Well, first of all, Lincoln wasn't one of the Founders. But I'm not arguing here for or against the drug war. If it can be demonstrated that ending the drug war is better for social order than prosecuting the drug war, then conservatives should call to end it. The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.
Then you believe that the Government is the sole source of morality, and that people are unable to teach proper behavior in their own homes, or that private schools are unable to teach good ethics? Once again, this is the mindset of the Socialist, not the Conversative. Do you think yourself that bad a parent that you must surrender the reigns of control over your childs development to The Federal State?
Laws are merely there to protect individual rights. Do you speed? Obviously speeding laws don't teach people speeding is wrong. Parents teaching their kids the possible conseqeuences of speeding does. Do you think that hate-crime laws alone teach people hate crimes are wrong? So you think a Neo-Nazi isn't going to vandalize a synagogue merely because there is a law against it? What is so magically specially about marijuana, for instance, that makes doing it "wrong", while alcohol is "right". Is marijuana bad merely because it's illegal? Is it illegal because it's bad? Where does the circular logic end? Alcohol was illegal once. Was the point of that law to teach people alcohol is bad? When the law was lifted, and alcohol was relegalized, did it suddenly become good? What magical event took place that changed alcohol from "good" to "bad" to "good" again?
I'm just making the broader point that we live in a culture, and we have a right, as a society, to prohibit behaviors that are corrosive to order, such as bigamy, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography,etc.
Please define "society" Please tell me where "society" lives. The Government is not design to arbitrate morality. It is merely a tool to protect the inaliable rights as endowed by our creator. Certainly, states have the rights to pass anti-homosexuality laws, and the like, but it seems folly to me. If you don't want your children engaging in certain "victimless behaviors", then you need to teach them your own damn self, intead of expecting the Government to take over for you. Thats the problem with this country. Too many people expect the Government to raise their kids for them, so as we get more and more towards Socialism, personal responsibility is DISCOURAGED. After all, Mommy and Daddy Federal Government will clean the mess up.
Certainly, States have the right to pass the laws they want. While I don't approve of some of the laws, I would rather see the States handling the issue. That makes it easier to either move to a State that is governed to my liking, or makes it easier to campaign to get the laws changed.
posted on 07/31/2002 10:31:04 AM PDT
I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. The Federal government doesn't have a right to do much of what it does. But if you're arguing that the state governments don't have an interest in outlawing certain anti-social behaviors, then are you for:
Public displays of bestiality? Polygamy? I support the Second Amendment, but what about private ownership of anthrax? That's a weapon.
Libertarians always hit the reduction to absurdity at some point with maximalist freedom. I think you would agree with me that at some point government has to regulate people's behaviors. But what standard do we use?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson