Originally posted by NaplesX
Nope. It is about majority rule. Always has been. You can twist it to be about oppression or whatever. Democracy means majority rule.
of the word "democracy" means pure-and-simple majority rule, but that sense is best expressed by the word "majoritarianism". In common modern usage, "democracy" generally refers to constitutional democracy
, and constitutional democracy is certainly not majoritarianism. Constitutional democracies (ideally) ultimately derive their power and authority from majority support, but filter raw majority impulses in a number of important ways.
One of those ways simple majoritarianism is filtered is by getting the majority to agree on broad principles such as freedom of speech. The social bargain we make for freedom of speech goes something like this: "I know I'm likely to be in a majority in some of my opinions, and in a minority in other opinions. I wish to express as broad a range of my own opinions as I can, without concern that the majority, acting through the government, will suppress or limit my expression. In order to have this freedom myself, I understand that I must grant everyone else the same freedom, and may have to endure exposure to expressions of views that I find objectionable or even repugnant as part of the deal."
Well, you see that's what you "progressives" want to do, isn't it? In your circle it's socially acceptable, so therefor you wish to impose your "social values" on everyone else, despite being in the national minority on this issue.
I don't find drug use "socially acceptable". I don't use drugs myself apart from alcohol, and even that is something I indulge in rarely and typically in small quantities -- a beer or two every few months.
I, however, feel no need to impose my views concerning drugs on others. Why? Because until others interfere with my freedom or threaten my safety by what they do, it's none of my business
what substances they inhale, ingest, or inject.
Not really. No-one is forcing you to leave. It happens to be an option afforded to you. You can stay, just don't sell pot to minors or smoke it in public. That's all.
So, in addition to your bizarre idea of "freedom" which includes freedom to be jailed for doing what you like, you'd like to now extend that to include "freedom" to attempt to evade law enforcement?
I like the "progressives" are using the word Gulag when talking about America. Brilliant perspective.
The only "brilliancy" on display here is a brilliantly gratuitous example of missing the point.
Going to jail for possession of a controlled substance is now comparable to a Stalin era gulag where millions died of starvation.
No such equivalence was stated at all. I'm not sure if it's kinder to imagine that you're incapable of seeing that, or to imagine that you see it plainly but are willing to twist things dishonestly for rhetorical effect.
The point is that words like "free" and "freedom" become uselessly devoid of meaning if you include things which are against the law
among those things you are "free" to do -- if only
you accept punishment, evade law enforcement, or leave your own country.
[Edit: fixed some bad vB code]