Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Good.

I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring.

To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.




Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?


It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions.

That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.


None of this sounds good for individual liberty. It just becomes an issue of are you lucky enough to live in a state that doesn't hate you


That’s just as horrific as banning abortions altogether.


But it's up to the people to decide. That's what freedom is.


The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.


It’s literally not. Individual liberty is about freedom from government interference.


So 9 unelected lifetime appointees should be able to dictate laws, but 538 democratically elected representatives that change every 2 years based in the will of the people shouldn’t?

Huh.


It's about giving power back to the states, and in turn the people. So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.


And if the people choose to vote to limit individual liberty of others then this decision is still good for individual liberty?


> power back to the states, and in turn the people

That sounds quite Stalinist. The people are not the state.

> So a state and its people would have the power to decide on something like abortion rather than a single centralized leviathan-authority.

Right, so your federal government is a centralised Hobbesian leviathan, but state government is not? How is state government not centralised? It's just centralised at a different level.

You know what would not be centralised? Allowing individuals bodily autonomy. Let them decide whether they want an abortion, not have them be forced to carry foetuses to term against their will.


On the particular of abortion, in terms of liberty, the baby's liberty must be considered, not only the mother's.

In the general case of state vs federal sovereignty, state sovereignty is closer to the individual is and more malleable/escapable than a federal sovereign, and is thus preferable (state sovereignty was the original ideal of the United States and the founders go on at length about the benefits of this arrangement.)


Yes, for the unborn.


How was Dobbs a win for individual liberty? Shouldn't you want the 14th amendment to protect individual liberty as widely as possible? Or do you think it's better for the Constitution to not protect individual liberties?


It's a necessary step on the road to Blastular Personhood.


It is inspiring.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: