Legislating morality

[marksman]

Law is a public expression and enforcement of the lawmakers' morality. Even libertarians are enforcing their morality through the law, even if they believe their morality is rationally based.

 

[Admiral]

Are you against all forms of property ownership?

Sorry, I didn't make my views clear- I was vastly oversimplifying.

I'm absolutely in favor of property ownership. I feel that each person has has a right to property, along with rights to liberty, to privacy, etc. The government should protect these rights, and prevent other people from infringing on them.

How can that not happen? Unless no rule can be made without 100% consent then there will always be a minority—even if it is a minority of 1—in disagreement that has majority preferences forced onto it.

The ONLY case when government should be allowed to pass laws is if they are meant to protect people's individual rights. If the minority you're referring to is people who think murder should be illegal, than, absolutely, they shouldn't be allowed to prevent muder being legal. However, in the case of prostitution, it's simply a minority of people who aren't hurting anyone that the majority is imposing their values onto.

Do you support freedom of speech? If you do, then you agree in theory that even if a law is popular and arises from a democratic process, it shouldn't necessarily be passed. I'd support adding a lot more similar rules meant to limit the power of the government.

The alternative appears to be no laws at all.

Strawman. For some reason, every time I get into an argument like this, the other side jumps to "Then why have government at all?" I NEVER supported anarchism. As I said, laws should be passed to protect our individual rights. That includes pretty much any kind of crime that has a victim.

And in that situation the power vacuum (nobody controlling anyone else's decisions) would hardly stay a vacuum. The result would simply be informal force exercised by some onto others against their will. I contest that this "power" you refer to—if democratically dispensed—is indeed a "good" power.

Just being democratically dispensed isn't enough, if it isn't accompanied by limits to the government's power. Suppose 60% of the country wants to impose a state religion. You obviously wouldn't support it, and would probably point to the First Amendment (as you should). But if the government got to do whatever the majoritarian opinion was, they wouldn't have a problem imposing a state religion.

This occurs whenever "one person = one vote" is corrupted into "one [currency unit] = one vote". It is usually a subversion of democratically-inspired legislation and to oppose it is to oppose corrupt government, not to oppose government which is not intended to embody such corruption. And of course, money is not the only means of corrupting legislation.

Right! You agree that there are many ways to corrupt legislation!

The reason corporations donate and lobby is that the government has so much power in the economic system. Corporate and agricultural subsidies, for example- what right does government have to take our money and use it to bail out airlines and oil companies, or subsidize crops that no one wants? As soon as the government is able to give handouts to oil companies and farming unions, those organizations start doing everything they can to bribe politicians.

If you got rid of pork (legislation meant to "stimulate the economy" that sends money straight to corporations), as well as anti-trust legislation (which is usually used by monopolies to break up their competitors rather than the other way around- the market pretty much never supports a monopoly unless the government backs it up with force) we wouldn't have to worry about corporations bribing politicians.

I think the de-facto answer is that "government powers (in equilibrium) are limited to what the majority of the people want them to be limited to" in general—but there are many exceptions I guess.

Right. I don't feel that the government should be allowed to pass the Patriot Act whether it is popular or not.

Think about this- Jim Crow laws were passed democratically (although, admittedly, only after democratically passing laws disenfranchising the blacks). Just because a majority thinks government should be allowed to segregate, and back it up with force, doesn't mean that we should let government do it.

I think your problem is that you still don't see who gets to decide what the limitations are. In the end, it does have to fall to a system of checks and balances to determine where to draw the line. However, government HAS to be run by laws, not men. We should impose further amendments to the Constitution that limit the government's power to infringe upon our rights, (that is, make laws against drug use and other victimless crimes unconstitutional) and give the Supreme Court the obligation to keep the government from violatng these principles.

(By the way, my arguments are very focused on American politics- I don't mean to assume that you're American, since I don't know.)

 

[Francesca R]

(By the way, my arguments are very focused on American politics- I don't mean to assume that you're American, since I don't know.)

I'm not American.

Do you support freedom of speech? If you do, then you agree in theory that even if a law is popular and arises from a democratic process, it shouldn't necessarily be passed. I'd support adding a lot more similar rules meant to limit the power of the government.

It sounds like you want "small government" but large "government of government". Setting aside your constitution and its mechanics, who governs the government? An independent judicuary? Who are they accountable to?

Strawman. For some reason, every time I get into an argument like this, the other side jumps to "Then why have government at all?" I NEVER supported anarchism. As I said, laws should be passed to protect our individual rights.

Merely devil's advocate. Who decides what the rights are? Assume you do not have some god-like "founding fathers" who decided all that for everybody long ago and set it in stone.

I think your problem is that you still don't see who gets to decide what the limitations are. In the end, it does have to fall to a system of checks and balances to determine where to draw the line.

A system arranged and controlled by whom?

 

[billydkid]

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children). From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.
.

I will have to think about this and get back to you. I think the answer is simple (by which I mean, there is a reason to outlaw it from a libertarian perspective) but I just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Admiral]

I'm not American.

Which is why I asked- I'll try to focus less on complaining about American government specifically.

It sounds like you want "small government" but large "government of government". Setting aside your constitution and its mechanics, who governs the government? An independent judicuary? Who are they accountable to?

I'd support the current American system of checks and balances myself (where the judiciary is appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch). This way, no one individual, or even one group, can use government purely to their own ends (needless to say, I'd support adding some more checks and balances to the system).

If you have an idea for a better system, I'd really be happy to hear it.

Merely devil's advocate. Who decides what the rights are? Assume you do not have some god-like "founding fathers" who decided all that for everybody long ago and set it in stone.

Winston Churchill once said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." In no way am I suggesting that a libertarian government would be anywhere near perfect- there's always a balance between what the people want and what individual rights have to be, and it's impossible to resolve it by democratic means (you can't take a vote on how much majority rule should matter any more than you can allow a king to decide how extensive his powers are).

A system arranged and controlled by whom?

Yeah, I see what you're going towards. I don't have an answer.

However, you're still not addressing the fact that a government based on such principles (being limited, that is) would allow for much greater individual freedom, and would limit the possibility of tyranny or of the majority imposing their will on the minority.

 

[Beerina]

Universal morality? Does such a thing even exist? Even the definition of "murder" is not universal.

That some culture feels it's ok for them to murder me does not make it ok for them to murder me. Is your existence conditional, philosophically, on the approval of others? How did they get this power, and why did you let them?

 

[Art Vandelay]

But WHY? I agree that they cannot, but I think the only justification for why they cannot is ultimately a moral one. After all, parents can grant consent for most other actions that children cannot consent to themselves. What's special about sex?[/quoite]Disease, pregnancy, social stigma, emotional involvement.

How can it be, if they and their parents were to consent to it? The only out I see is for some right to be asserted on moral, not libertarian, grounds. And I'm OK with that.

What do you mean by "moral, rather than libertarian"? Do you belieive that having sex with a child is a violation of that child's rights? If so, then there is a libertarian justification.

 

[Ziggurat]

Disease, pregnancy, social stigma, emotional involvement.

Disease is just as much an issue with surgery. Pregnancy is irrelevant to pre-pubescent children. Social stigma and emotional involvement? Those only matter to the extent that you're making a moral judgment of their value or importance - I've never seen a libertarian appeal to them before. Certainly social stigma is discarded as being relevant whenever legalization of recreational drugs is discussed.

What do you mean by "moral, rather than libertarian"? Do you belieive that having sex with a child is a violation of that child's rights? If so, then there is a libertarian justification.

I don't think you can define a right of the child that is being violated (in the absence of force or undue coercion) without justifying that right on moral grounds. I don't think it's classically libertarian because you can't define a freedom of the child that is infringed upon (the standard method to define rights without resorting to moral justifications). If you want to call it libertarian nonetheless because you think there's still a right being violated, that's fine, I really don't care about the semantics. But it's still legislating morality. And I think it's a good thing, too. Conceeding that we should legislate some morality does not require that we try to legislate all moral issues.

 

[Francesca R]

Which is why I asked- I'll try to focus less on complaining about American government specifically.

I'd support the current American system of checks and balances myself [ . . . ] If you have an idea for a better system, I'd really be happy to hear it.

Hmm, . . . doesn't sound like you are complaining too loudly after all.

I don't have any great ideas for a better system. Some say that separation of power between executive and legislative achieves little beyond policy stasis (hence proponents of the "Westminster System"). Others point out that a judicial body appointed by legislature and executive isn't independent. Still others think that unelected judges are simply unaccountable. All three branches of power are open to corruption and coercion.

But in general I suspect that "limiting powers of government" by sharing it out to other bodies/guardians is no manna from heaven and has associated costs.

Before you ask, I am no more in favour of giving supreme power to "the king" than you are of devolving it completely into anarchy. I have not figured out the optimal balance is all. I am not convinced that you (the US) need more separation than currently though.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Social stigma and emotional involvement? Those only matter to the extent that you're making a moral judgment of their value or importance - I've never seen a libertarian appeal to them before.

They cause damage to the child. I don't see how that's a matter of judgment.

Certainly social stigma is discarded as being relevant whenever legalization of recreational drugs is discussed.

I haven't seen many libertarians suggesting that there should be no restrictions of recreational drug use among children. And the social stigma is hardly the same.

I don't think that sexual contact is, as you say, a case of truly separate standards. If someone can demonstrate a clear reason why a child's health requires that they put something up the child's rectum, then it would legal. If they're doing just because they want to, that's illegal. If there is a clear health reason for an operation, then it's legal. If there isn't, then a parent can't give consent.

 

[Ziggurat]

They cause damage to the child. I don't see how that's a matter of judgment.

Oh, but it IS a matter of judgment. I happen to think it's CORRECT judgment, but it's a judgment nonetheless. After all, WHY is it damage to them? It isn't physical damage which is at risk here (after all, we let kids play sports), if they and their parents consent it's not an infringement on their liberties, so what's the damage? It's only an emotional one, but it can only be called damage if we make a moral judgment that one state of the child's emotions is preferable to another.

You're fighting tooth and nail to come up with a justification for why you're not doing what you really are doing: making a moral judgment. And I'm not sure why, because it's not like the fact that it's a moral judgment somehow means you have to stop making it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It's only an emotional one, but it can only be called damage if we make a moral judgment that one state of the child's emotions is preferable to another.

By that logic, saying that having a nonbroken arm is better than a broken arm is just a moral judgment.

You're fighting tooth and nail to come up with a justification for why you're not doing what you really are doing: making a moral judgment.

I wouldn't say that I'm fighting "tooth and nail". And as for whether it's a moral judgment, yes, in a sense it is. But I think that to say that it's a moral judgment in the sense that is meant in this thread is an equivocation.