Objectively, what use are moral ideas like gay rights, if there doesn’t exist a large enough body in society to actualize those rights? You could say that women have rights, but you will always have to ask, who gives that right? If there’s no government, or able-bodies citizenry willing to back that right up with deadly force, that ‘right’ is nothing more than a meaningless statement in the English language. So again, it seems that government, or generally society by it’s own ranks, actualizes rights. If somehow a government arises which seeks to uphold morality not common to the public, it can only realistically actualize such rights in a very limited regard, given that it probably lacks the capability to monitor all members of society at all times, and generally society would collaborate to cover up such legal transgression like a blanket. Therefore it’s more or less meaningless to have such rights as gay rights, in a society like Saudi Arabia, where 99% of the people do not agree, and would take morality into their own hands if the case of a homosexual came to light. What could a progressive person who believes there ought to be inalienable rights, say about this? They could only hope to to undemocratically socially-engineer such a society, in order to better align the public morality with the morality of the dictatorial and unrepresentative government ruling body. This is why it seems odd to state that a progressive could possibly support democracy in principle. Democracy necessitates that morality, as far as it means the objective realization of rights, is nothing static, and is in fact nothing more than something to be voted upon. And yet, ironically, it would seem that the modern progressive seeks to support the morally-relativistic implementation of democracy(one which in principle has no guarantee to uphold their very ideals of morality) in the very cultures which would necessarily fail to uphold their ideals of morality: cultures like those Islamic ones of the Middle East. You hear modern progressives condemning middle eastern dictatorships, ones which at least to some extent dictatorially uphold rights for those which the society at large itself seeks to destroy(gays, minorities, apostates etc) while supporting democracy at any cost in these societies, despite the fact that the majority of people in this culture would democratically oppress almost all progressive moral ideals of ‘human rights’. Simultaneously, the same democracy-at-all-cost-progressives, seem to condemn democratic acts in their own nations, seeking to dictatorially make legal, what the majority wishes to make illegal, in certain states:
things like gay marriage, abortion etc.

Democracy is fundamentally a system of a free market of ideas. Given this, Is it any wonder that progressives seek to undermine it at every turn and put in it’s place a progressive theocracy?

Advertisements