Liberty, Morality and Order

[aconservaguy]

I hope to spin-off of a recent discussion of censorship the issue of liberty, morality and order.

What are the limits of each? Are there any limits to a person's freedom? Or can the community in which he lives enact prohibitions -- moral prohibitions -- against things like pornography, as an example -- or any things it doesn't like.

Must moral ideas and standards -- and the upholding of them -- be at the mercy of liberty, or vice versa, at all times? Can there be a middle ground? Is an objective morality needed for an orderly society? To have liberty, must order take a back seat?

To have order, must liberty be curbed? Or is it a gray area, with one not superseding the other?

Finally, do majorities have the right to "impose their will" upon society, or is majoritarianism an implausible, dangerous doctrine?

Here's a link to the original thread

[weikel]

The role of government is to protect against invasion and keep order neither it nor the majority has any right to impose a moral agenda.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Society has a right and an obligation to enforce certain standards of conduct. Those who violate these standards should be punished as the society as a whole sees fit. These decisions are made by elected officials and the judiciary they appoint.

Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease. -- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816

[exnavy]

OK, let's say that I have an eighteen year old daughter. And let's say that you talk her into letting you take pictures of her in the nude. I don't approve of this and tell you to knock it off. You say screw you and post these pictures on the internet.

I rally support in congress to pass a law saying that to post nude pictures of anyone under the age of 21 on the internet is a felony.

Am I imposing morals on you?

[southern rock]

Society has a right

"Society" has no such thing. Only individuals have rights. Governments have powers delegated to it by individuals.

[That Subliminal Kid]

You're wrong, of course.

[thucydides]

The most important restraints are not legal and have nothing to do with the state. In fact, calling the legal machinery into play is often the result of the failure to observe moral restraint. So conservatives can be very libertarian in the sense that they do not favor state action in matters of moral obligation, even though they strongly support the moral obligation. Unfortunately, we live in an age in which everyone wants to see his policy preferences forced on others through the use of the state's monopoly on the use of coercion.

[southern rock]

You're wrong, of course.

No. I'm correct, without a doubt.

[That Subliminal Kid]

Luckily you're free to believe that.

[weikel]

If shes an adult and if she consented to the pics being posted( im an honorable guy and would not do something like this without consent) then you would not be within your rights IMHO.

[aconservaguy]

The role of government is to protect against invasion and keep order neither it nor the majority has any right to impose a moral agenda.

why not? Isn't morality a component of keeping order? It would seem that government imposes a de facto "moral agenda" by passing laws to promote order.

I would think that a society has a right to enforce it's own standards. Is there anything wrong with that? What are so bad the consequences that it has no right to do so?

[weikel]

There is no such thing as rights held collectively not held individually I agree( that being said despite my libertarian leanings I still favor an absolute monarchy as thats the best government gets).

[Jean S]

Can you try your link again? I get an error message.

[southern rock]

why not? Isn't morality a component of keeping order? It would seem that government imposes a de facto "moral agenda" by passing laws to promote order.

Government has a duty to enforce laws against stealing things and assaulting people (I.E. violating the rights of others). That is NOT the same as imposing morality.

[weikel]

Keeping order has to do with protecting the rights of others making lets say a law against citizens viewing porn in their own homes or in a red light district doesn't fit in the same category. Plus moral crusades cost money which translates into taxes.

[aconservaguy]

"Society" has no such thing. Only individuals have rights. Governments have powers delegated to it by individuals.

why doesn't "society" have the right to "enforce" or "impose" its moral beliefs?

Only individuals have rights.

Hmm... do groups made up of individuals have the right to "enforce" their beliefs?

[exnavy]

I understand that you are an honorable man, the question is would that be "imposing a moral standard" on a person?

this is for discussion only this not a trick, it is not a bait and flame. I just want to know what you think of my hypothetical.

[weikel]

I wouldn't say it was an attempt to impose a broad moral agenda that would appear to me to be a more personal agenda with regards to your daughter in the hypothetical( I'd be pissed off if you went to congress if you tried to beat the crap outta me I'd be pretty understanding).

[exnavy]

I don't think that society has a right to impose standards, society has an obligation to do same.

The bible commands us as Christians to care for orphans and widows.

[aconservaguy]

Keeping order has to do with protecting the rights of others making lets say a law against citizens viewing porn in their own homes or in a red light district doesn't fit in the same category.

I understand "private" stuff -- i'm not for it myself; what about a "public" morality? But, why doesn't making laws about a "red light disctrict" not fit into "protecting the rights of others"? Why shouldn't laws regarding "red light" districts be made? What's bad about them? And, does keeping order have only to do with "protecting the rights of others"? I would think that by "protecting the rights of others" you'd end up placing some on the margin of society...