Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 05:09:12 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETstopspammers
|
Viewed:
|
1394 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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 *government* decides which contracts it will recognize. It has nothing to do with how you
want to behave in private.
> 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.
What about Nudists who want to walk around naked in public? Or Copulatists (I made it up--
people who want to be able to screw in public)? The gov should be able to limit those
behaviors? I don't buy it.
> 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?
BLASPHEMY <ripping my garments>;-) No, but small communities have done stupider things. All
within their rights.
> 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.
Tyranny? Semantics. Majority rules in a Democracy. Period. "wrongs"? "right"? Sounds
judgmental.
> > > 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.
As far as you know, which isn't far;-)
> > But again I see nothing wrong with a society deciding that it will be life
> > affirming.
>
> I do.
You miss my point. I said "affirming", not enforcing. No one can 1) stop you from taking your
own life [intially, if you muck it up, then it was prolly a cry for help anyway and you didn't
really want to do it in the first place], and b) what retaliation is there if you succeed?
Affirming life is an attitude, a value. If a society doesn't value life, how can it value
property rights of those lives involved?
> 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.
Never once asked you to *believe* anything, except maybe to value life, but as I stated before,
I think that is a value which should be inherent to our humanity. What else makes us more
human?
> > > 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.
"which does not infringe on the rights of others" Therein lies the rub. I agree will your
premise that people should be free as much as possible to "pursue happiness". But what happens
when one party claims that the other is infringing on their rights? Who decides? The
government. "Your copulating in public offends me." "Get lost. We weren't hurting you."
"Stop." "Screw you." Who wins? The Government decides. Was the decision legislating
morality? Either way, seems to me it can't be avoided, and beside the point.
> > 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.
That is the only problem with Libertopia, Larritopia, or any topia-- the idiots who don't/won't
follow the rules. And as I've stated before, the world is full of them. Not wishing free
goods, I will respond to your challenge elsewhere later (people are basically good vs evil)
> > > 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
So are you saying zoning laws are tyrannical? Nonsense.
> 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.
Many Christians are idiots, too. Doesn't make them right or spokespeople for Christianity as a
whole. Not by a long shot.
> If you deny it you have an arduous proof ahead of you as I can provide
> many counterexamples.
Again, Christianity is a many splintered thing. It is probably the saddest and most ironic
part of it. And it is because *people* are stupid, not the religion. The religion teaches
love and servanthood. I'm guessing that those aren't the first discriptors you'd think of when
the word Christian comes to your mind. Pity, for *that* is what it means to be Christ-like.
Not trying to conform the world's behaviors.
> 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.
No way. Leaving Christianity aside for a moment, *anyone* would see the folly of allowing a
homeowner in a "nice" neighborhood to exercise his free rights as property owner to open a
brothel (which I assume you think should be legal; contracts, no victum, no crime, etc.)
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| Whew. Where to start? (...) It is legislating consensual behaviour. And that's wrong. No avoiding it. (...) True. So what? (...) First off, why does government have a monopoly on sanctioning marriages? Aren't they merely a contract between people? (...) (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
|
|
|
|
