Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Jul 1999 05:24:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{johnneal@uswest}nospam{.net}
|
Viewed:
|
1425 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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?
>
>
> > 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.
Or, if you must walk around naked, don't do it in a public place. Why should your conclusion be the
valid one?
> 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.
Why do you insist on calling majority rules tyrannical? It is the system of gov we have. It is a
convenient way to make decisions. If there is a gridlock of opinion, how would you resolve it?
Nothing would get done if you held out for a consensus. Let one guy decide? Let a minority
decide? Without the rule of the majority, chaos would reign. We submit ourselves to this system
because it is the most efficient means to govern a large population. I agree that it *can* be
tyrannical, but not by definition.
> > > 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.
Please explain how anything gets accomplished in Larritopia without the benefit of some sort of
majority making decisions
> > > 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.
I don't have the right, never said I did, and I don't want to. Please tell me when I tried to
enforce my belief system on you. If you are referring to my remarks about valuing life, are you
saying that people should have the right to not value life? What about the rights of those whose
lives are not being valued?
> > "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.
What if I were a minor viewing this public display? At what point does this activity become
criminal? Ever? I couldn't care less what people do in the privacy of their own property, but on
public property one must abide by what the majority wish on that land. If you doesn't like it,
either continue the activity on your property or face incarceration.
> > 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.
Hidebound moral problems or no, there goes the neighborhood.
> 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.
I freely admit that some Christians do it all the time. Even I get frustrated with them. What does
that prove? And even if they are, aren't you judging their behaviors which, by your own words, you
haven't the right to do?
-John
>
>
> --
> 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?]
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
