> Why You Should Never protest outside someone’s home
Why ? While i fully agree that this is not a good development, having people accountable for their action, is. Who controls those people who give laws as they like ?
Or is it ok to defend some liberties but not others ? Is there a list of liberties which can be defeated in the land of the free ?
If the judges need more "american children" ( which might explain their actions) they shall make them themselves. Not deny abortion after a rape.
> We need to reaffirm the important dividing line between public life and private life. We need to untangle the political and the personal. Protest where policy is made, not where the people who make policy live and sleep and bring up their children. That should be obvious. It’s scary that it isn’t.
I wouldn't categorically say never, though I wish that were the obvious case. In some cases the problem may be that the policymakers are bringing their personal beliefs into the decisionmaking process, so they crossed the line first. There needs to be reasoning provided for policies that isn't based on personal beliefs or disguised personal beliefs. Show me the data! How can we tell the difference--we can't always, so sometimes lines get crossed.
Decorum and “personalization” are two different things that get muddled here.
Decorum is very useful for helping ensure behavior stays within limits and isn’t regretted later. Hardening your opponents’ hearts against you, or turning them into opponents because you acted like an asshole to them, probably doesn’t help your cause. Not that decorum is always useful (inviting Russian soldiers in for tea comes to mind) but on average it’s better than being abrasive.
Politics, on the other hand, are frequently personal. Spending bills for infrastructure or public safety less so, politics around what people can do or what is done to them (masks, vaccinations, marry, have sex, not get hassled by cops) much more so, and politics around things you own or control (build on wetlands, children’s education) in between. Politicians themselves sell themselves as people, personal embodiments of political agendas.
In a direct democracy, it would be entirely personal.
Why ? While i fully agree that this is not a good development, having people accountable for their action, is. Who controls those people who give laws as they like ? Or is it ok to defend some liberties but not others ? Is there a list of liberties which can be defeated in the land of the free ? If the judges need more "american children" ( which might explain their actions) they shall make them themselves. Not deny abortion after a rape.