Posted on 08/07/2006 10:58:33 PM PDT by neverdem
"The right to be left alone," said Justice William O. Douglas, "is indeed the beginning of all freedom."
And regarding the authority of society over the freedom of the individual, where should the line be drawn? What's the right balance between individual independence and collective social control?
John Stuart Mill, arguably the most influential 19th-century British political writer, asked those questions in his most popular essay, On Liberty, published in 1859. Mill's position is that "the individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself."
Singer Billy Holiday, nearly a century later, said the same thing: "I never hurt nobody but myself and that's nobody's business but my own."
Individually or collectively, the sole end that justifies interfering with another's liberty is "self-protection," contends Mill. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
The problem is that the definition of "self-protection" can be quite elastic. Opponents of gay marriage, for instance, argue that they're protecting the institution of marriage. The Economist magazine, in contrast, editorially takes a position that's more in sync with Mill: "Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else?"
Citing infidelity and divorce rates, the Economist points out that the "weakening of the institution of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays." In point of fact, Massachusetts, home to same-sex marriages, has the nation's lowest divorce rate, with marriages coming apart at roughly half the rate as in the red and more born-again states...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"Massachusetts, home to same-sex marriages, has the nation's lowest divorce rate, with marriages coming apart at roughly half the rate as in the red and more born-again states..."
It truly brings shame to the church when "born again" Christians are indistinguishable from unbelievers. Is sin no longer sin? What part of "God hates divorce" or "go forth and sin no more" do Christians not understand? That isn't a call for anything less than total commitment in marriage!
In order to get divorced one first has to be married. People who shack up without getting married and then separate don't get included in the divorce statistics. Massachussetts has a low divorce rate precisely because it has a low marriage rate. It has high rates of never married singles. It also has the lowest birthrate in the US. Fertility rates are highly correlated with voting Republican. Ninety-seven of the one-hundred fastest growing counties were carried by George W. Bush in 2004.
IMHO, gov't enforced toleration, benefits and no quarantine.
"Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else?"
But it does harm others...it harms children, it sends at a minimum a wrong message and it may indeed be harmful to children to be raised by broken individuals.
Freedom of opinion is great. Are those opinions anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life? Freedom of actions are great. Are those actions anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-life?
Freedom is man's greatest concept. It is the only concept that buttresses the reality of life. Under its conceptual umbrella all other concepts are welcome.
Mill's thoughts are a millstone dragging on the mind of irrational thinkers.
Paleo Conservative wrote: "Massachussetts has a low divorce rate precisely because it has a low marriage rate."
Good point. According to the Bible, people who shack up are still spiritually married. I believe that's why Christ asked the prostitute about her five husbands. Can you imagine if the divorce statistics included all premarital unions that are marriages in God's eyes?
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.