Posted on 07/19/2002 3:38:08 PM PDT by 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
What you describe was NEVER a societal standard. If done, what you describe would have been illegal, and done in a back room without witnesses. Hardly a societal standard.
groups don't have greater rights than individuals? Why not? Can you offer any sources that i may look at for this idea? I don't think it's necessarily true that because you or your friends cannot "impose" your moral beliefs on me, then "society" cannot impose it's moral beliefs on you; i think society has inherent a morality it imposes, maybe not indirectly, but in it's framework.
No it doesn't. Society has a moral obligation to leave individuals alone and to their own devices, punishing only those who directly harm others.
Look at it this way. If tomorrow, all forms of pornography, drugs, and prostitution became legal, would you and your fellow parisheners at your church all become dabauched, whoremongering, heroin addicts? Of course not! So why not give your fellow man the same credit you give yourself? Most likely because you simply wish to control others.
i think it's still a "moral notion." That it's in the context of a "constitutional, representative government" doesn't change that. In fact, imo it might support the idea, seeing as how this is the govs fundamental nature.
Yes- the state defending the rights of the victim vs. the accused. Defending individual rights is one of the delegated powers of government I was talking about.
Because anything else is collectivism.
If I see you mugging an old lady on the street corner, I have a right to use force to stop you from doing that. Therefore so does society, i.e. the state. However, if I don't approve of the way you are raising your children, you are under no obligation to listen to my opinions on the matter. Likewise with society, i.e. the state. They have as much say in the matter as I do - none.
Individuals cannot delegate powers to government that they do not themselves posess.
Okay. Which individual trumps? Do you defend the one guy's liberty, or the liberty of any one of the group? Is an individual's liberty greater by being in the minority? I don't think so. When an immoral individual -- as defined by the majority of individuals -- gets to do whatever wherever, isn't he imposing his immorality on each individual member of the majority group?
Freedom for all means freedom for the moral too. That is what I think you're missing.
Reduce it, then, to one guy in the group vs. the one individual in question. Both do not win if the issue is morality. Immorality infringes on morality. When two liberties conflict, why NOT go with the majority (of individuals)?
How? Have the immormal individuals in question passed a law requiring you to smoke dope? To commit sodomy? To patronize hookers? To watch porno movies? Of course not. You are still free to NOT do those things if you wish. So how has "immorality" bee imposed upon you?
What you are missing is that there is no "right" to NOT see or hear certain things in our constitution.
Not as long as no laws are passed, it doesn't. As long as person A is still free to be a debauched hedonist, and person B is still free to be a bible believing Christian, then no one has infringed on the other, unless either A or B is pointing a gun to the others head.
Be immoral at home. Leave public places culturally clean, defined by a majority of the community. That's the only way EVERYONE gets liberty.
If you don't like my moral town, move to Vegas.
Immorality corrupts morality but not the other way around. Why do you think there are nudity laws?
Probably. My definition of "direct" harm is I "directly" steal from you, by sticking my hand directly in your wallet (yes, the IRS counts in that manner, but the "posibility" of my indirectly affecting your property values in the future does not), or I "directly" punch you in the face or put a gun to your head. That is DIRECT.
There are some private things that effect others, like cause public health problems thereby costing money and lives, etc., but we aren't even close on the issue of public morality so we might as well not go there.
You don't get to decide how the other people in your town live. You only get to decide how YOU live. IMO, gambling and prostitution are free enterprise. You or the state have no right to interfere with others practicing free enterprise.
You are wrong. I consider those things immoral as well. However, I am confident that I would not engage in those activities, even if they were legal, therefore they really don't bother me. I have my own bounderies. No one could ever force me to pick up a hooker or snort coke, so what's the problem?
Be immoral at home. Leave public places culturally clean,
Even in Las Vegas, prostitution and gambling are illegal in the streets. I'm O.K. with that.
I'd be cool with that. But guess what? Drugs are illegal in PRIVATE. Prostitution is illegal in PRIVATE. I just don't see society having a say in that stuff.
And wether you believe it or not, I have no interest in any of that stuff either. I just enjoy limiting governmental powers, and strenghtining individualism, at all levels.
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.