Posted on 07/19/2002 3:38:08 PM PDT by aconservaguy
My only confusion about it is why you are unwilling/unable to defend your position.
You apparently are demanding some hypothetical laws.
I'm asking you to stand by your assertion and further specify it. If you cannot do so, you should not be surprised at the reactions you are recieving from others about your inability to hold your ground in this debate.
No deal. - Make em up yourself.
In that case, may I call you a legal positivist and conclude accordingly about your positions?
Specifically: "Fair enough. But what gives him a right to that life? Specifically: Where does it come from? Can it be taken away legitimately, and if so by who?"
That is where the real debate is found.
Post 96 is fairly long but can probably be fairly summed up as "there is no constitutional mandate that laws cannot be based on morality."
I would go further and state that our laws must be based on morality. I don't want a nation with immoral laws (of which I think many of our existing ones are.) I don't want a nation based on amoral laws, which fail to take into account a concept of absolute right and wrong.
The idea that individual "liberty" should be considered sacred -- something that may only be taken in extreme circumstances -- is based on "morality."
Generally, when someone objects to "laws for morality" they are objecting to laws against pornography, prostitution, drugs etc which they perceive as aimed at stopping self-inflicted suffering.
I think laws aimed at stopping these behaviors are often ineffective, intrusive and counterproductive --- and when applied federally -- completely against the intent of our Founders.
On the other hand, there are laws against these things which are effective and necessary, and are designed to protect society as whole rather than instill personal virtue. If they were to be removed our society would be worse off.
I was wondering if it was these laws to which you were objecting.
-- We need no one to 'give' us a right to life. Life is self evident, as are our unalienable rights.
Fair enough. Now answer the following: how do you know this to be so? What makes life self evident and if nobody gives us a right to life what makes life a right?
Keep in mind, I am asking you these questions because I wish to take nothing for granted in establishing your positions.
You can forfit your rights by violating those of another, - thus they can be 'taken away' by self defense or due process of law.
Fair enough as well. Let's look at the violation of the rights of another. What happens when the exercise of a right by one ends up simultaneously violating the right of another? Who is in the right and whose job is it to determine that?
Again, though I expect you would answer something along the lines of the law intervening, I seek to witness your position as you put it yourself.
Perhaps, but surely I cannot be as dense as an individual who reaches to the absurd lengths you do in order to evade addressing questions plainly directed to him regarding a statement he made earlier in the discussion.
-- WHAT POSITION? --
"What you regard as a law for morality, I may regard as a law against liberty."
That is your belief, is it not? I am simply asking you to specify why you believe that to be true and then consider it in light of its implications.
I made a very simple comment in common english, which you have some weird problem with.
I have no problem with it beyond the perfectly reasonable request I have made of you to expand upon it. You on the other hand do appear to experience some sort of abnormal habit of making assertions on a whim only to be followed by a disaffection from defending those assertions when others question them.
"Read the 10th, and the 14th, & try to understand. What you regard as a law for morality, I may regard as a law against liberty"
in response to Rat Patrol's post 96.
Post 96 is fairly long but can probably be fairly summed up as "there is no constitutional mandate that laws cannot be based on morality."
I would go further and state that our laws must be based on morality.
-- No. -- Our laws must be, and are, based on rights. -- Your personal beliefs on what constitutes 'morality' are immaterial. So are mine.
I don't want a nation with immoral laws (of which I think many of our existing ones are.) I don't want a nation based on amoral laws, which fail to take into account a concept of absolute right and wrong.
I don't care what you 'want'. And you have no 'right' that can force me to care.
We have equal rights to life liberty & property. - And that is, essentially, - all we need from society.
The idea that individual "liberty" should be considered sacred -- something that may only be taken in extreme circumstances -- is based on "morality."
Individual liberty is an inalienable right. Some consider that concept moral, some sacred. What real difference does the concepts name make?
Generally, when someone objects to "laws for morality" they are objecting to laws against pornography, prostitution, drugs etc which they perceive as aimed at stopping self-inflicted suffering. I think laws aimed at stopping these behaviors are often ineffective, intrusive and counterproductive --- and when applied federally -- completely against the intent of our Founders.
-- Yep. -- But we've already found out once that the union cannot survive if states are allowed to violate individual rights.
On the other hand, there are laws against these things which are effective and necessary, and are designed to protect society as whole rather than instill personal virtue. If they were to be removed our society would be worse off. I was wondering if it was these laws to which you were objecting.
