Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
EBUCK
Societal and cultural values should be avoided whenever possible in federal law. If you want laws that reflect the values of your society and culture, then pass them at the state and local level. When people start talking about needing something legislated at the federal level, they think they're going to get federal laws that reflect the values of the culture and society where they live. What they end up with instead are local laws that reflect the values of the culture and society inside the beltway.
Libertarians live and die on a platform of principles. If those principles are broken, even for what may appear to be very valid and sound reasons, then they really aren't priciples at all. Many of the worst laws today began as valid and sound exceptions to liberty and somehow, over time, morph into something that was originally totally unintended. The idea of unintended consequences is precisely what makes me a L(l)ibertarian. It may seem cold and heartless, but over time weaknesses are ALWAYS exploited.
Or is he actually taking the long and quiet way to saying that porn should be banned and criminalized? If so, where is the line? Obviously nekkid babies in the tup or on a bearskin shouldn't be illegal, nor should Victoria Secret catalogues. On the other side, is there any redeeming social value to exlicit films and pictures of hte most deviant acts known to man (and animal)? Who decides what is and isn't? Would fiction be included?
At what point do we arrest and jail people for nothing more than looking at dirty pictures and reading raunchy material?
Who can justify prosecuting someone because they "might" commit an illegal act because they possess pornography?
Decadence cannot be arrested by GOVERNMENT action; state action 'conserves' decadence.
If one replaces an 'evil' with a greater 'evil', where is the social gain?
Really, a soi-disant 'conservative' ought not to be so filled with hubris that he imagines that 'the right sort of people in charge' would fundamentally change a single particle of our societal distress.
If you want something killed or destroyed, government's an excellent tool.
Used for any other purpose, it still kills and destroys. I thought American conservatives knew that.
That era in history is a prime learning example for mankind. At least something positive came of it - a hard lesson learned.
Should we forget such a costly lesson because Godwin said so?
Censors should remember the roots of their ideology, who shared it, and what became of them. And I'm happy to help them.
Not to say it isn't so, but I am not personally aware of any increased popularity or accessibility of porno / violence (at least within the last few years) can anyone offer any empirical evidence to back this claim?
I agree. I used to think Bork was great, but I now tend to think he is dangerous. This paragraph sounds like something on the "drug warriors" here would write:
The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.'
And this is wrong? Bork is essentially saying that NO ONE has a right to view what someone else deems "bad".
But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories.
This is just scare tacticts. "I will be affected by those who are affected by the effects of movies, magazines or TV shows I don't like". Yeh sure. You are as affected as you allow yourself. Again, he claims he has a right to have people view only what he wants. Scary stuff.
As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .
That's stupid. You can move to where there is no smog, AND you can turn off the tv.
There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.
Oh, here goes "for the children". Their parents can do nothing about it? Where have we heard this before? I have heard parents claim that they can't stop their kids from going to cancun on sprin break. This is pathetic.
BUMP!
AB
If pictures of Nazis burning books bothers you, I'll see if I can find a picture of the Soviets burning them instead.
Or the Chinese,
Or the Vietnamese,
Or the Cambodians,
Or the Cubans.....
Unfortuately, many individuals (and libertarian critics) use the label as a shield for scandlous behavior and slothful lifestyles.
I can understand the desire to rid a community of certain vices. Those who support these ideas tend to believe that everyone or most that do what ever is being banned will do something to harm the community. They refuse to hold the individual responsible for their criminal actions, preferring to ban the means rather than the act. It is no different in principle than gun control advocates banning guns to stop crime.
Back in the 70's in my Army days, alcohol was banned in the barracks until a newly assigned First Sergeant made new rules: one bottle per person or one case per person, he who screws up gets in trouble, not everyone else. Yes, some people screwed up, but they were held accountable.
Booze in and of itself is neither good or bad. Leave those who use it responsibly alone and deal appropriately with those that abuse it.
Of course, my challenge is to persuade others that freedom means that people run their own lives and only lose priveledges or rights when they screw up, not because they "might".
I'll try to not use such a poignant example next time. My point wasn't that all censors are Nazis. It was to highlight externalities, an issue in the article, of censorship. Those externalities manifest themselves regardless of who practices censorship, be it us or the Germans.
The reason I used that photo was I've been where that burning occurred, so it was the first one to come to mind.
Needless to say, I don't put a whole lot of faith in the opinions of Bork.
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.