Posted on 09/27/2003 8:46:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator
Edited on 09/27/2003 9:33:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Man is cannot be free to value the ends contrary to the common good because he has invariably benefited from the common good, indeed he cannot live without it, and as a result he is obliged to serve it.
An unworkable system in the modern world, where the resources of any given city are insufficent to overcome the various security and infrastructural challanges that come with modernity.
False---that's like saying that since my neighbors benefited from my painting my house I can force them to help me pay for the paint.
No, but in a lot of communities they are forced to reciprocate and repaint their house every few years, giving you the same benefit you give to them by keeping your house looking good.
Community maintenance standards imposed by local governments, whereby residents are required to keep their properties at a certain aesthetic standard, are common throughout the country and an excellent illustration of communities forcing individuals to serve the common good. Thank you for bringing it up.
They are nothing of the sort; inflicting on others the sight of an eyesore property is a violation of their rights. Inflicting on others the sight of a drunk or drug-stupefied person is equally a violation of their rights, and I support laws against public intoxication---but what goes on behind a person's closed doors and drawn blinds is none of the community's business.
False---that's like saying that since my neighbors benefited from my painting my house I can force them to help me pay for the paint.
in a lot of communities they are forced to reciprocate and repaint their house every few years, giving you the same benefit you give to them
If I paint my house more often than that law requires, I may further benefit my neighbors but they are nonetheless not obliged to recompense me in any way.
Such standards do more than merely prevent eysore property, often mandating that properties conform to certain architural styles, that they have a certain amount of beautifying characteristics, such as flowers planted in front, that they look genuinely beautiful, and not just tolerable. Such standards usually go way beyond merely proctecting your right not to have to look at an eyesore.
but what goes on behind a person's closed doors and drawn blinds is none of the community's business.
Of course it is, because no vice is purely private. Let's go through some example. Drug use leads to a degredation in the labor pool, which makes everyone in the community poorer, even those who do not partake.
Sodomy with large numbers of anonymous partners, as took place in the 1970's and early 1980's (which mostly took place on private property, BTW), leads to epidemics which puts everyone in the community at greater risk of disease. The public health officials who failed to close down the privately owned bathhouses and sex clubs and conduct mandatory testing and contact tracing when AIDS first broke out literally have blood on their hands.
Cultural promotion of promiscuity leads to the social acceptability of extra-marital sex, which leads to more out-of-wedlock births, which leads to more children raised in single-parent homes, which leads to a higher crime, also affecting everyone.
All private vice affects the community. That is why the community has the legitmate power to crack down on it when it is prudent.
Legally, no. Morally, yes. The degree to which the state wishes to enforce peoples' obligations to the common good is a matter of prudence. Sometimes, as in this case, such enforcement is not practical. In other instances, it is.
Oftentimes, such enforcement is not even necessary. In your example, the guy who keeps his house looking better than everybody else is often repaid by being the most popular guy on the block, or by everyone else holding him in greater esteem. There are other ways of showing gratitude besides the payment of money.
In another cirumstance, if enough people in the neighborhood decide they want to raise the standard and require repainting more often, they have the ability to force those who do not wish to repaint more often to do so. This also happens in the real world.
I dispute your claim; I have lived in several different states and never been subject to the sort of regulation you describe.
but what goes on behind a person's closed doors and drawn blinds is none of the community's business.
Of course it is, because no vice is purely private. Let's go through some example. Drug use leads to a degredation in the labor pool, which makes everyone in the community poorer, even those who do not partake.
Nobody has a "right" to Joe's economic productivity. If he chooses to use drugs---or stay up late---or do the bare minimum at work, that is nobody's business but his (excepting his employer's right to fire him).
Sodomy with large numbers of anonymous partners, as took place in the 1970's and early 1980's (which mostly took place on private property, BTW), leads to epidemics
Rubbish---how many people were infected in this "epidemic"?
Cultural promotion of promiscuity leads to the social acceptability of extra-marital sex, which leads to more out-of-wedlock births, which leads to more children raised in single-parent homes, which leads to a higher crime, also affecting everyone.
By this logic, suppressing "cultural promotion of promiscuity" is less justified than preemptively arresting all children from single homes, since they are causally closer to the higher crime.
Legally, no. Morally, yes.
Exactly my point---keep government coercion out of it.
POPPYCOCK!