You know my answer. If we allow government-society to dictate 'morality' as in the current drug war, as in former booze prohibition, the unintended consequences are far worse than any imagined 'protection for society'. We best protect society by protecting the constitution.
Fair enough. Now answer the following: how do you know this to be so? What makes life self evident and if nobody gives us a right to life what makes life a right?
Well, it's evident to me. -- Isn't it to you?
Keep in mind, I am asking you these questions because I wish to take nothing for granted in establishing your positions.
You can forfit your rights by violating those of another, - thus they can be 'taken away' by self defense or due process of law.
Fair enough as well. Let's look at the violation of the rights of another. What happens when the exercise of a right by one ends up simultaneously violating the right of another? Who is in the right and whose job is it to determine that?
A judge & a jury? Sound OK to you?
You may think that it is, but thinking that it is does not demonstrate that it is. How do you know it is evident and how do you know these unspoken unalienable rights are evident? In short, how do you know they exist?
I am not asking this to find out, but rather to find out if you know your core positions to be true. Perhaps you may think this is a trick question - I assure you it is not. Perhaps you may think the answer is obvious to us all. It could be so, but that should not evoke hesitation from specifying it.
-- Isn't it to you?
Yes, life is evident to me though its evident nature is not found in the simplistic "just because" style answer you offered.
A judge & a jury? Sound OK to you?
For the time being, it suffices but not without prompting further issues. A judge and jury provide a means of settling a dispute where a conflict of rights occurs, and it functions fairly well probably getting the truth right most of the time, but that says nothing of the truth itself. So do you believe there is a truth beyond the word of the judge or the jury?
Immature and foolish of you the above comment may be, and even though my own suspicions tell me to question your own motives in asking, I don't suppose I have anything to hide about my position. Personally, I believe in the existence of an external world. I believe that right and wrong are not relative but absolute. I believe that there is a creator whose existence gives purpose to life and because of which life and the right of life exist. I believe that human existence is both material and spiritual. I believe that liberty is distinct from license and should not be confused. I believe that most, if not all, forms of government function only temporarily at best though some, such as our own, are better than others. Beyond that I believe that even the better forms of governments tend to corrupt and cannot be permanently sustained in a manner that indefinately respects liberty while preserving rights. And I adopt these positions as my own upon reasoned thought that has led me to them as conclusions. Also, while I will defend and advocate these positions, I do not seek to judge you on their authority during the course of this debate, but rather to more thoroughly investigate and develop the implications of the argument you have put forward. Anything else you wish to know? If so, feel free to ask. Until then I anticipate your answers to the questions I posed before you previously.
This silly delusion you have, that eveyone must obey your every command, is over.
The only delusion evident at this moment is stated immediately above in your comment. I no more wish you to "obey" me than I wish you to give money to left wing Democrats. I simply seek to establish and discuss in greater depth the positions you have taken and intend to take. Some I may agree with. Some I will not agree with, and for all I know you may convince me to agree with you on something I previously did not. The outcome of this discussion is far from certainty in direction, making your comment little more than foolishness and evasion.
I simply ask that if you plan to take bold stances on something (as you often do), that you be prepared not only to defend them but also to discuss them. If you are unwilling to do these things, you should not be taking positions in the first place.
In other words, continue the discussion by posting your answers or don't enter it in the first place.
Regarding going from socializing morality to moralizing socialism (clever, btw) that's an excellent point. Aren't we already moralizing socialism but not socializing morality? I don't know, maybe that's how we got around to moralizing socialism -- by socializing morality -- but currently, we are in the later stage, not the former.
In terms of what the government's role and proper authority is, it might clear up some of the disagreement and confusion if we didn't try to frame the question in terms of "morality" as a whole. Perhaps what we need to do is try to define and limit the argument to that subset of morality called "civility".
Why?
I don't care what you 'want'.
I could say the same to you, couldn't I? Or more realistically, a Biden or a Boxer or a Sharpton could. What would you answer? "You have no right" while they're closing down your business or hauling you off to jail for some speech crime? Who says they don't have the right? Our Founding Fathers? But you can't articulate their reasoning can you?
We have equal rights to life liberty & property.
That's a moral axiom
Individual liberty is an inalienable right.
Again, that's a perspective based on morality. Accidents of nature do not have inalienable rights. Children of God do. Something for you to ponder.
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.