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

[Don Myers]

BTW, if an individual has all of these rights, why is not a cop legally obligated to defend you?

[agrandis]

How does a government "keep order" without imposing certain morals?

[southern rock]

No, a crime against an individual is a crime against the state. That is how it is treated in a court of law.

Because the state represents the rights of the individual. That is the state's job.

[Don Myers]

Yeah, ok, you have me whipped. The individual has all of the rights.

[southern rock]

why is not a cop legally obligated to defend you?

For the same reason that I am not legally obligated to defend you. Cops represent the state. The state represents the rights of the individual. You have the right to defend yourself. No one else is legally obligated to do so.

[KrisKrinkle]

Regarding liberty, morality and order.

"What are the limits of each?"

If nothing else, they are limited by the ability of one person or group to force his or their will upon another person or group. (Forcing morality is tricky. You might force someone to act according to your morality, but that is not the same as forcing them to adopt your morality. For the latter, you have to convince them or brainwash them.)

"Are there any limits to a person's freedom?"

Yes. Rights, even natural/unalienable rights, are limited by other rights. That limits a person's freedom. Also, when one can give up all or part of one's freedom--as when one gets married and agrees to forgo certain freedoms that may have been previously held.

"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."

Simply put, that goes back to the answer to the first question. If the community has the capability to force its will on the individual, then the community certainly can enact the noted prohibitions. I think what you really meant to ask is "should" the community be allowed to do so. That depends upon the communicty or society in which the person lives. It is short sighted to forget that our community/society, either as we believe it to be or as it actually is, is the only community/society that exists or ever existed.

"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?"

I find the questions to be fuzzy, but focusing on the "at all times" in the first question, the answer has to be no. As to the second question, the conflict is usually not moral ideas and standards versus liberty. Rather it is uaually one of two things. First, one set of moral ideas and standards versus another set, with both sides saying the other has no morals or standards. Or second one person's rights in liberty versus another's.

"To have order, must liberty be curbed?"

Yes, but liberty is best curbed by self discipline.

"Or is it a gray area, with one not superseding the other?"

It is a gray area because it is a matter of one set of rights coming into conflict with another set of rights. Which one supersedes the other depends on which side has the ability to execute superior force in a given situation.

"Finally, do majorities have the right to "impose their will" upon society,..."

Depends upon the society in question. In some societies, yes. In other societies, the minority rules. In our society, not to the point that the rights of the minority are infringed.

"... or is majoritarianism an implausible, dangerous doctrine?"

If exercised badly or as the only element of a doctrine, yes.

[irksome1]

Hey Rat, I know you've signed off, but maybe you can answer me later.

The notion you have advanced about immorality corrupting morality, and the rights of the majority versus the minority yielded for me some troubling thoughts. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Let's look at the life of an Orthodox Jew. In the normal course of his day he can expect to:

• See a person buying a package of bacon
• See the name of God written out including the offending vowel,
• Interact with a person who is married to someone of a different faith, and
• Endure the thought of all sorts of business being conducted on the Sabbath (which for him would be Saturday, not Sunday)
  

I admit that I engage in most of these practices, therefore from the perspective of the Jew, I'm living an immoral life. Should a law be passed to bring me into line with the Jew's notion of what is moral?

Of course, you might counter that since the Jew is in the minority in this country that his sense of morals should not infringe upon my freedom, that the morals of the majority take precedence, and that the Jew will simply have to bear the corruption of his morality to satisfy the will of the majority. If that's the case, however, then there is no objective morality. Morality does not come from God, and it does not come from any scriptures, constitutions or whatever. Morality is simply whatever the majority defines it to be. Hence, what is immoral today may become moral tomorrow, and vice versa.

Under this logic, even rights specifically defined in the Constitution only exist at the majority's whim. So if the majority decides it is moral for you to, say, surrender your gun (let's even say they'll give you a fair market value for it), would you still be comfortable doing it?

[weikel]

Im basically on your side here. Property values aren't a right per se but I think its reasonable to seperate the red light districts from where the "nice people" live.

[weikel]

It does in a way but the morals it should be imposes should basically be limited to protecting lives and property and enforcing contracts( ie no nanny state crap).

[aconservaguy]

Because anything else is collectivism.

This is too broad a word "collectivism." Under this broad term many different things could fall; and i'm one to believe that a neighborhood group is not nearly as bad as a communist state. Could you define it or specify what you mean? And, you're begging the question of collectivism being bad: why is it? Why in any degree is "collectivism" bad?

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.

could you clarify how an individual has the right to stop an old lady being mugged, therefore so does "society," yet that same society made up of those same individuals don't have the right to apply their moral standards? Also, I think you're conflating "society" and state. The two are the same entity? How so?

