Legislating Morality

[Mr. Shaman]

Every piece of legislation and policy decision is a KIND of moral decision.

There's really no avoiding that.

No. It's not. Or rather it shouldn't be. Not to speak for FA_Q2, but I believe that's the point of the thread. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to avoid that, to lay out a specific purpose for government (protecting rights) and limit the ways it could go about it.

To me, this is the fundamental flaw in the popular view of government now, namely the idea that its purpose is to make moral decisions for us.

.....Like, going to WAR?

....'Cause that is one o' the "biggies".​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Try reading the actual OP where I specifically mentioned murder and theft and you won't look like such an idiot when posting. The concept applies to assault, rape and a huge host of other things as well.

You look like an idiot if you don't think that stealing something can and is classified as an immoral act in the moral codes of most civilized societies.

But the law against stealing exists to protect the RIGHTS of the property owner.

Moral issues and issues of property, privacy, safety, etc., are not mutually exclusive.

The Ten Commandments are a moral code. How many of them have laws, in our own system, enforcing their principles, in other words, how much of the morality set out in the Ten Commandments has been legislated?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So no laws against murder?
Theft?
Assault?
Rape?

Try reading the actual OP where I specifically mentioned murder and theft and you won't look like such an idiot when posting. The concept applies to assault, rape and a huge host of other things as well.

Ohh so only certain morals?

Like bare breasts on women?
Nudity?

those sure do grevious harm to those who see them.

Whew......

Have you "conservatives" ever looked-into/researched why everything seems to have sexual-implications, to you???

You DO realize that....if you're not "gettin' enough".....that's your own (personal) decision....right?

​

 

[dblack]

No, it was fought long and hard in the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton, and the Federalists won it. The compromise was to give Madison, and the anti-Federalists, the bill of rights. That's what it was, no matter what you thing. The right of congress to write bills for the general welfare, is clearly enumerated, as is what the limits on that power are.

I think it was a good compromise.

You're wrong. Hamilton argued the opposite before ratification. Maybe I'll dig up a quote. In the meantime, I'm curious - what limits do you see on the presumed general welfare power?

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

Did you happen to notice the date on that? It was written three years after the Constitution was ratified. This is exactly what I was talking about. He changed his tune. Now go read the Federalist papers.

 

[code1211]

No, it was fought long and hard in the Constitutional Convention. Hamilton, and the Federalists won it. The compromise was to give Madison, and the anti-Federalists, the bill of rights. That's what it was, no matter what you thing. The right of congress to write bills for the general welfare, is clearly enumerated, as is what the limits on that power are.

I think it was a good compromise.

You're wrong. Hamilton argued the opposite before ratification. Maybe I'll dig up a quote. In the meantime, I'm curious - what limits do you see on the presumed general welfare power?

The powers enumerated by the rest of the document.. And no, here's what Hamilton wrote regarding the "general welfare" clause: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The justification presented by Hamilton may be what he wanted at the time, but is supported by a partial citation of the text of the text of the Constition and is therefore a deception and a perversion of the intent of the founders.

The quote from the Hamilton piece that you present:

"To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare"

The quote of the complete phrase from the Constitution:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Highlighted in red are the words that hamilton edited out and thereby changed the meaning.

He and you are lying.

 

[dblack]

Every piece of legislation and policy decision is a KIND of moral decision.

There's really no avoiding that.

No. It's not. Or rather it shouldn't be. Not to speak for FA_Q2, but I believe that's the point of the thread. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to avoid that, to lay out a specific purpose for government (protecting rights) and limit the ways it could go about it.

To me, this is the fundamental flaw in the popular view of government now, namely the idea that its purpose is to make moral decisions for us.

.....Like, going to WAR?

....'Cause that is on o' the "biggies".​

Shaman. Your arguments are as muddled and "off" as your formatting. I have no clue what you're getting at.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some states make it a crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old. In other states it's legal.

Is the former legislating morality, and thus by the OP's standard, the government is doing something it has no business doing?

It depends on how they're justifying the law. They could, arguably, be claiming that the rights of a minor are being violated - that he or she is being deceived by an an adult.

If, on the other hand, the state is making it crime just because people think it's 'naughty' - that would be something they have no business doing.

