Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:08:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERA.stopspammersCOM
|
Viewed:
|
1318 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote:
> The *government* decides which contracts it will recognize.
> It has nothing to do with how you want to behave in private.
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.
> 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?
No the government should NOT be able to limit those behaviours. Not in
public.
There should be no prohibition on behaviour in public spaces as long as
such behaviour is consensual. If you don't like to see it, don't be
there. Of course, in Libertopia, there will be little or no "public
space" as most everything will be owned by some specific entity instead
of "the public", so the owners can enforce whatever behaviour standards
they want on their invited guests and customers.
> > 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.
No, the fact that a majority requires or forbids something does not make
it "right". This seems to be a sticking point for you. Please address
why you find tyranny of the majority acceptable.
> > 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.
It *is* judgemental, black and white, and clear cut. An absolute
democracy, with absolute power over citizens as long as the majority
supports it, is morally flawed. A just goverment must be sharply limited
in power and it should not be possible for a majority to undo the
prohibitions and restrictions on what the government can do.
Please remember, I am not a supporter of democracy. I favor sharply
constrained constitutional republics.
> > 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?
You're dodging. Answer the question. Explain how you have the right to
enforce your belief system on me or admit that you don't.
> "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."
That's an easy one. You don't have the right not to be offended by other
behaviours. Some behaviours ARE offensive. You certainly have the right
not to watch by averting your eyes or going elsewhere, and not to allow
them on YOUR property, but the fact that you find them offensive does
not mean that your rights are being violated.
Try a harder example... but instead of asking me to explain it, try
explaining it yourself step by step using my principles. You'll either
come to a just result, or you'll make a misstep which we will spot,
improving your process.
> So are you saying zoning laws are tyrannical? Nonsense.
But they indeed ARE tyrannical. Further, they are not necessary.
Reference Houston Texas.
> 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.)
I am someone, therefore part of "*anyone*", and I do not see the folly,
assuming his property covenants do not prevent it, of engaging in a
business in which no rights are violated. Sorry if your hidebound
morals have a problem with it, but there it is.
Answer the charge that christians do in fact attempt to legislate
morality, with, in many cases, the blessing of the organization to which
they belong, instead of squirming around raising red herrings, or admit
that you have no intention of doing so and discountinue this discourse.
--
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 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) The gov is of the people, by the people and for the people. If that's what the people want, what's wrong with that? By judging their moral judgments, aren't *you* making a moral judgment? (...) Or, if you must walk around naked, don't do it (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) folly of allowing a (...) owner to open a (...) crime, etc.) (...) That one is possibly a bad example - since arguably if you open a brothel in a residential neighbourhood you are affecting the rights of the people who live around there - (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
