Laws and tyranny

[FA_Q2]

I created a thread a while ago that was similar to this (though not stated as well) where I put forth that laws should be exclusively there to protect the rights and freedoms of others, not to enforce some vaunted morality or what is ‘right.’ I was surprised at the number of people here that our right reject that concept instead opting for laws that push their morality. In essence, I think people generally want that tyranny as long as it is a tyranny they agree with. It is one of the things that I believe has eroded our country so much. We no longer seem to believe that law is here to protect our rights but rather most want it there to control our actions to reach some sort of utopia.


Sorry if I went off on a tangent here.

I don't think you did go off on a tangent, there, though. I find that plenty of social conservatives are just as subversive to our freedoms as the bleeding heart liberals for exactly the reasons you stated.

That was what surprised me so much, not the liberals who espouse a political ideology that calls for that type of thought but rather the number of conservatives that claim to hate that ideology but then do the exact same thing. Not surprisingly, most could not even see the correlation. Mirrors are not something ingrained in our normal way of thinking I guess…..

 

[Vidi]

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

I would say that is not true if you take it from the stance that laws against murder exist in the context of protecting your right to live. I guess you could then say our rights are also subjective but what’s the point. It is almost like saying how do you know you are actually here and not in the matrix. If so, what does it matter, we have to start somewhere with some basis.

I dont think it is besides the point. In my opinion, all rights, priviledges and therefore laws are based on our value system as a culture. That makes them subjective.

We can ask for objective application of the law, however, which I think you could still use to make your point.

 

[Intense]

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

Not exactly. Consider clarity of purpose, drive. vision.

 

[Vidi]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

Each Law has it's own reason for being, right or wrong, consented to by the people or not. Blanket statements do little to justify or refute. Each Law stands or falls independently on it's own merit. Show cause, show effect, show collateral damage in each case. We find problems, we amend, eyes opened.

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

 

[Vidi]

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

No, it's based upon the concept that taking that which does not yours to take -in this case the life of another- is wrong.

Noting subjective about it.

Right and wrong are entirely subjective.

 

[Si modo]

I created a thread a while ago that was similar to this (though not stated as well) where I put forth that laws should be exclusively there to protect the rights and freedoms of others, not to enforce some vaunted morality or what is ‘right.’ I was surprised at the number of people here that our right reject that concept instead opting for laws that push their morality. In essence, I think people generally want that tyranny as long as it is a tyranny they agree with. It is one of the things that I believe has eroded our country so much. We no longer seem to believe that law is here to protect our rights but rather most want it there to control our actions to reach some sort of utopia.


Sorry if I went off on a tangent here.

I don't think you did go off on a tangent, there, though. I find that plenty of social conservatives are just as subversive to our freedoms as the bleeding heart liberals for exactly the reasons you stated.

That was what surprised me so much, not the liberals who espouse a political ideology that calls for that type of thought but rather the number of conservatives that claim to hate that ideology but then do the exact same thing. Not surprisingly, most could not even see the correlation. Mirrors are not something ingrained in our normal way of thinking I guess…..

See, now I'm going to go off on a tangent: I think a big problem in the way folks discuss politics is this pigeonholing of righties and lefties/conservatives and liberals.

Classical liberals, such as myself and many other who are in the "rightie" classification on this board, are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I am socially liberal because I believe in personal freedoms - live and let live as long as the Constitution is still protecting all of us from oppressive government.

Anyway, I see that as a problem in communication, but now I'm off on a tangent.

 

[Si modo]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

Each Law has it's own reason for being, right or wrong, consented to by the people or not. Blanket statements do little to justify or refute. Each Law stands or falls independently on it's own merit. Show cause, show effect, show collateral damage in each case. We find problems, we amend, eyes opened.

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

 

[Vidi]

I don't think you did go off on a tangent, there, though. I find that plenty of social conservatives are just as subversive to our freedoms as the bleeding heart liberals for exactly the reasons you stated.

That was what surprised me so much, not the liberals who espouse a political ideology that calls for that type of thought but rather the number of conservatives that claim to hate that ideology but then do the exact same thing. Not surprisingly, most could not even see the correlation. Mirrors are not something ingrained in our normal way of thinking I guess…..

See, now I'm going to go off on a tangent: I think a big problem in the way folks discuss politics is this pigeonholing of righties and lefties/conservatives and liberals.

Classical liberals, such as myself and many other who are in the "rightie" classification on this board, are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. I am socially liberal because I believe in personal freedoms - live and let live as long as the Constitution is still protecting all of us from oppressive government.

Anyway, I see that as a problem in communication, but now I'm off on a tangent.

Your thread you make the rules for it. Tangent away, if you desire.

( good original post by the way. great discussion starter. )

 

[Intense]

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

No, it's based upon the concept that taking that which does not yours to take -in this case the life of another- is wrong.

Noting subjective about it.

Right and wrong are entirely subjective.

Not exactly.

 

[Vidi]

Each Law has it's own reason for being, right or wrong, consented to by the people or not. Blanket statements do little to justify or refute. Each Law stands or falls independently on it's own merit. Show cause, show effect, show collateral damage in each case. We find problems, we amend, eyes opened.

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

See...Ive been having this discussion for decades. It goes back to my objectivist roots, when I used to argue that there is no such thing as sacrifice. Its a matter of value. And this discussion is essentially the same.

What do we value? How do we assign value?

The assignment of value is subjective. So if we pass a law to protect personal freedom, we do so because we value personal freedom. And again we crash into the realm of the subjective.