The so-called "communal nature of man", much touted by communism, has been a dismal failure as a base for government..
Attempting to say its an error of philosophy for libertarians to 'ignore' it is nonsense..
--- Most here actively oppose communitarian efforts to restrict individual freedoms under our republican form of government.
You've shown yourself to be just another socialist troll, wrapping yourself in a conservative banner in order to bash libertarians, & disrupt FR.
-- I'm surprised you've kept such a low profile to date.
LOL. Every functioning government in the history of mankind has recognized that man has obligations to his community, including our government, from its begining.
Not at issue. I said:
The so-called "communal nature of man", much touted by communism, has been a dismal failure as a base for government..
Recognizing the importance of community does not make one a communist.
Again, not at issue. You're not very adept at logical argument, are you?
-----------------------------------
--- Most here actively oppose communitarian efforts to restrict individual freedoms under our republican form of government.
That's a downright lie.
That's an idiotic denial of conservative principle.
Freepers, like the vast majority of convservatives, believe it is perfectly legitimate for the government to outlaw prostitution, restrict access to pornography, and close to half support the drugwar.
States can reasonably restrict/regulate most public activites. They have no power to outlaw non-violent consensual 'sinful activities'.
---------------------------------
You've shown yourself to be just another socialist troll, wrapping yourself in a conservative banner in order to bash libertarians, & disrupt FR.
Ah yes, anyone who's not a libertarian is a socialist, the ever present epithet libertarians love to throw at anyone who disagrees with them. You have some maturing to do, I see. Most libertarians are as obcessed with their system and ideology as are the left. Libertarians are the right's equivalent to the Utopian Socialists.
Bash away... You're only making your communitarian agenda more evident.
Of course it is, because no vice is purely private. Let's go through some example.
Drug use leads to a degredation in the labor pool, which makes everyone in the community poorer, even those who do not partake.
Sodomy with large numbers of anonymous partners, as took place in the 1970's and early 1980's (which mostly took place on private property, BTW), leads to epidemics which puts everyone in the community at greater risk of disease. The public health officials who failed to close down the privately owned bathhouses and sex clubs and conduct mandatory testing and contact tracing when AIDS first broke out literally have blood on their hands.
Cultural promotion of promiscuity leads to the social acceptability of extra-marital sex, which leads to more out-of-wedlock births, which leads to more children raised in single-parent homes, which leads to a higher crime, also affecting everyone.
All private vice affects the community. That is why the community has the legitmate power to crack down on it when it is prudent.
**********************************
Well done Leroy. --You've gotten our boyo to expose his communitarian/socialistic/authoritarian stripe to the core.
His version of "community" is a police state.
It depends on the community, and how important aesthetics are to the common good. For some communities it is of great importance, for others little. If you want an example of very rigid aesthetic regulations, look at historic districts in NYC. It is not the city that imposes these regulations, but associations made up of local residents in a given neighborhood.
Nobody has a "right" to Joe's economic productivity. If he chooses to use drugs---or stay up late---or do the bare minimum at work, that is nobody's business but his (excepting his employer's right to fire him).
A textbook example of question-begging.
Suppose Joe becomes drug-addicted. Let's look what happens even in an ideal world with no welfare state. He can't work to support himself. He gets evicted from his apartment, which costs the landlord money that Joe cannot repay (the landlord has to pay to dispose of Joe's furniture, to have it moved out, put in an ad for another tenant, etc). Joe lives on the street, which causes an eyesore to anyone who passes by him. So he gets arrested, which means he gets to live in jail on taxpayer money.
Now suppose Joe has children. He can't support them. Unless you plan on letting his children starve, they become public charges.
Joe's lack of a paycheck means the taxbase is shrunk, which means that everyone else has to pay more money for the essential government services that even libertarians agree are necessary (police, fire department, courts, jails, etc.) And this happens all the while Joe has increased his use of government services.
Suppose Joe had worked regularly at a given business, and was an integral part of the team. His loss leads to lowered productivity in the business, which further shrinks the tax base, hurts the productivity, and therefore the pay of his coworkers, reduces the profitablity of the business, and maybe even leads to higher prices for consumers.
In short, the whole community suffers from Joe's drug habit. That is why the community has a right to keep him from doing drugs.
Rubbish---how many people were infected in this "epidemic"?
About 300,000 were killed. Because we don't have mandatory testing, reporting, and contact tracing, as was done with heterosexual STD epidemics, we cannot know the number infected, but the CDC estimates it to be around 1 million.