I'm guessing that if you ask people if they consider a 30 year old - for example - having sex with a 15 year old moral or immoral or neither/no opinion,

the response would be overwhelmingly 'immoral'.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government isn't legislating morality. It is legislating and protecting immorality. It would be different if the government were neutral, to allow individuals to decide for themselves what is moral or not. That's not what it's doing. It is legislating and protecting immorality from the judgment of individuals and their decisions on how they wish to live their lives.

 

[dblack]

Some states make it a crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old. In other states it's legal.

Is the former legislating morality, and thus by the OP's standard, the government is doing something it has no business doing?

It depends on how they're justifying the law. They could, arguably, be claiming that the rights of a minor are being violated - that he or she is being deceived by an an adult.

If, on the other hand, the state is making it crime just because people think it's 'naughty' - that would be something they have no business doing.

I'm guessing that if you ask people if they consider a 30 year old - for example - having sex with a 15 year old moral or immoral or neither/no opinion,

the response would be overwhelmingly 'immoral'.

No offense to you personally, but it seems that only two or three people here actually understand the point of the OP.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would also argue against simple 'public need.' Those are vaporous words that can be used to legislate anything at all.

It is a dire public need to outlaw drugs because they cause massive social harm.

Wrong!!

Drugs are inanimate objects/substances. They "do" NOTHING.

Much like the whole gun-issue (where pro-gun & pro-drug people should be serious allies)....drugs are ONLY as dangerous as they're used.

It's addictive-behavior (like overeating) that causes all o' the massive social (& physical) harm.

That's the biggest problem you "conservatives" have, regarding "social"-issues; your inability to differentiate, between symptoms & (actual) problems.

It's no wonder we have such a shortage of Engineers, in this Country. Everything is THE "problem", to you "moralists".​

Miss the point much?

Throw yourself into conversations...uninvited....much?

​

 

[Katzndogz]

The left has no problem with morality. They have a very strict moral code, one they would like to see codified. And in some cases HAVE codified. Wear your seat belt, recycle, stop denying global warming, restrictions on property rights, respect to "diversity". An entire codebook of "hate" speech laws. The "war" on obesity. The left intends to enforce morality, just their morality.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Miss the point much?

the is the way of morality, it is too nebulous to define for all.

No, it's the way of poor reading comprehension. Shaman seems to think FA_Q2 was arguing FOR drug laws, when he/she clearly wasn't.

It wasn't clear, to me, at ALL!!!

What effort did FA_Q2 make.....to differentiate, between his/her opinion & others' opinions??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Law, in a democratic society, ought to be able to demonstrate a clear and compelling public need being fulfilled.

Every big idea that tried to legislate individual moral standards, failed.

Prohibition...FAIL
War On Drugs...FAIL
War On Pornography...FAIL
War On Private Sexual Relations...FAIL
The Current War On Women's Reproductive Rights...destined to FAIL

What are the issues of the "current war on women's reproductive rights" and what exactly are these rights?

Seeing-as-how "reproductive rights" would be one o' the most-personal ones....why would anyone need to explain (to others) what "rights" that person (who's making that decision...for themself) has reserved for themself??



Why do some people feel entitled....to tell others what they can/can't do, with their own body (especially when their decision has no direct-impact on society, in-general)???​

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government isn't legislating morality. It is legislating and protecting immorality. It would be different if the government were neutral, to allow individuals to decide for themselves what is moral or not. That's not what it's doing. It is legislating and protecting immorality from the judgment of individuals and their decisions on how they wish to live their lives.

You have the right to believe whatever you want is immoral or moral.

The government's right is to decide what's legal and illegal.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No. It's not. Or rather it shouldn't be. Not to speak for FA_Q2, but I believe that's the point of the thread. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to avoid that, to lay out a specific purpose for government (protecting rights) and limit the ways it could go about it.

To me, this is the fundamental flaw in the popular view of government now, namely the idea that its purpose is to make moral decisions for us.

.....Like, going to WAR?

....'Cause that is on o' the "biggies".​

Shaman. Your arguments are as muddled and "off" as your formatting. I have no clue what you're getting at.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so, committing a Country to War....in your mind.....ISN'T a matter o' morality, huh??

 

[code1211]

Law, in a democratic society, ought to be able to demonstrate a clear and compelling public need being fulfilled.

Every big idea that tried to legislate individual moral standards, failed.

Prohibition...FAIL
War On Drugs...FAIL
War On Pornography...FAIL
War On Private Sexual Relations...FAIL
The Current War On Women's Reproductive Rights...destined to FAIL

What are the issues of the "current war on women's reproductive rights" and what exactly are these rights?

