Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:29:29 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(lpieniazek@novera.com)stopspam()
|
Viewed:
|
1463 times
|
| |
|
|
<3792817C.F236D232@voyager.net> <3792A1E5.40255C5D@uswest.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Neal wrote:
>
> 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?
I am. You are. In fact I give criteria below. This turns on innate
goodness vs. evil, but one germane criteria is whether the system says
it is OK to violate rights or not.
>
> > 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?
Both.
> Not the same, are they?
Similar enough. The morality of a governmental system is mainly what
we're talking about here, but it derives from the morality of the people
since all governments must, to be moral, govern with the consent of the
governed.
> 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?
By unanimous consent, perhaps, but you're talking about imposition by a
majority against the will of the minority. In libertopia (and stop
calling it Larrytopia, you're starting to annoy me) any such system can
be set up with unanimous consent of all parties as long as there is a
way to exit (you cannot sell yourself into slavery that applies to your
descendants), but cannot be set up merely because the majority wishes
it, and certainly cannot be set up on public property.
> > 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)
But you're ok with the government discriminating against them? To be
clear, favoring one kind of interpersonal relationship over another with
tax policy IS discrimination.
> > 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.
If you don't see why this is not as large as you think of a difference,
you're blinder than I realized. Either a system is moral or it is not.
Now, it currently may not be usurping rights, much, but if it has no
restraint, or if the restraints it has in place are routinely violated
(Zoning, for example, violates the Takings Clause of the constitution
but we have it anyway, there are many other examples extant) who is to
say where it will stop.
Just as goverments can be immoral but currently not as big a threat as
they could be, so can people.
Harken back to the price tag debate. Recall that at that time I said it
was wrong to remove a price tag, because it was stealing. Now, it wasn't
BIG stealing, but if your moral system says it's OK to do a LITTLE
stealing, your morals are flawed.
Either it is NOT ok and you know it, or you're flawed. There is no
difference in kind between a price tag remover and a man who guns down
30 people in the course of robbing an armored truck. Only in degree.
So then let us see what you are made of:
Is it OK for a government to usurp rights, as long as they are only
small usurpations, or as long as the majority supports the oppression?
Answer specifically.
Is it OK for you to steal, as long as you're stealing from a big
faceless corporation and you're only taking a little bit? Answer
specifically.
> 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.
Excellent. So you agree, at least, that not all impositions are OK?
Which ones are, to what degree, and who decides?
See, that's murky. Far easier to take the libertarian stance that no
impositions are OK.
> > 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.
No, they are not. They are in force, but they are not legal. That a law
is defacto in force does not make it dejure. Review the constitution.
I hope someday to sit on a jury trying someone for a zoning law
violation, that will be the end of that law in that jurisdiction until
it is reimposed by a legislature re-usurping powers reserved to the
people.
(http://www.fija.org)
--
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?]
|
| (...) {:-0 Well excuuuse me;-) Didn't know if you were simply toting the party line, or if what you are debating was *yours* (...) If you are referring to zoning laws, then yes. Perhaps it is immoral and flawed, but the obvious benefit outweighs (...) (25 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
