Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Jul 1999 06:53:40 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@#spamless#uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
1148 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> <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)
{:-0 Well excuuuse me;-) Didn't know if you were simply toting the party line,
or if what you are debating was *yours*
> 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.
If you are referring to zoning laws, then yes. Perhaps it is immoral and
flawed, but the obvious benefit outweighs the wrong. I guess if I had to chose
between a perfectly just system that allows such things as idiots exercising
their rights to opening brothels in residential neighborhoods, or a morally
flawed one that limits such obviously immoral behavior, then I'd chose the
latter. And you say, where do you draw the line; the door is open for more
pernicious usurpations. Vigilance and common sense keep usurpations at bay.
Larry, I will concede that your system is probably the morally superior one, but
again I say that it would only work if everyone played well together. Well,
everyone doesn't. Far from it. And that is why you see governments legislating
morality-- *because people will not take the responsibility themselves*. And
that is why morally responsible people such as you have such a problem with
governments such as these-- because you don't need that kind of political
patronization. But most folk do. And I would agree with you that the
government is prolly the *last* institution to be moralizing about *anything*.
I believe it is the function of religion. And that brings me back to the good
vs evil question. This is where I think we truly differ, and where I'd like to
debate.
> 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.
Specifically, no.
> > 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.
Agreed. See above.
> > > 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| <3792817C.F236D232@voyager.net> <3792A1E5.40255C5D@uswest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I am. You are. In fact I give criteria below. This turns on innate goodness vs. evil, but one germane (...) (25 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
