Posted on 10/03/2010 6:22:52 PM PDT by neverdem
Well at least I read the article and got its point.
Of course government cannot cure all, and needs to stick to its Constitutionally-mandated duty. We, the people, control the government. No, you and I didn't personally vote for the current crop of crooks, but a majority supposedly did, and we're stuck amongst them. The gov't merely reflects us, collectively. At least, that's the way it was supposed to work. "We've given you a republic, if you can keep it." Can we? It's up to us, not the government, as you astutely observer.
No, the Constitution makes no mention of a specific religion or creed, but I think you would agree that all have an innate sense of morality written on their hearts, what you or I would call conscience, and that certain core tenets are codified into all religions, incl. atheism (which I regard as a religion, as I reject the religious/nonreligious dichotomy outright as fallacious).
It's complex, and we're not going to solve this puzzle in an evening's discussion. Let's agree on A) smaller government and B) there is a correlation between the morality of a people and their overall happiness.
Bingo. Libertarian indifference to homosexuality and gay marriage, “it won’t break my leg,” is indifference to the very fabric of civilization, the family. When that unravels, you have lost it all. Live and let live liberaltarians could care less. Liberaltarians rate only slightly higher than the Democrats, in my view.
“..Do Objectivists believe the government shouldn’t impose morality on people?
Objectivists believe the government can no more impose morality on people as it can impose gravity on people. If the government would simply protect us in our rights, then reality imposes morality on us. The bottom line is: If you don’t work, you starve...”
Which is where Objectivism falls down, the idea that a Govt can be neutral is absurd as all a Govt amounts to is a framework that is manned by people who have worldviews and opinions and educations that shape how they see their role inside that framework.
People are verbs, not nouns, what informs their worldview is the type of Governance the people receive.
As for Atheism and morality, no where is it written that Atheists cannot also be Ethical the two are not opposed to one another, however the experience of human history is the greatest oppressions happen under States that are self declared Atheistic.
A neighbor who is an atheist is no threat to anyone, a Govt that is Atheistic is a threat to everyone.
Actually, I am. Have a nice day.
Actually, I am. Have a nice day.
It's certainly appropriate that he doesn't call himself a conservative because he's obviously not.
” reality imposes morality on us”
Yep, that’s it. It’s how God set things up.
Follow His rules, you’ll have a much better chance of avoiding consequences.
The problem lies in Gen 3:3-4, where the serpent tells the human that there will be no consequences. We still see this today when the left insists that any of the natural consequences to which you refer have to be alleviated at others’ expense.
Our atheist FReepers certainly will disagree with this, unless they think about it for a while, but...
unless there is an unchanging, objective source of the definition of good and evil, right and wrong,
there is no “conservatism” as there are no unalienable natural rights.
Without that objective, unchanging source, moral values, indeed, even “ethics”, are just a matter of personal preference. And you can’t say someone else’s “morals” are “wrong” without a circular assumption that your standard is correct.
Basic English isn't your strong suit, is it.
Objectivists believe the government can no more impose morality on people as it can impose gravity on people.
Utter horsesh**. You just disagree with the morality an Objectivist or Libertarian government would impose. Geez, I really wish you leftists would just be honest for once.
L
So funny, that is actually a saying used by an Objectivistic writer.
And if you wrote complete thoughts there would be some basis for discussion, otherwise stick to crayons.
A stop sign is “imposing morality” through the government.
As a matter of fact, there is hardly any law that doesn’t “impose morality”.
I haven’t read the platform of the LP for many, many, years...so can’t tell you, nor I a member. Having said that, I am bothered by the party’s failure to take a stronger stand agaisnt Obama’s Wars.
Self described? I suppose. What is your point?
A small and limited government does not "impose morality." It enforces it. "Morality" is not created by government.
No, morality definitely is not created by government.
I’m curious, though, at your distinction between “enforcing” morality and “imposing” morality.
How would enforcing a standard not be imposing that standard on those who wish to violate that standard?
You could view it that way. The trouble is with the word "imposing" (at least to me) is that it implies that government is the source of morality. I prefer the word enforce because, IMHO, government is merely enforcing moral rules that are consistent with human nature and that most humans would observe even government did not exist.
Okee... looks like we’re on the same page.
Government is not the source of morality.
You say moral rules are “consistent with human nature”...
I say morality is “the law” that is written on our hearts, and our consciences either accuse or excuse us. (Rom 2:15)
We are pretty much on the same page.
BFL
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.