Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:16:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.ihatespamCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1413 times
|
| |
|
|
Whew. Where to start?
John Neal wrote:
> If a Democratic government decides (ie the will of the people, the *majority*)
> to sanction hetereo marriages and not homosexual ones, what's wrong with that?
It is legislating consensual behaviour. And that's wrong. No avoiding
it.
> I think a case can be
> made that the traditional nuclear family is a good foundation on which to build a stable
> society.
True. So what?
> You are free to shack up with a horse if you want; just don't expect equal or
> special considerations, because the majority don't want it.
First off, why does government have a monopoly on sanctioning marriages?
Aren't they merely a contract between people? The notion that you have
to have a government sanctioned ceremony seems outrageous to me. Seems
to me all you should have to do is show that all parties to the
agreement (however many, of whatever genders) are adult, of sound mind,
and want the agreement to be made, and that the agreement itself does
not call for behaviours that violate the rights of non participants.
Just like any contract.
Second, where does government come off favoring one lifestyle choice
over another? If I shack up with a horse, that's animal abuse, the horse
is not competent to enter into agreements, but if I shack up with Ed
Boxer and he's OK with that why do we get discriminated against? (1) No
sort of arrangment should be favored or frowned on.
if I can get a majority of voters in Edina (or whatever your home town
is) to agree that you have to sign each append with the phrase "8 wide
trains are a stupid idea" that would be OK, right, and you'd scurry to
comply?
Are you saying the majority has the right to enforce any behavioural
standards it likes? Puhleeeeze. Tyranny by a majority is still tyranny.
No number of wrongs make a right.
> > Here's another:
>
> > - People have the right to die by their own hand if they so choose.
> > Christianity views suicide as a sin.
>
> Well, Christians uphold life, our greatest gift. If you want to end yours, that's between
> you and God.
There is no god, but I digress.
> But again I see nothing wrong with a society deciding that it will be life
> affirming.
I do.
This seems a fundamental point. Please explain how you have the right to
enforce your belief system on me, and restrict my right to do with my
body as I wish. That includes getting assistance from others (who freely
enter into an agreement with me about the particulars) in doing so.
> > Here's another more generic, from which the others derive:
> > - Nothing, repeat, NOTHING, that a person chooses to do of their own
> > free will and which does not infringe on the rights of others should be
> > forbidden. It may be stupid, it may be life threatening, but so be it. I
> > is not the place of government to legislate morality, except in that the
> > proper function of government is to help ensure non-infringment (by
> > enforcing the common law prohibitions against things such as murder,
> > rape, assault, burglary, arson, etc..) of individual rights.
>
> A lot of people do stupid things and their lives are train wrecks. A lot of people are
> unhappy. Christianity offers a way to lead a meaningful life, not judgment of an empty
> one.
Perhaps. But how does that address what I said? Libertopia will not
outlaw stupidity. It will merely make it less attractive.
> > Some important corrolaries that a lot of christians have trouble with
> > are ideas like it is not proper for government to legislate morality,
> > including such things as what the operating hours of stores are (Grand
> > Rapids until recently had ordinances prohibiting Sunday operation of a
> > wide class of stores), what sort of businesses are legitimate, and what
> > sorts of interpersonal relationships are appropriate.
>
> Again, if a community gets together and says, "we don't want 24 hour businesses in our
> town", shouldn't they have the right to restrict it? Democracy in action, not morality
> legislation.
Again, unfettered democracy is tyranny. Restricting a preexisting
business, a property owner, or a person from carrying out business of
any sort not otherwise rights violating at whatever time of day or night
is convenient for them to do so violates the takings clause of the
constitution, which was put there for a reason by the founding fathers.
> Why, all of the sudden, do you question motive? Isn't that beside the
> point? You don't want a opera singer for a tenant. Period. The reason is irrelevant.
Who is questioning motive? Not I. I merely reject the outcome. You can
either admit christians try to legislate morality (as do many other
groups) or deny it.
If you deny it you have an arduous proof ahead of you as I can provide
many counterexamples.
If you admit it, then you have to justify it, and you cannot, for to
legislate morality is to violate the rights of free people to do as they
wish subject to the limit every reader of this group should have
memorized by now.
If christians do not want business conducted on the sabbath, in
Libertopia they would be free to buy up a large parcel of land, put deed
covenants in place preventing business from being conducted on it on
Sunday or after 6 PM or whatever, build walls all the way around it so
they could not see others doing so, and subdivide it for resale to
fellow believers, who, having freely entered into the purchase, would be
bound by the covenants. But they would NOT be able to enforce their
peculiar notions on innocent bystanders and property owners located
elsewhere, majority or no, as the constitution would be much more
explicit on this point.
1 - not that I would, I hate opera. That's the ONLY thing stopping me,
though. That and I'm very hetero.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) The *government* decides which contracts it will recognize. It has nothing to do with how you want to behave in private. (...) What about Nudists who want to walk around naked in public? Or Copulatists (I made it up-- people who want to be (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) What gives the government the right to discriminate among contracts? It is then making a moral judgement that one sort of free will behaviour non rights damaging behaviour is better than another. Please address this fundamental point. (...) No (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) Assuming we step into Libertopia, and you and Ed shack up, the government ought to treat you no differently than anyone else, right? He can inherit your property when you die, etc. What about corporations? Does ACME Insurance company have to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) Free to discriminate however they choose, for any reason or no reason at all. They're not the government. The government, having a de jure monopoly on the initiation of the use of force, is not free to discriminate in any way shape or form. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| <3792817C.F236D232@voyager.net> <3792A1E5.40255C5D@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I am. You are. In fact I give criteria below. This turns on innate goodness vs. evil, but one germane (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) If a Democratic government decides (ie the will of the people, the *majority*) to sanction hetereo marriages and not homosexual ones, what's wrong with that? I think a case can be made that the traditional nuclear family is a good foundation (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
