>> Again, this is all about line drawing, because no right is unlimited. I understand libertarians prefer to draw the line widely to allow as much liberty as possible.
I do not consider myself a libertarian ... I’ve never voted libertarian, and I won’t vote libertarian. Libertarianism is as wrong as authoritarianism. I am a conservative - I am well aware that liberties have limits ... this just isn’t one of them.
>> I believe laws should be drawn tighter around those things that are cultural negatives, like alcohol and porn.
Around those things that you deem “cultural negatives” ... and therein lies the problem.
- What happens when evangelism or organized religion is considered a “cultural negative” by Michael Newdow and his ilk? Would we draw tighter lines around Christians?
- What happens when smoking, even in private, is deemed a “cultural negative”? Tighter lines around smokers?
- What happens when gas-guzzling cars are deemed a “cultural negative” by environmental wackos because of contributions to global warming? Tigher lines around SUV-drivers?
- What happens when spanking and disciplining your own children is deemed a “cultural negative”? Tighter lines around parents?
- What happens when eating meat is deemed a “cultural negative” by evangelical vegans and PETA? Tighter lines around carnivores?
- What happens when fatty foods are deemed a “cultural negative” because obesity costs the healthcare industry money? Tighter lines around fatty food?
Pretty soon - you’ve got pretty tight lines around everybody, in areas where the government was never intended to draw ANY lines. And few will remain free to live as they choose.
You have no more right to define what is and is not a “cultural negative” than Newdow, PETA, anti-smoking nazis, environmental wackos, or the anti-spanking crowd.
When you allow the legislation of moral values, you leave open the possibility that the majority will adopt a skewed view of morality, and outlaw something that you believe you have the right to do (whether that be drive an SUV, eat meat, practice Christianity, discipline your child, or view pornography).
>> Most citizens probably wouldn’t want to go that far, but I bet majorities would support greater restrictions on what can be depicted and/or distributed.
That’s the beauty of a right ... the majority is irrelevant. If Michael Newdow gets a majority to agree that Christians are a plague on society ... he cannot stop the practice of Christianity. And, if you get a majority to agree that they should limit the depictions of pornography ... you cannot legally stop pornographers from producing what they want.
>> They make it seem as though you can have sex with whoever (whatever) you want without risk to yourself or others. This is not truth. It’s a lie,
Agreed - that isn’t the truth. But, that still does not mean that the government can regulate the sexual activities of the citizenry. Pre-marital and Extra-marital sex is a HUGE problem ... but policing it isn’t among the mandates of a government. Liberty inherently includes the liberty to screw up your own life ... to make your own decisions, and succeed or fail on your own merits.
>> I would be very cold hearted and irresponsible if I ignored the obvious harm done to others. As I’ve stated before, some mistakes are so terribly bad they last a lifetime.
Government isn’t about “heart” ... its about the law. You seem to believe that the government has the power to save people from their own mistakes. It doesn’t. People will make mistakes, and people will ruin their lives with poor decisions stacked upon poorer decisions. You can’t legislate away stupidity or irresponsibility.
And, people like you and I are free to help them out (to the extent that they want help) ... help guide their decisions, evangelize, teach them about Christ, counsel them, or just listen to them. Whatever.
This is NOT the government’s responsibility - it is the responsibility of each individual. The government is not a caretaker of each individual citizen ... citizens must care for themselves and those around them (again, to the extent that help is welcomed). The government has no authority to become a caretaker, particularly if its “care” is forced on people that would not welcome it.
Also - I must object to the suggestion that the viewing of pornographic materials necessarily ruins lives. Many (if not all) responsible, well-adjusted, family-values centered Christians have viewed pornographic material at some point in their lives - some regularly - and they remain functional well-adjusted God-fearing citizens.
>> You see, it isn’t as simple as letting everyone do their own thing so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, because someone has to decide what “harm” is.
Basically, in simplified legal terms, “harm” is an intrusion on the “life, liberty, and property” of another citizen.
>> While I’ll be the first to admit our society overly regulates behavior in many areas, like helmet laws or smoking bans, porn isn’t one of them.
Oh - I get it. You’re OK with the government over-regulating behavior ... just as long as its on your approved list (i.e. porn ban is fine, but not a smoking ban, helmet law, seat belt law, etc.).
You’re glaringly inconsistent in your application of the law here. Either the government has the authority to regulate “cultural negatives” or it doesn’t - the authority to regulate “cultural negatives” cannot be cherry-picked to fit only those “cultural negatives” that you approve.
Over-regulation is over-regulation. The government has limited powers, and a limited mandate of authority to act. Any overstep of those limits is an act of over-regulation, regardless of whether I morally approve or disapprove of the target of that regulation.
H
Hemorrhage wrote: “Around those things that you deem “cultural negatives” ... and therein lies the problem.”
No, around those things that a majority of Americans deem cultural negatives. I’m powerless to set public policy by myself, although I’d certainly consider it if you want to make me dictator for life. I promise to be a benevolent one.
Seriously, you appear to concede the issue on whether or not lines can be drawn. We agree. They can and are drawn every day. Therefore, the only remaining point of contention is where the lines SHOULD be drawn.
I think we also agree personal liberty is an important right, but it’s not an unlimited one. While I disagree with smoking bans, for example, they ARE legal.
I enjoyed the debate but it appears we’ve narrowed it down to the bare essentials. Unless you’re willing to concede porn should be more tightly restricted, further debate accomplishes little.
Thank you.
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” —Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” — C. S. Lewis