Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
I wonder if the people who support this law believe in evolution?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Seems as if you're being discriminatory and bigoted in that you lump everybody who supports the law into the same belief.
I suspect most of the supporters do believe in evolution in some form or other. The irony, to me, is that the greater the freedom, the greater the potential for evolution, and on a greater scale. And the more restrictive or homogenous the mix, the less there exist the conditions for evolution. This certainly, if not more so, applies to law. The more that differences are restricted, or abolished, the more a system of societal homogeneity is produced. So the law in question here actually promotes the opportunity for societal evolution more than would its opposite, the restriction of one of the parties in disputes arising from differences of opinion and belief.
Another irony is that the more that "equality," the homogeneity of society, is required, the greater number of more minutely detailed laws must be compiled since the differences which exist in the human genome would present an ever expanding potential for "discrimination." And so a corresponding codex which could cover all contingencies of difference would have to be created. And, if it were possible to create such a compilation of restrictions, there would concomitantly be created, in effect, a society of robots. That's why the Constitution in its simplicity as a legal foundation is far more evolutionary in its potential, at least for human freedom, than is the massive and ever expanding growth of regulations promulgated by our Progressive regulatory agencies.
Sticking to the present legal condition, however, I would say that the trajectory of evolution is more one of devolution. If we continue to eliminate the possibilities for differences of opinion, we will continue to devolve into a more singular society, ironically, of original biblical proportion--a political and psychological Garden of Eden. A society in which only one opinion is allowed. And isn't that, after all, the utopia that Progressives and Socialists aspire to?
Threaded Mode