I have been defending John Paul’s statement that freedom: “consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” ...
I think it is as good a definition of freedom as I’ve seen in a single sentence. We obviously cannot live without laws restricting ourselves and our neighbors. So what is the basis for enacting a law that restricts your freedom of action, and what is the basis for asserting an absolute right to do something free of constraint by the law? John Paul’s definition makes clear that it is a moral judgment. If the freedom asserted is not something we “ought” to do, then it is not a critical freedom and defending that right is far less important than defending the right to do something we “ought” to do.
You say “If the notion that a particular vice/sin is bad and aught not to be done is worthwhile then you should be able to CONVINCE people not to engage in it...... you shouldn’t need the government standing behind you leveling a gun at peoples heads to back up that idea ...”
Let’s take the extreme example. Child pornography. There is no law against taking and using pictures of children. Thus consent to take photographs is not the issue, the parent is entitled to authorize ordinary photographs for commercial use on behalf of the child and cannot authorize pornographic ones even for private use. The issue is abuse of a child, an abhorrent practice, inserting sexuality where it doesn’t belong. We “ought” not abuse or desire to abuse children sexually. Therefore we outlaw it and are right to do so. The harm is too great to allow inflaming a perverse desire and the practice itself is too abhorent to allow in even a single case regardless of social consequences. So we level a police man’s gun at the child pornographer and cart him off to jail. Taken to the extreme your argument would be that we should persuade the child pornographer not to do it.
Take a less clear case. Heroin. We “ought” not become inebriated (my source — the Bible). It does great harm to the user and to anyone around the user, wife, children, parents, co-workers. Since the fellow “ought” not be using it, if the cost/benefit of enforcement is such that it makes sense to outlaw it, we are free to. So we level a police man’s gun at a seller of heroin and cart him off to jail because voters have decided that it makes sense to do so.
Take an example of something we “ought” to do. Say, speak out against oppression. There the government has no right to restrict your speech, since you “ought” to speak out. So we should all jump to protect the right of anyone to speak out on political matters as a right.
It’s not about establishing a state religion or theocracy, it’s about religious (and non-religious) citizens thinking through their values and where they are entitled to restrict each other through law and where they are not.
The left has attacked Christians for over 200 years now. The Christians are the greatest bulwark of your rights, because the Christian can’t be moved by a relativist argument on those things that are absolute through the word of God, and frankly, because the Christian will die rather than give up his freedom to obey God. We are good and we aren’t going away . . . : )
I don’t agree with collective laws but in your scenario the wife and children are directly affected and should have legal means to help the husband due to the fact the drug addict is mentally not capable of making rational decisions.
But if the heroin addict has no one he is supporting directly then only when he is over dosed and needs medical help or leaves needles lying around does he affect society. This can be dealt with by licensing the use of the product thereby tracking the user rather then banning the product and not knowing his actions.
“I think it is as good a definition of freedom as I’ve seen in a single sentence. We obviously cannot live without laws restricting ourselves and our neighbors. So what is the basis for enacting a law that restricts your freedom of action, and what is the basis for asserting an absolute right to do something free of constraint by the law? John Paul’s definition makes clear that it is a moral judgment. If the freedom asserted is not something we “ought” to do, then it is not a critical freedom and defending that right is far less important than defending the right to do something we “ought” to do.”
Here-in lies the problem, just who’s “ought” do we use to determine what freedoms are valid to protect and what aren’t? What happens when my “oughts” are different from your “oughts” are different from Jane’s “oughts”.
Heck, even if you are arguing that we gets those “oughts” from God? Well, just WHO’s GOD... Yours? Mine? Osama’s?
And how do we know those “oughts” are actualy God’s “oughts” rather then those of some grumpy old men in pointed hats who want to pass off thier own personal pet peeves as God’s rules? I haven’t seen too many burning bushes around these days?
The arguement that you are making is the exact same arguement that the Taliban makes and that Joseph Stalin made. It’s a very dangerous one.
It’s way too nebulous and dangerous and capricious to try to base laws off of some-ones interpretation of “ought”.
Thank God (no pun intended) that is NOT what our system of government is based on. Our system of government is based upon the minimum neccesary regulations to insure that an individual is able to make thier own decisions and act on thier own accord. This, of course, DOES entail some restraint on indviduals actions...since one individuals actions can restrain another...... adjucating that buffer is where our government (legitimately) steps in.
“Let’s take the extreme example. Child pornography...”
Child pornography should be illegal for the same reason that child sex is.... the same reason that we don’t let insane people stand trial.....
The individual, in those cases lacks the requisite mental capacity to form consent. They aren’t able to comprehend the possible consequences of thier actions. Therefore somebody has to act to protect thier interests.
With mentaly sane adults, this no longer holds true. They (in theory) have the capacity to understand the consequences of thier actions and therefore get to be responsible for them. They are therefore allowed to engage in a whole host of behaviors that individuals who lack that capacity can’t..... those behaviors should include most things that are regarded as vice (sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, pornaography, etc) as long as such actions don’t directly abridge the freedoms of others.