"How can the FSP fight the majorities decision without itself becoming the majority? If the FSP becomes the majority, then how can it speak for the entirety; since as you say the majority shouldn't be able to speak for the entirety?"
Why do you randomly assume im against ALL majorities, or ALL beliefs just if theyre held by the majority? im against the initiation of aggression. If there's a situation where aggression is being initiated, yet is perecieved as being legitimate because it has the support of the majority, I would be in favor of the majority (actually the entirety) realizing that the initiation of aggression is wrong. Only by setting up a strawman and claiming that im against majorities in and of themselves, regardless of what the majority stands for, does it appear I'm inconsistent here.
"So, if people can move to another State to protect the citizens of that State from succuming to horrible laws imposed my the majority, then:(1)Why don't those people who -live there but don't like it- just vote with their feet and move,and (2) would this then allow for the U.S. to step in for the defense of another Nation, or for the U.S. to interfere with the internal affairs of a nation which we have people in?"
re #1, I have no idea why other people who live in places do or dont move. However this is probably infleuenced by the fact that there are currently gangs that immorally claim the right to initiate aggression virtually everywhere. in LA its the Crips and Bloods, in NH its just a different gang.
re #2, i dont know what you mean by "US" because if uncle sam himself wanted to take up a gun and go help others who are being oppressed around the globe, of course he can. What he cant do is force me to pay for his gun or force me to othherwise help him. On an individual level, if you saw some tyrannical government oppressing its own people and you wanted to, on your own time and your own dime, go there to help the oppressed, even if the oppressed were a minority of the population, of course youd be moral to do so.
Hope this clears up some misconceptions.
If the U.S. cannot interfere with the internal workings of other nations then is their a mechanism whereby only the people who have already moved to New Hampshire are the only ones contributing to the liberation of New Hampshire?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: