Freedom isn't Free
Today I was talking with a friend about a law that was passed in North Carolina. The law stated that those who are born with male anatomy, must use a men's restroom. Those born with female anatomy, must use a women's restroom. As a result, the NBA is threatening to move the All-Star game to a different location. There are other company's doing the same thing.
As we continued talking, we thought about the direction our country is heading. We don't want to "take away freedom" from anyone, so we pass laws telling people, "you're not allowed to restrict this (or you are required to restrict this)".
The irony behind this is that as soon as you allow one person their freedom, you revoke another person from having their freedom. For example, for those who say they should have the right to use whatever bathroom they feel is right, if given that freedom, it removes the freedom from those who believe male and female genders cannot be changed, and should use the restrooms accordingly.
This brings up a flaw with the United State of America's legislative system. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? If it is solely on the government to decide, that would mean the government is the ultimate power. The government, however, is simply made up of US Citizens who have been chosen to pursue politics as a career (or job). The politicians are persuaded by other people (citizens) in the country. Ultimately, the people are the government. The people, however, are the ones who are at odds in the first place.
Here we see this simply brings sends us in a circle. We are still left with the question, "Who is right?" How do we know that there aren't other genders? How do we know there aren't only two genders? Either there is a vicious cycle we can't get out of that leads to constant disagreement in the system (and among the people), or there must be a more defined set of rules that provide us with this direction.
Where would this set of rules come from though? We already discussed the problem with a group of people providing us with the rules. What options would this leave us with? The two that come to mind are either: 1) One person/being has established a set of rules, or 2) "nature/the natural world" has revealed the rules to us (e.g. - watching nature interact with other parts of nature).
The problem with nature/the natural world revealing it to us is that it still depends on the interpretation of humans to decide what the laws/rules should be. This leaves us with one person/being that has established a set of rules. If it is a human individual, that would imply either the individual would never die, or once they did die, someone else would immediately take over. If replaced by another individual, the law of right and wrong would likely change every time a new person took over. This would also beg the question, how would we know who "the individual" is and how would "that individual" be decided?
For those who say having a "different" person in charge consistently (one dies, the next takes over), this begs the question, why are somethings always wrong? Why is it always wrong to murder someone in cold blood? Why is it always wrong to rape, molest, or sexually abuse someone? Other laws however, change regularly. There must be a greater law.
This leaves one option left that I can think of right now. There must be a Superior being who has preset the laws in which people are to abide by. This being must have been in control from the beginning, and still currently in control. If this weren't the case, we would fall back into the same issue of having multiple people taking over, as discussed earlier in this post.
Countries must have a foundation for their law. A changing law leaves room for uncertainty of the law and inconsistency. Uncertainty and inconsistency leads to dispute and rebellion against the law. It ultimately leads to a divided house, and a divided country. These divisions lead to protested, rebellions, and in extreme cases, civil wars. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
As we continued talking, we thought about the direction our country is heading. We don't want to "take away freedom" from anyone, so we pass laws telling people, "you're not allowed to restrict this (or you are required to restrict this)".
The irony behind this is that as soon as you allow one person their freedom, you revoke another person from having their freedom. For example, for those who say they should have the right to use whatever bathroom they feel is right, if given that freedom, it removes the freedom from those who believe male and female genders cannot be changed, and should use the restrooms accordingly.
This brings up a flaw with the United State of America's legislative system. Who decides what is right and what is wrong? If it is solely on the government to decide, that would mean the government is the ultimate power. The government, however, is simply made up of US Citizens who have been chosen to pursue politics as a career (or job). The politicians are persuaded by other people (citizens) in the country. Ultimately, the people are the government. The people, however, are the ones who are at odds in the first place.
Here we see this simply brings sends us in a circle. We are still left with the question, "Who is right?" How do we know that there aren't other genders? How do we know there aren't only two genders? Either there is a vicious cycle we can't get out of that leads to constant disagreement in the system (and among the people), or there must be a more defined set of rules that provide us with this direction.
Where would this set of rules come from though? We already discussed the problem with a group of people providing us with the rules. What options would this leave us with? The two that come to mind are either: 1) One person/being has established a set of rules, or 2) "nature/the natural world" has revealed the rules to us (e.g. - watching nature interact with other parts of nature).
The problem with nature/the natural world revealing it to us is that it still depends on the interpretation of humans to decide what the laws/rules should be. This leaves us with one person/being that has established a set of rules. If it is a human individual, that would imply either the individual would never die, or once they did die, someone else would immediately take over. If replaced by another individual, the law of right and wrong would likely change every time a new person took over. This would also beg the question, how would we know who "the individual" is and how would "that individual" be decided?
For those who say having a "different" person in charge consistently (one dies, the next takes over), this begs the question, why are somethings always wrong? Why is it always wrong to murder someone in cold blood? Why is it always wrong to rape, molest, or sexually abuse someone? Other laws however, change regularly. There must be a greater law.
This leaves one option left that I can think of right now. There must be a Superior being who has preset the laws in which people are to abide by. This being must have been in control from the beginning, and still currently in control. If this weren't the case, we would fall back into the same issue of having multiple people taking over, as discussed earlier in this post.
Countries must have a foundation for their law. A changing law leaves room for uncertainty of the law and inconsistency. Uncertainty and inconsistency leads to dispute and rebellion against the law. It ultimately leads to a divided house, and a divided country. These divisions lead to protested, rebellions, and in extreme cases, civil wars. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
Comments
Post a Comment