Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah! But you see, we don't live in a society that operates under a theocratic social contract. In fact, part of the contract that we do live under guarantees that this will not happen (First Amendment). And I kind of like that we live under a secular society, which is why I am always fighting the theocrats who keep trying to change that.Which would have been a perfectly reasonable argument, when we sere primarily self-sufficient. However, because we have no choice but to rely on others for our survival. As such, when we go into business we accept the responsibility of providing our services for anyone who needs them. It's part of the social contract. By all means, no one is demanding that you agree to the social contract. If you don't wish to, simply choose to opt out of the society, and find one more to your liking.
The same applies to religion. We live in a society, so in order to cut down on religious wars everyone in public must subscribe to the same religion. What you believe in your heart is your own business, what you practice in your private life is your own business, but once in public you must prominently embrace Mormonism.
What the person under the age of consent "determines" is irrelevant, as the very fact that they are under the age of consent, it has already been decided that they are not capable of rationally making a determination of harm. So, you are setting up a false condition; a condition that, by the very definition of underage, cannot ever be fulfilled.Protection has always been the point of the Law, or "The State" as you put it. Protect me from you. The fact is that we recognise that children need more active protection because of the ability to manipulate, and coerce them. Your contention that no one is "hurt" is ridiculous.
Condition #1. "Laws that forbid actions that do not affect anyone else."
Condition #2. "Protect me from you."
Within the Age of Consent debate there exist a two outcomes.
1.) Consent is given and in the long run the person under the age of consent determines that no harm was done.
2.) Consent is given and in the long run the person under the age of consent determines that harm was done.
Outcome #1 doesn't meet your condition #2.
Yet the law still exists and is defended, so it seems that you now need a third condition. The rules for law that you laid down are expanding in scope.
Again, you are talking about the difference between he actions of an individual, and the agreed upon actions of a society (in the case the society with the covenant). I never said anything about individual property. The problem is that you are allowed to do whatever you want with your own property. However, the minute you sell that property it is no longer yours, and you relinquish any right to determine what is done with it. That is why you cannot put "covenants" restricting the actions of future owners.
You missed my point. I mean that you can choose not to attend a college with these rules before you get a girl falling down, stupid drunk, and then take advantage of her. If you choose to go to a college that has those rules, then you choose to live in accordance with those rules, and you accept whatever consequences come next, when you break those rules.
In other words, this girl wasn't just a little tipsy. This girl was falling down, stupid drunk. Are you actually suggesting that there should be no protection against predators who prey on defenseless women?!?! Really??? You are suggesting that this college deprived this man of this constitutional right to be a predator?!?!
Not feeling a lot of sympathy here. And you can call that a "morality decision" if you like, but it is a morality of self-preservation. Because, if I say that it is okay for you to do to this girl, then next you get to do it to me - or, since I'm actually a guy.
Ah! But you see, we don't live in a society that operates under a theocratic social contract. In fact, part of the contract that we do live under guarantees that this will not happen (First Amendment). And I kind of like that we live under a secular society, which is why I am always fighting the theocrats who keep trying to change that.Which would have been a perfectly reasonable argument, when we sere primarily self-sufficient. However, because we have no choice but to rely on others for our survival. As such, when we go into business we accept the responsibility of providing our services for anyone who needs them. It's part of the social contract. By all means, no one is demanding that you agree to the social contract. If you don't wish to, simply choose to opt out of the society, and find one more to your liking.
The same applies to religion. We live in a society, so in order to cut down on religious wars everyone in public must subscribe to the same religion. What you believe in your heart is your own business, what you practice in your private life is your own business, but once in public you must prominently embrace Mormonism.
I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation. So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, someone.
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
All other basic laws, including rape, are just variations of those three basics: Murder, theft, assault.
- Theft: I don't want my shit taken. No one gets to take anyone's shit. Protect me from you.
- Assault: I don't like pain: No one gets to beat anyone up. Protecting me from you.
