With regards to the concept of freedom of
choice: if we all had total freedom of choice, we wouldn’t have any laws
at all. Just by being a member of a society or social group, one
must agree to a having diminished freedom of choice so that the society
or social group can
function properly. Laws are often enacted to protect people from
the feared consequences of certain behaviours and ideas being enacted
within their society. Some of these feared consequences may be real,
reasonable, and/or rational and some may not be. And even amongst
Egalitarianists, there are going to be very different opinions
about this.
Generally, within the AEM's Egalitarian
society, national laws and policies are made by the government, but any
law can be challenged, and one of the ways in which laws can be
challenged is via strong public support for change. As such, the
religious vote may well influence the outcomes of such elections
because we cannot force people not to vote in accordance to their
religious beliefs. However, arguments based upon
religious beliefs are not included in the preceding public discussions
relating to any issue up for dispute. It is through this process of
informing the public about all non-religious viewpoints relating to an
issue that we believe the majority of the public will make informed and
responsible decisions should such issues be voted upon. We should mention though,
that religious institutions do have their say about any social issue
during their normal programming times.
After saying this however, the AEM isn't
too concerned about the religious vote creating and changing laws or
policies. Firstly, laws relating to such issues have never been voted
upon by the public within any democratic-capitalist country, suggesting
that the current laws and policies relating to many social issues are
not what what majority would vote for, and are instead kept in place by
those people in positions of power forcing their (religious) beliefs
upon the society. As such, we fear that many religious people will be
more concerned about this process than non-religious people might be. Secondly, many religious people accept that it is
unacceptable to enforce their religious beliefs upon everyone, and
correctly see
it as a form of domination. Many also believe that it is god's intention
that people are supposed to make their own choices in life (and that the
choices one makes are reflected in what happens in one's afterlife).
However, if we do find that the majority
of religious people are voting in accordance to their religious beliefs
(which would be difficult to prove because many non-religious people
also have very conservative opinions), and that these people are
managing to change laws and policies to be inline with their religious
beliefs, the government would have no choice but to concede defeat when
there is a large majority of the public (which would be required to
change laws and policies) who feel safer by doing so. However, this
doesn't mean that anybody, including the government, cannot continue in
their efforts to put forward new and old arguments in an attempt to
change what the public thinks and believes.
The AEM also feels that there needs to be
stability in the laws relating to most social issues, rather than for
example, banning
abortion one minute and then making it legal again two years later, and so
on. Therefore, once a decision has been established, it would normal
policy to not allow the public to vote on the issue again for at least
ten years, regardless of the ups and downs of public support during this
period.
While the AEM may intend to allow
everybody to have as much free choice as possible, as part of the AEM's
duty of care to its citizens, all behaviour needs to scrutinised to
ensure that individuals and the society are not harmed by these
behaviours. If someone can demonstrate that harm is being generated, the
AEM's Egalitarian government must respond to ensue that harm is
prevented from occurring. Further, even though such findings may not
support the laws and policies that the Egalitarian government has
enacted, the government is obliged to inform the public of these
findings, so that the public can reconsider the issue for themselves.
Therefore, the AEM cannot make
commitments about issues such as gay marriage or abortion and expect
them to be upheld for all time within an Egalitarian society, because
our democratic process allows laws to be challenged. The other reason
why the AEM doesn't make commitments about such issues is because these
issues are not constitutional issues. That is, these issues will always
be argued about whether or not we are an Egalitarian
or capitalist society.
Even though some
changes will occur just by becoming an Egalitarian society, we should
mention that the AEM does not seek to revolutionise gender and sexual
issues. Our primary focus for
the first 15 years of Egalitarianism is to make Egalitarianism work
culturally and economically, and to set up a system that will serve to
maintain and improve it. Generally, issues such as abortion and gay marriage are
therefore left for others to lobby the government and the society about.
