"Of course we have to find a good place somewhere in between totalitarianism and anarchy..and I think that only having legislation on cases of non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft is a good place...closer to anarchy than totalitarianism i admit. Sure, I'll try again and clarify myself. Do what you see fit and your own life only!"
OK lwrwbw, please define non-consensual violence as opposed to consenual violence.
Sorry...consensual violence.
Sure I will....non-consensual violence is something like murder, rape, assault..consensual violence..i think of kinky practices..such as S&M..or even that case with the German cannibal..not to mention violent sports.
"Moral relativists in the religious left are not capable of writing a Constitution that only exists in order to guard and protect absolute moral (self-evident) truths. That leaves you and your emotionally unstable friends out, ace."
Emotionally unstable...hmm...and yet your ilk is so frightened and insecure about the fact that some people have different realities from you. Basically, my idea is that government would only intervene on matters concerning non-consensual violence, fraud, and theft...and as the times evolve...our government would merely become more of a debating society discussing how those things are defined. Perhaps moral relativism is okay only the individual and consensual act front as people have different ways of looking at happiness.
To finish it..I will cite a prior post pointing out a fallacious argument often used by the religious right...
Are there decrees in holy books that decry (non-consensual violence, fraud, theft)? Of course! Does that fact justify to enforcement of other "moral" laws. Of course not!
Yes...there were some good ideas for government in the Bible and other assorted Holy books...but we need to trim to fat as face it...Jesus is not one size fits all...
Consensual violence=masochism=mental illness?