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.

I think you have a bit of a strawman here: of course you are under "no obligation" to listen to other people's opinions; however, the law doesn't care about a person's opinion. It's independent of that. It doesn't follow that because you have "no obligation" to listen "to your opinion" doesn't mean that a law can't be made by the "state" regarding a matter. Also, I think it's a matter of degree: for example, if a child is being molested by his/her parents, you're saying that the government cannot pass a law against some actions? If so, why not? You can argue that your protecting the "individual" child's rights, but nonetheless you contradict your statement regarding "no obligation." If it's something like what you are feeding a kid, i can understand, but there are different degrees, and i think the generalize like your above statement is a problematic way to look at it. Also, "no obligation" regarding an opinion doesn't equal "no obligation" regarding a law, imo.

Likewise with society, i.e. the state. They have as much say in the matter as I do - none.

Again, "society" and the "state" are the same? how? I think it's an improper conflation of the two. And, again, you (or I) having "no say" doesn't necessarily extend to the society; there are certain ideas which society will promote -- disagreement may be found, but that doesn't equal "no say" or "no obligation."

Individuals cannot delegate powers to government that they do not themselves posess.

ok. i agree. but then how does government and societal norms contradict this idea?

[RAT Patrol]

If that's the case, however, then there is no objective morality. Morality does not come from God, and it does not come from any scriptures, constitutions or whatever. Morality is simply whatever the majority defines it to be. Hence, what is immoral today may become moral tomorrow, and vice versa.

I personally believe in moral absolutes. Our rights are from God and morality is not relative. I believe those are the principles our Nation was founded upon. Period. Let me point out, however, that that concept was debated and worked out amongst our FFathers. If a majority of them did not believe it to be true we would be a very different nation today.

If at some time a majority of our citizens decide they do not believe our rights are from God and they want to define morality out of existence it will happen. You can count on it. They present the ideas, they persuade the people, the people vote for representatives who agree with them, and presto chango, we are different.

I believe both concepts exist at the same time. God is, will, and always has been the ruler over all the earth. That is my firm belief. By His design, man has a free will. Time and again humankind has turned from God. We were blessed with wise FFathers who not only believed in God's goodness and sovereignty, but who also knew that men had a sin nature. Their balance of power gov't made sure that no single person could oppress and control and change the nature of our new gov't. But that is not the same as a majority changing it. They said that the gov't was "of the people, by the people, for the people.." not "of God, by God and for God". God wants a willing heart as much as he wants a pure heart. The FF's wanted willing citizens as much as they wanted just citizens.

Well, that's the best I can answer.

Regarding the question about seeing someone buy pork: Obviously, any notion can be carried to extremes. Viewing pork is not immoral. Nudity laws exist because of the idea of public morality. Unless we want to be one big nudist colony, we must accept that there is a public morality line somewhere. We use human reason and the democratic republic process to establish norms.

Moral absolutes exist in our laws only if the people want them to. What individual rights people miss is the right of an individual to be moral. What they describe sounds like anarchy. We are all equal but the immoral are not more equal. Prostitution can be legal if a community wants it to be. Most communities do not want it.

For the most part, let me add, the gov't should butt out of the people's business. But, local gov't can and should regulate some public moral standards. (like prostitution, nudity, etc.) The question of how much and where the line is drawn is up to each community. The fed. gov't should get involved as little as possible.

Sure, there is danger in this concept. Racial or ethnic minorities can, in fact HAVE, been cheated in the process. Not until a majority of the people saw the error (and immorality) of what was happening did it change. Even the SCOTUS, the ones who can step in against the will of the majority (that balance of power working) got it wrong for a time. They are getting it wrong on the rights of the unborn now. They are appointed by a President with the consent of the Senate, elected by the people so what the people want they eventually get.

There are the laws of nature and nature's God. They are absolutes. But, AT THE SAME TIME, there is the will of the people to choose their own government. If they choose, they can deny the laws of nature and nature's God.

No one can agree on the definition of morality, but, no one can agree on the interpretation of the Constitution either. Fortunately, the checks and balances have thus far worked very well.

[RAT Patrol]

Note, too, that the change process is very slow. Our Constitution is the law of the land. It can be ammended only by Congress or it can be re-interpreted by the Court. The will of the majority cannot easily sway on a whim that way.

Look at the "Under God" example. If liberals get enough of their people elected who appoint judges like that, even the will of the people won't change it until enough time passes to change the representatives and the judicial appointments. The will of the people at any given time is but one of the balancing factors, but eventually over time, it is the only one that matters.

