Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
But Lott would cite that position as a reason for more individual freedom. That's where he parts company with the likes of Sarah Brady and Robert Bork.
I prefer homebrew while funnin wit ya ; )
I see where he's coming from but I still disagree. There are only two ways to decide what 'rights' are; one is to allow the community to decide based on any number of subjective criteria and the other is to try to define them objectively. Letting the community decide is fine if you and your ideology are in the majority but its dangerous. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of militant homosexuals that believe your teaching your children to interpret the Bible literally has the "negative externality" of them getting bashed in back alleys. GOD forbid this view ever come to prominence or those of you who have already conceded that rights are based on the whim of the community (and thus have ceded the moral high ground) may find yourselves painted into a proverbial corner.
You might say this talk of objectivity is puffery, any system of rights will be subjective. But I say 'rights' are meaningless without at least a pretence of objectivity. If 'rights' are whatever the community subjectively determines them to be at any given time then 'rights' are merely 'permissions' which may be given or taken away at a whim. At least libertarians have tried to pin down what rights are, they say rights are X and then they are willing to defend that position. They've created a formula, call it the Non-Initiation of Force Principle or the Non-Aggression Axiom. You can plug a situation into one side of the formula and get a remarkably consistent answer out the other. Sometimes the formula isn't enough like in the abortion controversy which involves the meta-question of whether fetuses have rights in the first place. It's not perfect but its a very good foundation.
RE: explaining the right to pornography
The question is when a consenting adult takes naked pictures of herself and another consenting adult looks at those pictures who has been aggressed upon? Who's rights violated? No one's. And the only legitimate purpose of government is defending the rights of it's citizens. Its simply not the government's function to prevent consensual behavior.
And we don't just say "Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set." The fact is you can call the station and complain, boycott advertisers, throw your TV away or any of a nearly infinite list of actions EXCEPT use force to stop the broadcast you find offensive(and government IS force). Its persuasion vs. coercion; one is Kosher, the other not.
The funny thing is that by resorting to coercion you are tacitly admitting the poverty of your position or at least your impotence to persuade others to the rightness of your cause. Once again, inside the framework of consent why should people be forced to behave in ways which they cannot be freely persuaded?
Except that as Mr. Bork pointed out, the question of what is or isn't a right is debatable.
Exactly! Thank you! We elect the representatives, but it's up to each individual American to show leadership *on his own.*
LOL.... The same Robert Bork that says ownership of firearms is NOT an individual right.
Amazing.
Bork's defeat was not due to his morality, but the fact that he would have worked to dismantle the entire imperial court system. He would have forced Congress to address issues they consistently avoid. His defeat was staggering blow — not just to conservatism, but to the very concept of separation of powers.
May your chains rest lightly upon you.
For thousands of years, mankind has done well setting aside certain areas for vice. In colonial Connecticut, iron workers consisted of extended families, families who had a reputation for vice. The state needed them but gave them their own town, outside of New Haven. Red light districts have always worked well. Laws were not usually passed allowing what went on within the districts, police simply ignored the laws on the books. In the case of the Combat Zone in Boston, it was the safest place to be in the city. Making people expend a little effort to indulge is not a bad thing. Besides, men like to crawl thru sewers to get sleaze.
In this posistion advocating pronography is protected speech but pornography itself is not. See the catch?
EBUCK
And at the local level one can chose to move away.
How tyrannical is it to have the people living on the coasts make rules for the midwest and mountain states based on life in the big cities?
If one doesn't like gambling adn legalized presetution, don't live in Nevada. If one doesn't like dry counties don't live in parts of Florida or Kentucky. But to have to face the choice of leaving the country over an issue of vice is unconscienable.
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.