Legislating Morality

[uscitizen]

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?

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

 

[dblack]

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?

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Ah, yes....the whole EITHER/OR conundrum, for you "conservatives" (who prefer Life being as-convenient-as-possible....for you; no thinking, required).

Every "rule" must be a black-or-white response (with nooooooooo grays), to every moral-issue....just like The Middle East.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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

Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.

Then it has those pesky enumerations that apply to that clause. General welfare is not a license to do anything and no matter how people try and twist it. If what you are eluding is true, what the hell was the rest of the constitution for. They should have made it one line.

As I said, public need is asinine. Simple test: what rights do you violate of others when you do a line of blow? Answer: none. There is no basis to illegalize it unless you want to use 'general welfare' or 'public need.' When you go down that road you end up with asinine things like illegal alcohol and illegal drugs. Both asinine concepts.

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?

I don't think that is what the case actually stipulates but rather that it is an infringement upon your freedom of speech rights if you limit them solely on the basis that there are more of you together. Not only that, but I disagree that such limits make any sense whatsoever when not applied to all or that limits should be imposed by some arbitrary governmental agency as was don in that case. I agree with the ruling on those grounds and the fact that you are not going to get money out of politics in that manner. I prefer a method that I posted in another thread -

Corporations aren't a matter of just a bunch of people getting together. Investors, or owners, are given limited liability. In a libertarian world, corporations wouldn't exist. Each and every owner of them would share liability, with profit. When Manville Corp. lies, each and every owner (shareholder) would share equally with giving restitution of those who died because of asbestos exposure. No bankruptcy protection, until the entire pool of owners are bled to the point where 100% remedy is given to the victims.

That's not going to happen in a modern economy, anymore than zero safety net is going to happen. Capitalism/socialism are words, where what is needed is to find the optimal balance, that results in the greatest public good. I'm not into living on a collective subsistence farm anymore than I want to let big oil destroy our environment.

[quote[Make congressional/presidential pay permanent set at 100 percent until death but also make it illegal to ever, in any shape or form, earn money from any other source. Once a servant at that level, you would remain a servant.
[/quote]

I think you'll have a constitutional issue with that, especially the right to petition the government. It gets a bit blurry when we talk about lobbyists. They're essentially paid people, by third parties, to advocate positions. There, I find it reasonable to regulate, who and who can not participate as a paid advocate.

I think we're now pretty much in agreement on reproductive rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

 

[tinydancer]

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

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".​

okey dokey...........................

 

[uscitizen]

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.

What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?

Well some think immoral thing are those things that harm others.
Murder, rape, etc.
Anti nudity laws in the USA are morality based laws, but the act of being seen naked harms no one.
However we allow our children to go see the hunger game where humans are hunted by other humans and freddy kruger type movies, etc...

 

[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?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

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.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.

Hamilton was arguing with himself when he claimed this. Initially, when he was trying to get people to sign on to the new Constitution, he mocked the idea that the general welfare clause implied a broad general power. He only switched to the line later, in the service of his formidable political ambitions. And at that, he failed. It wasn't until a century later that Hamilton's exploit was revived and (unfortunately) found traction

Regarding the OP - I think the problem lies in a vague and sloppy understanding of the meaning of political rights in the general public. People are mostly aware that the stated purpose of government is to protect our rights, but to them 'rights' are basically 'something good' - which is why they're prone to throwing forced morality into the mix. To them, the right to a moral society, or the right to be taken care of, are coherent concepts.

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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[dblack]

Ohh so only certain morals?

Like bare breasts on women?
Nudity?

those sure do grevious harm to those who see them.

What are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?

Well some think immoral thing are those things that harm others.
Murder, rape, etc.
Anti nudity laws in the USA are morality based laws, but the act of being seen naked harms no one.
However we allow our children to go see the hunger game where humans are hunted by other humans and freddy kruger type movies, etc...

I'm still trying to figure out what point you're trying to make regarding the OP. Are you arguing for or against legislating morality?

 

[code1211]

Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.



.

As the phrase "general welfare appears in the preamble, it might be interpreted as you demand.

However, it appears later in the Constitution and is then defined to apply only to the general welfare of the United States. Since the three entities cited in the document are the United States, the States and the People, it is clear what this means and the bastardization of the phrase is only a perversion arranged by those who transgressed later.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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

 

[code1211]

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

There's really no avoiding that.

The key is to determine at the outset what code of morality we are trying to uphold.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.

Hamilton was arguing with himself when he claimed this. Initially, when he was trying to get people to sign on to the new Constitution, he mocked the idea that the general welfare clause implied a broad general power. He only switched to the line later, in the service of his formidable political ambitions. And at that, he failed. It wasn't until a century later that Hamilton's exploit was revived and (unfortunately) found traction

Regarding the OP - I think the problem lies in a vague and sloppy understanding of the meaning of political rights in the general public. People are mostly aware that the stated purpose of government is to protect our rights, but to them 'rights' are basically 'something good' - which is why they're prone to throwing forced morality into the mix. To them, the right to a moral society, or the right to be taken care of, are coherent concepts.

....Driven (in my mind), primarily, by laziness.

Too-many people don't want to see other-peoples' understanding/version of "morality".....but, they DO insist everyone (else) accommodates their version....while they freely oversee their local-landscape.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHd6m_cirrU]Easy Rider on Freedom - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[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.

 

[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

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".​

Could you please, please, please just write the words and leave out the colors and bolding.