Liberty, Morality and Order

Go back to the discussion. Put my quote in context.
Show me how you are confused, and I may be able to help.
131 by tpaine

Your quote in full was "What you regard as a law for morality, I may regard as a law against liberty."
My request was exactly what it is that "may regard as a law against liberty."

And my request was that you show me how you're confused by the quote in context, - in the discussion.
You apparently are demanding some hypothetical laws. No deal. - Make em up yourself.

And my request was that you show me how you're confused by the quote in context, - in the discussion.

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?

Also, you seem to have missed post 129.

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.

And my request was that you show me how you're confused by the quote in context, - in the discussion. - tpaine

My only confusion about it is why you are unwilling/unable to defend your position.

Good lord but you are dense.

-- WHAT POSITION? --

I made a very simple comment in common english, which you have some weird problem with. Explain YOUR problem in understanding my words, or give it a REST.

Hey, you missed my question. What were you objecting to when you said a "law for morality?"

Question: In your belief, what makes murder wrong? Why is it wrong for person X to deprive person Y of his life without just cause? - GOP

Duh; --- because murder deprives him of his life?
- Are you really this dense?
125 by tpaine

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?

Sigh, -- You should really talk to a minister, scholar & psychiatrist. In reverse order.

--- We need no one to 'give' us a right to life. Life is self evident, as are our unalienable rights.
You can forfit your rights by violating those of another, - thus they can be 'taken away' by self defense or due process of law.

I thought it rhetorical.
Ask it in some context.

In post 101 you said "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. 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.

Wading through the personal invective that dominates the majority of what you spew on this forum, let us examine the following:

-- 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.

Good lord but you are dense.

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.

In post 101 you said

"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.

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?

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?

See 151.

Well, it's evident to me.

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?

Ahhh yessss, the old 'core position' question.
Seeing I have never seen any indication of your own core position, I think I'll call your bluff, just as I did earlier on this same tread to another hotshot.

-- You show me yours, THEN you'll get mine.

This silly delusion you have, that eveyone must obey your every command, is over.
Cry your heart out. Snivel & whine. I no longer care.

Ahhh yessss, the old 'core position' question. Seeing I have never seen any indication of your own core position, I think I'll call your bluff, just as I did earlier on this same tread to another hotshot. -- You show me yours, THEN you'll get mine.

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.

Here's my core position on government, from a speech by Ezra Benson in '68:

The Source of Government Power

-- It is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything.
Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
"WE THE PEOPLE...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51.)

Natural Rights

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p. 6.)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three--defending themselves, their property and their liberty--in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves--nothing more. Quoting again form Bastiat:

If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right--its reason for existing, it lawfulness--is based on individual right. (The Law, p. 6.)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135,; P.P.N.S., p. 93.)

The Proper Function Of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.
Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

-- Now, hotshot, seeing that 'core positions' have been addressed, tell me again why, if I plan to take bold stances on something (as I often do), that I MUST be prepared not only to defend them but also to discuss them exactly as you demand.
You seem to think that if I'm unwilling to do these things, that I should not be taking positions in the first place.
Are you aware that you are very very sick with some sort of delusion about your own authority?

I do not believe in moral relativity or Constitutional relativity for that matter. But I do believe in functional relativity. That's the way it works in practice. We need to exercise our freedom of speech to persuade the masses to believe in the original intent of the Constitution, absolute morality, etc..or it won't matter what morality really is, or what the FF's intentions were, or what the Constitution really means.
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".

-- No. -- Our laws must be, and are, based on rights.

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.

No more pondering.
You are back to making partial quotes of my replies, asking the sophomoric 'why' and 'who says', and making an idiotic statement about 'accidents of nature'.

Play your silly games elsewhere.