Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MinnesotaLibertarian
I think you need to read what I said more carefully. I said that society will define morals, not government.

Liberaltarians have a fundamental disconnect when it comes to understanding who society is versus who the government is. We are the government--at least, we're supposed to be. The morals of the government are supposed to reflect the morals of society. If you're saying that our society is immoral, therefore we'll have immoral government, I would agree with you. But I wouldn't for a second say that this is a *good* thing or that we shouldn't fight against it with every last ounce of strength.

Your attitude seems to be one of surrender. "I can't stop it, so why bother trying?" Worse, you're trying to convince others to be similarly apathetic.

Personally, I think that attitude stinks.

I may or may not read your agitprop later; I’m at work right now, so I may not want to open something with “graphic contents”.

Don't read it. I wouldn't want to shake you out of your apathy.
103 posted on 07/18/2008 12:50:52 PM PDT by Antoninus (Every second spent bashing McCain is time that could be spent helping Conservatives downticket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: Antoninus
Morality is defined by society, and government is also controlled by society. That's why in most cases, government policy reflects majority opinion. For example, nearly everybody is against murder, so that's banned without question. Issues like homosexuality are not defined by such an overwhelming, exact public opinion. That's why they become controversial.

Yes, you can pass laws banning gay marriage or sodomy or whatever else, but that also leaves open the power for people to pass laws sanctioning it. If the voters of California approve of gay marriage, then who are you to trample upon their right to do so?

On personal, family, and religious issues like this, there will likely never be a public consensus. If government didn't insist on getting involved where it doesn't belong (health care, education, etc.) it would be irrelevant. Government policy in areas like this will always be highly controversial and leave a substantial portion of the population angry. I don't see a need for government to set family policy in the first place, so let's do the smart thing and keep the government out.

105 posted on 07/18/2008 1:13:56 PM PDT by MinnesotaLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson