tpaine, there is no way to "mandate virtue" through prohibitionary laws. As I said, virtue cannot be compelled. Prohibitionary laws aren't really about mandating virtue any way, they are attempts at constraining behavior that usually prove to be counterproductive in practice. I don't think they foster contempt for the social order, though they may foster contempt for the law.
Plato's word for law was nomos, or customary law. Nomos is settled law that has been "time-tested" over the generations in a given society, to which the people give their ready assent because there is broad social consensus that the law secures the ends for which it is intended.
Nomos is thus rather the polar opposite of positive law, the itch to pass legislation to "correct" perceived problems on an ad hoc basis. (You got a problem? Well, we'll just pass a new law that will "fix it.")
A wise legislator understands that law making should be done sparingly, for it tends to disrupt the settled ways of the people, and "too many laws" or law that constantly changes tends to increase uncertainty and unpredictability in social life, and thereby may result in the people developing sentiments of contempt for the law and the lawmaker alike.
IMHO, legislation should be used very, very sparingly. It seems to me laws ought not to be regarded as instant fixes for each and every perceived social problem that comes down the pike. Rather, the law should provide for the basic security of individuals and, for the rest of it, just leave the people alone to handle their own affairs as they see fit. Virtue actually has a better chance of developing under nomos than it does under positive law, for more decisions are left to the people, and there is strong incentive to choose and act rightly when people aren't protected from the consequences of their own free choices. FWIW.
In a nutshell, I have a strong distaste for prohibitionary-type law. I don't think such law helps much, and paradoxically in most cases it tends to increase the very thing it seeks to constrain. Again, FWIW.
JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt. 1024 -BB-
In effect, the belief that we ~must~ control mans "virtue" is one if the prime reasons that even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order.
History shows that mandating virtue through prohibitionary laws foster contempt for social order. 1,097 -tpaine-
tpaine, there is no way to "mandate virtue" through prohibitionary laws.
At 1024 you commented that you believe that people who hold virtue in contempt cannot maintain a decent, just social order..
-- I then observed at 1097 that this type of belief fosters attempts to mandate virtue through prohibitionary laws which lead to contempt for social order, as we can see from booze & drug prohibtions.
As I said, virtue cannot be compelled. Prohibitionary laws aren't really about mandating virtue any way, they are attempts at constraining behavior that usually prove to be counterproductive in practice. I don't think they foster contempt for the social order, though they may foster contempt for the law.
Good.. In effect, you repudiate your belief of 1024 that "Plato was right". Thanks.