Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:56:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@saynotospamUSWEST.NET
|
Viewed:
|
1331 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> <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.
You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I am really trying to understand what
you are saying.
> There is a distinction among morals. Some are better than others.
Ok, I buy that. Who, would you say, determines or is qualified to
determine which is superior?
> 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.
I am confused. Are we talking about moral systems, or systems of govs that
are moral? Not the same, are they?
> 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.
That is my point. What if a community or population freely decides to
*limit* their freedoms and conform to a specific code? Isn't that ok?
> 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.
I have said I have no problem with people acting as they will in the
privacy of their own homes (as long as they aren't abusing the rights of
others)
> 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.
Yeah, so large a degree that your point is moot.
> 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?
Ahh, I see where your ax is grinding. You are talking about an absolute
democracy, whereas when I referred to "democracy", I was referring to our
(US) form of democracy. Of course I agree that merely because a majority
rules something it makes it moral is complete hooey.
> 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.
Now that I understand the distinction, I agree with you. But even in our
constitutional republic, zoning laws are legal.
> 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 is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