 

[Intense]

Each Law has it's own reason for being, right or wrong, consented to by the people or not. Blanket statements do little to justify or refute. Each Law stands or falls independently on it's own merit. Show cause, show effect, show collateral damage in each case. We find problems, we amend, eyes opened.

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

Wrong.

 

[Si modo]

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

See...Ive been having this discussion for decades. It goes back to my objectivist roots, when I used to argue that there is no such thing as sacrifice. Its a matter of value. And this discussion is essentially the same.

What do we value? How do we assign value?

The assignment of value is subjective. So if we pass a law to protect personal freedom, we do so because we value personal freedom. And again we crash into the realm of the subjective.

I agree there is a subjective root to the fundamentals of our Founding Principles. Personally, I intended the discussion to be based on the assumption that our inherent rights guaranteed to us all in the Constitution are given laws, then examine what laws we pass from that point on.

I do see what your saying, but it is a bit more ethereal than I intended.

 

[FA_Q2]

Does regulation stifle ALL busioness or does it just pick winners and losers?

It only stifles the business that it affect. There is a qualifier though; some businesses have nothing to do with each other so that a regulation that hurts a number of businesses does not mean that it is picking winners and losers though many times it is the case. There is also the fact that not allowing a business to dump toxic waste in a river might affect who wins and loses but it is not the regulation that has caused this. The regulation is just preventing others from paying the price of that particular businesses ‘winning.’


I would add here that you are misusing the term ‘picking winners and losers’ in this instance though as I would understand it. When I rail against this concept (and I believe most here see it the same way as I do) it is when regulations are written or money is given to the benefit of one business specifically but denied others. A good example of this is the bailouts when large banks were given billions and smaller ones simply allowed to fail. Why the big ones were given that treatment: they have more to donate…

I am not relating it to the original post but to post #19. Because the poster is the same, any derailment would be his own and ok because its his thread.

I was not trying to accuse you of any derailment, I just wanted to know if you were making a greater point here that I had missed.

 

[Vidi]

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

Not exactly. Consider clarity of purpose, drive. vision.

All exist regardless of regulation, do they not?

 

[Si modo]

But we do so based on our value system which is entirely subjective, no?

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

Wrong.

While I agree with every part of my being that murder and theft are inherently bad - a truth, not subjective - I'm trying to move the discussion beyond that.

Again, a bit off topic, in almost every culture and even almost all micro-societies, there are common taboos. Some things are just inherently bad.

Anyway........

 

[Vidi]

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

Wrong.

While I agree with every part of my being that murder and theft are inherently bad - a truth, not subjective - I'm trying to move the discussion beyond that.

Again, a bit off topic, in almost every culture and even almost all micro-societies, there are common taboos. Somethings are just inherently bad.

Anyway........

We can't really get beyond it. You state it as your hypothesis.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really. If the fundamental assumption of our system of laws is that it is morally good (yes, subjective) to be free, then laws should exist, either the passage of them or the application of them, with that single moral assumption (subjective) in place.

Then, murder is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Theft is not "bad" or "good", it is just contrary to personal freedom. Etc.

Wrong.

While I agree with every part of my being that murder and theft are inherently bad - a truth, not subjective - I'm trying to move the discussion beyond that.

Again, a bit off topic, in almost every culture and even almost all micro-societies, there are common taboos. Somethings are just inherently bad.

Anyway........

The simplest way to do that, I think is concede that the basis for our law (the constitution) and all the rights contained therein might well be subjective. That is meaningless to the original point IMHO. If we take law as based off that then the law is NOT subjective beyond the original basis. IOW, the right to life might be subjective BUT laws against murder are not if we take the original right as a given.

 

[PixieStix]

XXXXX

"Oddball", is a name, subjective? NO? Could therefore be considered name calling

 

[Vidi]

Wrong.

While I agree with every part of my being that murder and theft are inherently bad - a truth, not subjective - I'm trying to move the discussion beyond that.

Again, a bit off topic, in almost every culture and even almost all micro-societies, there are common taboos. Somethings are just inherently bad.

Anyway........

The simplest way to do that, I think is concede that the basis for our law (the constitution) and all the rights contained therein might well be subjective. That is meaningless to the original point IMHO. If we take law as based off that then the law is NOT subjective beyond the original basis. IOW, the right to life might be subjective BUT laws against murder are not if we take the original right as a given.

Again I would disagree. The right as a given is still a value based concept thus subjective.

I would say that to get beyond it, the hypothesis should accept that laws are subjective but application of law can be and should be objective.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There will always be conflict between governments’ efforts to enact legislation both necessary and proper and the individual's right to liberty; and for the most part this is a desirable aspect of a free society.

It is incumbent upon government to enact legislation it believes in good faith to be Constitutional, and it is presumed to be such until determined otherwise in a court of law.

It is likewise incumbent upon each citizen to push back against government excess and compel the state to justify a given measure, that an actual and legitimate governmental interest exists, and require the state to objectively document its rationale.

The legislation passed concerning military funerals, for example, was as much political pandering as ‘feel good legislation,’ if not more so.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

The government isn’t ‘seizing the business,’ the CPSC, part of the Executive Branch, filed an administrative complaint seeking the product not be sold because of possible health risks:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12234.pdf

Nor is the CPSC violating the Constitution, as the complaint was filed pursuant to Federal law, as cited. The company in question will have ample opportunity to defend its position during the complaint process.