Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:38:04 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@NOVERAsaynotospam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1384 times
|
| |
|
|
<3790D4A4.AC909B52@voyager.net> <379164EC.11208B2B@uswest.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John, you're being inconsistent. Let me summarize the points I'm making
again rather than interspersing commentary.
There is a distinction among morals. Some are better than others. This
is not inconsistent with the notion that government does not have the
right to impose morals in areas where no rights are being violated.
In particular, a moral system which says it is OK for the majority to
impose its will on the minority is specifically inferior to a moral
system that says that it is not OK to do so. Libertopia does not impose.
In the first system, the majority imposes its belief system (for
example, hetero relationships are superior to homo and should be favored
by the government) on everyone. That's tyranny. It can be benign, or it
can be quite pernicious. Ours is relatively benign, but unfettered
imposition of beliefs leads to genocide.
In the second system, all are free to hold whatever beliefs they wish
and act on them in their freely entered into private consensual dealings
with others. Where the system draws the line is at the point where
someone who has not consented to the belief system is forced into
modifying behaviour on his own property or that of someone he is freely
associating with in order to conform.
There is no difference in kind between favoring heterosexual marriage
with tax policy and gassing all who do not believe in exactly the same
god you do. No difference in kind, only in degree. A large difference in
degree, though, thank goodness.
An absolute democracy is just that, unconstrained. ANYTHING the majority
arrives at is, theoretically, morally justified, because, after all the
majority voted for it and that's fair, right?
You keep saying "we live in a democracy" as if that somehow justifies
moral imposition.
First, it does NOT justify it. There is no moral justification for it.
As I said, my morality (and yours too if you would but open your eyes to
the truth) says that a system that makes no impositions, including
preventing subsystems from imposing, is morally superior to one that
does make those impositions. It matters not whether it is one man
dictating, a caste of priests handing down interpretations of god's
word, or a majority of voters, it is nonetheless imposition.
The founding fathers warned quite vigorously against this. Are you
saying they were wrong?
Secondly, we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional
republic. As such, it has constraints on what can and cannot be imposed.
Do you deny that?
Surely when you reconsider you will admit that an absolute democracy is
amoral when judged by external standards, and further, that we live in a
constitutional republic which has explicit limitations on what it can
do.
If you cannot explicitly make that admission, we have no basis for
further discussion in this realm, although I certainly will continue to
be your friend and trading partner (true of everyone I debate here, by
the way).
Once you do I will address the rest of your points.
In particular, what the difference between public and private is, you
confuse that quite badly. Also how useful government can be accomplished
without needing to take a vote every time someone violates a law. I'll
then readdress whether there is such a thing as a right to not be
offended while in public. I'll finish up with what are effective
constraints on what can and cannot be decided by vote.
--
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 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I am really trying to understand what you are saying. (...) Ok, I buy that. Who, would you say, determines or is qualified to determine which is superior? (...) I am confused. Are we talking about moral (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) I've been following this phenomenon for a while: (URL) interesting to note that this was noticed back in February, as well: (URL) suspect the newsserver isn't handling the references for extremely large threads properly. Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:38:04 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in .debate: (...) B (...) This is an interesting References: manglement.. is it a Mozilla problem, or did Todd's newsserver screw up somewhere? Interesting it is mainly (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
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
|
|
|
|
