranquility.
If what is best for society is for Texas to secede they can’t, because it’s against the law. But what if it wasn’t against the law but was still best for society?
And this is not what you are doing?
Huh? I might not be the nicest person, or say things in the most pleasant way, but the last thing I want is to force people to somehow act or think or engage in activities in which I agree with (besides when it comes to what people consider to be rpgs, but it’s silly and ridiculous and makes no sense). I will always judge people and their thoughts and actions, and maybe I’ll put voice to those judgments, but I’ll never want to take anyone’s freedoms away, nor impose my beliefs on them. Unless you are saying arguing is imposing my will somehow?
Complete and absolute freedom to do anything (that is, anarchy) is not in anyone's best interest. Controlled freedom is in the best interests of all societies, but perhaps not in the best interests of some governments (China, etc).
No. Try and think please. Either you can or can’t. You are free to do that which you are free to do. No drama. No “best for society” gibberish. Either I can or can’t. No talks of vulgarity, morality, decency, bullshit unqualified opinion with powerful counterarguments of the “facts” and garbage. I can or can’t. No bullshit justifications. Let me decide if it’s right or wrong, or I should or shouldn’t. Replace the false and never true “what’s best for society” with “what’s too destructive for society” and go from there. Let people make their own choices, for good or ill.
Ah yes - anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and what you think is obviously not just your opinion but some sort of scientific fact or divine law. Well then, your lack of an argument shows you to be an asinine windbag at best and a troll only out to provoke reactions at worst.
Of course. I’m the one agreeing, disagreeing, opinionating and claiming to know what is best for society while doing it? If you cannot see the flaws in your arguments then you are doomed. I don’t have time to explain more in-depth, but think about your logic, and follow it to its conclusion, which you can't so just even try and make sense of it, which you can't. What does it tell about the quality of your thinking?