You are absolutely right that AIDS was never a general epidemic, but it was an epidemic among certain risk groups: hemopheliacs, sodomites, and IV drug users. Still, for a time in the early 80's, it did substantially increase the risk to other segments of the population. A substantial number of people got it from blood transfusions, medical and dental accidents, and the like.
By this logic, suppressing "cultural promotion of promiscuity" is less justified than preemptively arresting all children from single homes, since they are causally closer to the higher crime.
Nonsense. Preemptivly arresting the children would be punishing them for something which is beyond their control, which is unjust. Shutting down and fining smut peddlers punishes them for actions they actually took.
It depends on the community
I don't doubt that SOME communities have laws as rigid as you describe; but it seems clear to me that such communities are the exception. I also maintain that such communities are violating the rights of their members.
Nobody has a "right" to Joe's economic productivity. If he chooses to use drugs---or stay up late---or do the bare minimum at work, that is nobody's business but his (excepting his employer's right to fire him).
A textbook example of question-begging. [...]
No, that would be your reply. You prove at great length what I have already conceded: Joe's actions may make his community less well off than it would have been had he acted differently. Unless you want to maintain that Joe also has no right to stay up late, drink alcohol, etc., the fact we have agreed on in no way proves that he has no right to use drugs.
You are absolutely right that AIDS was never a general epidemic, but it was an epidemic among certain risk groups: hemopheliacs, sodomites, and IV drug users. Still, for a time in the early 80's, it did substantially increase the risk to other segments of the population. A substantial number of people got it from blood transfusions, medical and dental accidents, and the like.
Even by the utilitarian ethic you seem to propose, I think these few cases do not justify broad bans on sodomy or IV use. And I do not accept the planted axiom that the rights of non-infection-spreading sodomites or IV users may be restricted because of the harm that other sodomites and IV users cause.
Preemptivly arresting the children would be punishing them for something which is beyond their control, which is unjust. Shutting down and fining smut peddlers punishes them for actions they actually took.
So we'd be within our rights to arrest the single mothers for the actions they actually took?
Brilliant argument. I'm sure you'll sway a lot of people to your position with that one < /s>
On what basis?
Unless you want to maintain that Joe also has no right to stay up late, drink alcohol, etc.,
There is no right to vice. Staying up late and drinking alcohol are not vicious in and of themselves, so one does have a right to do these things provide they are not done in a vicious manner. Use of addictive and harmful drugs for non-medical purposes is inherently vicious, as is drinking to excess, as is goofing off all night to the extent that it interferes with one's ability to be a productive member of society.
The very reason why there is no right to vice is because vice harms the community. Now it is not prudent to restrict all private vices, but it is prudent to restrict some.
I think these few cases do not justify broad bans on sodomy or IV use.
First of all, we're talking about up to a million cases, not just a few, and we're talking about hundreds of thousands of lives lost.
I agree with you about bans on sodomy.
I'm not suggesting that all homosexuals should be thrown in jail. The social costs of such an action would not justify it, though society would certainly be within its rights to do it. Any kind of sodomy, even if not with multiple anonymous partners, creates public health problems because sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act.
What I am suggesting is that bath houses and sodomite sex clubs which facilitated largescale sodomy with multiple anonymous partners should have been shut down, just as heterosexual sex clubs were shut down in the 1950's to control, succesfully, herpes outbreaks, just as swimming pools open to be public were shut down to contain polio, etc. I'm suggesting that mandatory HIV testing should be imposed on high-risk populations, as well as manadotry reporting of positive HIV tests to public health authorities, as well as contact tracing of the infected.
These are standard public health measures that have been used to control outbreaks since the begining of the 20th cenutry.
So we'd be within our rights to arrest the single mothers for the actions they actually took?
If doing so would benefit the common good, yes, but I think such measures would be counter-productive.
A better alternative would be to set up a network of homes for them, preferably funded by charitable contributions, like was done during the late 19th century. The girls would get childcare, support, and the ability to continue schooling, but in exchange they would have to submit to harsh discipline. If a girl refused to enter such a home, her child was taken away.
This system functioned quite well at containing illegitimacy.
Then by your standards, pre-New Deal, pre-prohibition America was a police state. I'm not suggesting any more regulation of private behavior than was routine in nearly every state before the 1920's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.