Our society is currently thrashing its way through many complicated subjects. In the end though, a lot of what these discussions boil down to is local versus central control. Organization from the bottom up versus organization from the top down.
The slow cracking up of central control (and the normal response of any system to losing power, which is to angrily try to re-establish power by armed force) is visible with respect to individual cities claiming sanctuary status and individual states defying the federal government with respect to controlled substances. Both represent defiance of central control (which is ironic, as many of the people who support this defiance of central control are simultaneously arguing for more central control over societal issues like equality, education, and employment. As I said -- it's clearly a complicated issue.)
So the question I have is, should we treat these the same way? If central control is bad, then should we encourage our border to disintegrate by defying central control over illegal immigrants? (I'm not going to follow the PC "undocumented" nonsense -- someone who breaks the law and takes my car is not an "undocumented owner" -- even if I want to applaud the initiative of illegal immigrants and think they deserve help, which I do, it is not healthy to change the meaning of words to try to cheat the rules. That just destroys our whole societal construct.) If central control is bad, should we cease to treat people like slaves and actually allow them control over what they do or what they put in their own bodies?
And how does this interact with the idea of majority rule, the idea of democracy? What if the majority want to control substances and control immigration -- does that make it right?
What do you think Steemians? Are these the same? Or different?
