Replies

The mass-infanticide that has occured in this nation since Roe v. Wade dwarves the Holocaust in sheer magnitude. I am a staunch advocate of the harshest of penalties that society may impose on those committing the atrocities of abortion, rape and pedophilia.

I agree, but I also see from your examples here that you aren't aware of my meaning by the word 'moral'-

I use that word to designate religious-based philosophy in contrast to the word 'ethical'. Ethical designates activities that do not 'harm others' in the libertarian or common law sense. Whereas 'moral' contains the action-at-a-distance phenomena, moral is about example-setting and 'environmental ramifications' of undignified or dishonorable behavior.

For example, if I pass a beggar on the street who has no shoes and I do not give him my old shoes -- that is immoral but not unethical. Simply put, its not 'nice' but it is not a crime for I have not forced a suffering on someone.

To compare this with the porn issue, say a strip club -- no one is forced to enter a strip club and become morally corrupted, hence it is an ethical enterprise. But the action-at-a-distance mentality would hold the club responsible for the moral degeneracy of its patrons and the potential misdeeds that may arise from that erosion.

Its the lets-sue-McDonalds mentality all over again but worse, it wants to outlaw McDonalds.

I will grant that it would be ethical to outlaw McDonalds or the strip club provided we had a more finely grained type of republic-

The problem with our current system is that we have no constraints on the will of the majority: We do not 'set-aside' territory (counties) where the minority may retreat in order to live amongst like-minded people.

Say you have a county in a state who wants to outlaw porn - they may do so under the following constraint:

If 80% of the people in the state wish to outlaw it, then 80% of the counties (with the highest county percentages of agreement with the new law) may THEN outlaw it, but the remaining 20% of the counties MAY NOT (even though those counties still contain a majority who wish it outlawed).

This is fundamentally fair and can be thought of as a non-monopolization policy of political territory. Eventually migrations would occur that would mathmatically prove to be a 'lets-make-as-many-people-as-possible-happy' policy instead of merely a 'lets-make-the-majority-happy' policy.

Man builds political monoliths instead of honeycombs, he is still hung up on dominating others and we waste a lot of energy in these eternal battles of will.

Its ridiculous and unneccessary.