[RAT Patrol]

Of course, you might counter that since the Jew is in the minority in this country that his sense of morals should not infringe upon my freedom, that the morals of the majority take precedence, and that the Jew will simply have to bear the corruption of his morality to satisfy the will of the majority. It isn't really his morality you're talking about, it's his religion. The gov't does not choose one religion over another. It is not a sin to a Jew to see someone buy pork. That isn't a morality issue. He is not being forced to violate his beliefs. Seeing porn would violate his beliefs. Put it in a brown wrapper and it won't. Taken to either extreme this concept is bad. Most issues are resolved with privacy and free association. You cannot smoke in a public building anymore, but smoking is still legal. Cocaine is not because it is a public health problem. Where's their freedom? My point is, there are rights on BOTH sides that must be considered. Sometimes "all of the above" is not an option.

How about that case about the Muslim woman not wanting to remove her veil for a DL picture?

[RAT Patrol]

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

Drugs effect crime, crime effects life, liberty (taxes), and the pursuit of happiness. Prostitution effects marriage, which effects children, which effects our future. Prostitution effects public health, which effects public costs and our taxes go up. etc...plus, we are sensory animals and the cultural environment effects us all.

Going from the individual liberty angle, the public welfare angle, the local control angle, or the moral angle, drugs and prostitution are bad for society. But that call is for a majority to make, not just me.

Different people define morality differently, true. We all also differ on the interpretation of the Constitution but no one reduces that to meaning it doesn't exist or isn't important. Even laws you accept are not always interpreted the same by all. So we discuss it, we vote, blah blah....(I am trying to be shorter, sorry)The Fed. gov't should be minimal. Local gov't is up to the community as long as it stays within the constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to prostitution. Freedom of religion, speech, freedom from fear and want...the 4 foundational freedoms that concerned our Founders.

[RAT Patrol]

I'm sure I got a detail or two wrong, but in general, that is how I see it. LOL! I don't want to control anyone either, lol. I just don't want public life reduced to the whim of the worst among us.

[southern rock]

Also, I think it's a matter of degree: for example, if a child is being molested by his/her parents, you're saying that the government cannot pass a law against some actions? If so, why not? You can argue that your protecting the "individual" child's rights, but nonetheless you contradict your statement regarding "no obligation."

Molestation is an assault. A violation of the child's individual rights (as you correctly pointed out). It is a legitimate function of the state and the law to punish that action.

[southern rock]

Drugs effect crime, crime effects life, liberty (taxes), and the pursuit of happiness. Prostitution effects marriage, which effects children, which effects our future. Prostitution effects public health, which effects public costs and our taxes go up. etc...plus, we are sensory animals and the cultural environment effects us all.

Well, now we are back to the state as nanny, anticipating possible/potential INDIRECT harm to you and "society" and passing nanny laws to prevent such indirect harm. This is why so many here feel there is some sort of "right" to high property values.
BTW, drugs could only effect taxes in a socialized nanny state. Prostitution could only effect taxes in a socialist nanny state, as well. (Which, unfortunately, we live in)

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to prostitution.

Guess what? The constitution doesn't guarentee the right to own a car either, but I'll bet you own one. Wow, you must be in violation of the constitution.

[tacticalogic]

Freedom of religion, speech, freedom from fear and want...the 4 foundational freedoms that concerned our Founders.

I take it you think FDR was one of the Founders. That explains a lot.

[RAT Patrol]

I take it you think FDR was one of the Founders. That explains a lot. LOL. I knew someone would use that against me. Yes, I know it was said by FDR and he was a RAT. But there is some truth to the concept. I'd take issue with the "freedom from want" technically, but it depends on how you define it. My point in borrowing a well known phrase was simply to show that just like morality, liberty is defined differently by different people too. To me, liberty does not mean license. To libertarian's it does. Not even the well educated SCOTUS can agree on exactly how to interpret the constitution and it's promised liberties. I am quite confident, however, that our FF's were not trying to protect every immoral act imaginable.

[RAT Patrol]

Well, now we are back to the state as nanny, anticipating possible/potential INDIRECT harm to you and "society" and passing nanny laws to prevent such indirect harm. This is why so many here feel there is some sort of "right" to high property values. BTW, drugs could only effect taxes in a socialized nanny state. Prostitution could only effect taxes in a socialist nanny state, as well. (Which, unfortunately, we live in) If, as you say, the state should protect one individual from infringing on the rights of another individual, then the issue of public health is legit.

Guess what? The constitution doesn't guarentee the right to own a car either, but I'll bet you own one. Wow, you must be in violation of the constitution. I do not have an constitutional right to own a car. Therefore, if I drive drunk I lose the privilege. (of using it at least) I do not have a constitutional right to prostitution, therefore, if it harms society, I am not owed the liberty.

We can agree to disagree you know. It's been a fun discussion anyway.