Seeing-as-how "reproductive rights" would be one o' the most-personal ones....why would anyone need to explain (to others) what "rights" that person (who's making that decision...for themself) has reserved for themself??



Why do some people feel entitled....to tell others what they can/can't do, with their own body (especially when their decision has no direct-impact on society, in-general)???​

If that person demands that society provide the financial support for them to use the "right".

There are really only two types of sex: Recreational and procreational.

If the intent of a sex act is procreation, then no birth control is desired.

If the intent of a sex act is recreational, then the desired birth control device is not appreciably different than the cost of a ticket to Magic Mountain or a movie.

Are you saying that the cost of recreation is reasonable demand to make of the people for the gratification of the need for recreation on the behalf of an individual?

Will you buy me a Mercedes Benz?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No. It's not. Or rather it shouldn't be. Not to speak for FA_Q2, but I believe that's the point of the thread. The whole purpose of the Constitution was to avoid that, to lay out a specific purpose for government (protecting rights) and limit the ways it could go about it.

To me, this is the fundamental flaw in the popular view of government now, namely the idea that its purpose is to make moral decisions for us.

.....Like, going to WAR?

....'Cause that is on o' the "biggies".​

Shaman. Your arguments are as muddled and "off" as your formatting. I have no clue what you're getting at.

....Because you're a pompous-asshole....and, prefer the safety of the vagaries of The Constitution, rather than committing yourself to anything more-specific.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It depends on how they're justifying the law. They could, arguably, be claiming that the rights of a minor are being violated - that he or she is being deceived by an an adult.

If, on the other hand, the state is making it crime just because people think it's 'naughty' - that would be something they have no business doing.

I'm guessing that if you ask people if they consider a 30 year old - for example - having sex with a 15 year old moral or immoral or neither/no opinion,

the response would be overwhelmingly 'immoral'.

No offense to you personally, but it seems that only two or three people here actually understand the point of the OP.

....And, you're much-too-busy to be more-specific....because (even) you know you're probably wrong.

IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS PLACE TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. PERIOD.

If the government can decide what is immoral and moral, how long are you going to wait for the government to decide that YOUR morality is not the correct morality.

Yeah.....that's a really tough-one.

How fortunate everyone is.....to have your cryptic, theory-laden, risk-averted bullshit-input, on the subject.

 

[BluePhantom]

OK, you provide some clarification on your position with that point. There is no public purpose for laws saying how people can and cannot get fucked up. There's a clear public purpose of penalizing them for driving while fucked up. Do we agree on that point?

let me jump in on this point. IMHO, DUI laws are fucking ridiculous. If someone harms another person because they drove drunk...sure throw the book at them. But if someone does no harm I believe the penalties should be nowhere near as brutal as they are because you are penalizing someone for "potentially" harming another. Well shit...you don't have to be drunk to potentially kill someone in a car. In fact, usually people are not. We do things every single day that could potentially harm another person and no one blinks an eye.

Furthermore the penalties have nothing to do with getting drunks off the street and have everything to do with getting money for the state and other businesses. If we really wanted to get drunks off the street it's actually somewhat easy. Put an interlock device into cars standard. That will drive down the rate of drunk driving a hell of a lot more than jail time, fines, suspended licenses, counselling, blah, blah, blah that drunks don't give a shit about but makes a lot of people a lot of money.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What are the issues of the "current war on women's reproductive rights" and what exactly are these rights?

Seeing-as-how "reproductive rights" would be one o' the most-personal ones....why would anyone need to explain (to others) what "rights" that person (who's making that decision...for themself) has reserved for themself??



Why do some people feel entitled....to tell others what they can/can't do, with their own body (especially when their decision has no direct-impact on society, in-general)???​

If that person demands that society provide the financial support for them to use the "right".

There are really only two types of sex: Recreational and procreational.

If the intent of a sex act is procreation, then no birth control is desired.

If the intent of a sex act is recreational, then the desired birth control device is not appreciably different than the cost of a ticket to Magic Mountain or a movie.

Are you saying that the cost of recreation is reasonable demand to make of the people for the gratification of the need for recreation on the behalf of an individual?

Some people certainly-do feel it's much-more-important....

.....than our national economic-stability.

The Romney-"cabin".​