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
"Morality laws" would be those statutes that try to regulate behaviour that is not demonstrably harmful to others. They usually take the form of prohibitions:I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation. So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, someone.
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
All other basic laws, including rape, are just variations of those three basics: Murder, theft, assault.
- Theft: I don't want my shit taken. No one gets to take anyone's shit. Protect me from you.
- Assault: I don't like pain: No one gets to beat anyone up. Protecting me from you.
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
What "morality" laws have been passed? I don't know of any. Please clarify which laws you are referring to.
"Morality laws" would be those statutes that try to regulate behaviour that is not demonstrably harmful to others. They usually take the form of prohibitions:I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation. So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, someone.
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
All other basic laws, including rape, are just variations of those three basics: Murder, theft, assault.
- Theft: I don't want my shit taken. No one gets to take anyone's shit. Protect me from you.
- Assault: I don't like pain: No one gets to beat anyone up. Protecting me from you.
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
What "morality" laws have been passed? I don't know of any. Please clarify which laws you are referring to.
Laws criminalizing drug use, gambling, and prostitution come screaming to mind. The left do have their versions as well, although they are more "health regulations" than "morality laws". They have the same foundation though - "I know better than you what is in your 'best interest' ". You see, the concern of Conservatives tend to be your "moral well-being", while the concern of the Left is you "physical well-being".
So, on the Left we have things like smoking bans, seat belt laws, helmet laws, and various food bans - trans-fat, sodas, etc. While not exactly questions of "morality", these still represent other people depriving individuals of the right to make personal individual decisions, in the name of "protecting you from yourself", and I have an issue with this.
The issue is easy to recognize. Does a law protect me from you - either from you physically harming me, from you depriving me of some individual liberty? If so, than this is a perfectly reasonable, and justifiable use of the Law. If not, then the law itself is actually depriving you of your individual liberty for no justifiable reason, and is wrong.
"Morality laws" would be those statutes that try to regulate behaviour that is not demonstrably harmful to others. They usually take the form of prohibitions:I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation. So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually revels in the opportunity. Ask any random 100 people:
If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, someone.
On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation. I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct. Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about me. Well, I happen to like breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue. So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me: No one is allowed to kill anyone. Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind. Viola! Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society. This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard. It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect me from you. And every basic law has the same base:
All other basic laws, including rape, are just variations of those three basics: Murder, theft, assault.
- Theft: I don't want my shit taken. No one gets to take anyone's shit. Protect me from you.
- Assault: I don't like pain: No one gets to beat anyone up. Protecting me from you.
I submit that religious justification came later. this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits. in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious. The more clever want power. They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community. Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "The Divine" (insert the name of your god of choice here). Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere man. But...if God delivered these commands, wellll...that's God, so obviously these rules must be valid, and be obeyed. Congratulations, the first theocracies are born. Also, moralism is born.
Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course. This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior". The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination. You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others. However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society. The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending. "Society" is nothing more than a group of individuals who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct. Remember? Protect me from you. Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.
Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.
What "morality" laws have been passed? I don't know of any. Please clarify which laws you are referring to.
Laws criminalizing drug use, gambling, and prostitution come screaming to mind. The left do have their versions as well, although they are more "health regulations" than "morality laws". They have the same foundation though - "I know better than you what is in your 'best interest' ". You see, the concern of Conservatives tend to be your "moral well-being", while the concern of the Left is you "physical well-being".
So, on the Left we have things like smoking bans, seat belt laws, helmet laws, and various food bans - trans-fat, sodas, etc. While not exactly questions of "morality", these still represent other people depriving individuals of the right to make personal individual decisions, in the name of "protecting you from yourself", and I have an issue with this.
The issue is easy to recognize. Does a law protect me from you - either from you physically harming me, from you depriving me of some individual liberty? If so, than this is a perfectly reasonable, and justifiable use of the Law. If not, then the law itself is actually depriving you of your individual liberty for no justifiable reason, and is wrong.
