| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Scott A wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> > >
> > > > First of all, what state is forcing morality on anyone?
> > >
> > > When a state says that a contract between a man and a woman has more
> > > standing or more importance, that is, that it is recognised as a special
> > > kind of contract, when compared to a contract between a man and a man or a
> > > man and two women (like i could afford THAT)... that state is expressing a
> > > moral preference for one kind of contract compared to the other.
> > >
> > > That is not a force, but is a preference. It can be a VERY strong preference
> > > when one considers all the tax/benefit/custody, etc etc, ramifications...
> > >
> > > I'm against states expressing a preference one way or the other.
> > >
> > > ++Lar
> >
> > State? I think you mean society.
>
> No, I'm sure he means State/Government. If you distil "society" (as
> you're referring to it here) down, it amounts to two forces:
>
> - market (in that if "society" frowns upon certain activities, there
> will be influence on cost/benefit analysis which will tend to reduce the
> level of those activities)
>
> - government (in that government, by using "force", the use of taxes,
> law enforcement, and the courts, can constrain certain activities)
You say "government" like it were an entity which just appeared after some
sort of a coup. Here in the UK, the government exists "create an open and
inclusive society, where rights are balanced with responsibilities, and
where every citizen has the opportunity to succeed and fulfil their
potential". The fact is that government is this way in the UK because that
is what the electorate want.
Scott A
>
> Market forces are ok, and can and should act on anything they want to.
> Government forces should be constrained to the smallest subset of
> "force" required to make sure that the market is free to do what it will
> (which requires that all individuals rights be respected - if individual
> rights are not being respected, you don't have a free market).
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| Plowed ground alert. (...) For now. Subject to whim reversal, of course, since you have no mandated and irrevocable protections of your rights (neither do we, but ours are a bit harder to water down since they are in the Constitution, and the ones (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) No, I'm sure he means State/Government. If you distil "society" (as you're referring to it here) down, it amounts to two forces: - market (in that if "society" frowns upon certain activities, there will be influence on cost/benefit analysis (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
