Governments and moral issues

[illram]

But is not the idea that there sould be a functional society rooted in morality? I don't think you can go to "should be" without some moral noton of what is "good".

Well in that sense maybe you are correct; a functional society's foundation maybe does rely on an inherent and ancient understanding of fundamental morals. Like, not stealing or murdering. But is it a chicken and the egg dilemma? Are social creatures such as us inclined to do these things because they are inherently right or because they serve the purpose of ensuring our lineage's survival?

Well, I think that the idea of moral law has gotten corrupted to mean laws based on the morality of a controversial subset of the population, generally the Christian-right. I don't think this is truely the case that proposed and existing legislation based on these controversial notions are the only laws rooted in morality.

They aren't. I am not saying our laws could not have a moral foundation, just that if an alternative basis for the laws existence, i.e. rational societal benefit, outweighs the moral basis, that law is legitimate. I am relying on a (possibly) artificial separation of the law's moral and societal components. (And maybe an artificial ignorance of the moral foundation of a functional society itself.)

Alternatively, if the societal benefit is small but the moral underpinning is the larger motivation, the law is illegitimate and the government should not have the authority to enforce it.

It seems to me that all laws are based on morals. It's only when what we view as moral is not agreed upon by almost all members of society do we actually start to look at our moral views. These laws with controversial moral basises are not the only moral laws, just the only ones we end up arguing morality about.

Right, so if you eliminate the authority of enforcing morality altogether, don't you eliminate the possibility of controversy over whose morals are correct?

I guess in a way, I am saying take what we all universally agree upon as wrong, set that in stone, eliminate the moral component of it, and from henceforth utilize a more amoral basis for deciding what the government can and cannot do.

 

[Newbunkle]

Do you believe in a small government that stays the hell out of your life? as much as possible, yes
If so should they stay the hell out of your life on so called moral issues? yes
Or are moral issues too important to be left to the individual? of course not
Should other entities have any input into who you sleep with and what you get up to in your bedroom? nope
Other entities being say religions who have the belief that they know what is best for you in your bedroom. they can choose their own path, but not mine.
So should governments stay out of your private life or should they be involved? out, as much as possible

 

[BasketCase]

Dont change the subject again

Why shouldn't I....? You did, three times, in that one post.

Talk (or dream) about it all you want, legislating morality is an oxy moron.

No, it isn't. Let me tell you what is.

When a person says "a government shouldn't legislate morality", the person who says that is himself legislating morality--he's telling other people what is right and wrong.

Which, of course, is self-contradictory. That's an oxymoron.


When a government tells you what's good and bad? That's not self-contradictory. It's just a plain old basic limitation on personal freedom. This is neither a good or a bad thing--it all depends WHICH limits are placed on personal freedom. I see no reason why men should be free to have sex with unwilling women, for example, and without even bothering to ask, I'm pretty sure you'll agree.

 

[Berzerker]

Why shouldn't I....? You did, three times, in that one post.

WTH you talking about? Try quoting me when you claim I did something.

No, it isn't. Let me tell you what is.

When a person says "a government shouldn't legislate morality", the person who says that is himself legislating morality--he's telling other people what is right and wrong.

Well, save it for someone who says government should or shouldn't legislate morality. I said it cant legislate morality because it aint moral to begin with. Choosing the lesser of two evils - government or no government - doesn't make the lesser evil moral. Until you can fund your government without threatening to kill people for their money to pay for your government, dont tell me government can and should legislate morality.

I see no reason why men should be free to have sex with unwilling women, for example, and without even bothering to ask, I'm pretty sure you'll agree.

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint, rape dont fit the definition.

 

[aelf]

Tsk, tsk. As usual certain posters are confounded about the notion of morality and government. The word morality is so loaded that people can't get it right, thinking that it's something mystical belonging only to religion or something intangible belonging only to personal character. Well, yes it can be, but it is also not. The thing is, secular government and morality also go hand-in-hand.

The government has moral authority because it is legitimate, and in the democratic sense, it represents the will of the majority. As a moral authority, it can legislate what is right and wrong, to different degrees depending on your society and its cultural values. Once legislated, it becomes a legal matter, and right and wrong becomes legal and illegal. Unless you want to disconnect laws from morality, you have to accept this.

Your convictions don't erase reality. What's more, Libertarian convictions are appalingly misguided. The issue of your personal freedoms seldom does not touch on the issue of others' freedoms. Is your right to the unlimited accumulation of capital or your right to pursue happiness mean that you are free to deprive others of their rights? Is a worker who earns subsistence wages not deprived of the right to pursue her happiness by a capitalist who asserts his rights? Is universal healthcare unfair to the people who can pay? Libertarians would answer in the affirmative, but would they then not be depriving poor people of the freedom to pursue happiness, on which health has an important bearing, or even the right to live?

Face it, the harm principle is flawed because outside of your own mental exercises, it is difficult to conceive of personal freedoms as able to exist in vacuum. Society is built on compromise, and no Libertarian conviction can wish that away. The job of the government is maintain that compromise. It is met with varying degrees of success, and governments can deviate from their purpose (yes, this is a caveat for the Godwin I am expecting again), but doing away with it or severely restricting it is not going to make a utopia.

 

[Berzerker]

Jesus, you dont like yer job, go get another job. I dont have a right to work for someone else at the level of compensation I want. But I'd like to hear how it works hehe

 

[aelf]

That's the problem. You think it's so simple. Is it now? What if all jobs available are pretty much the same? I don't get why free market advocates/Libertarians insist that companies want to steal blue collar labour from each other. They are generally not interested in offering blue collars higher wages to attract them.

Go for retraining, you'd say. Yeah, I support that. But the fact that there exists legislation providing retraining to blue collar or older workers and setting minimum wages already says a lot about how the free market and private freedoms should be regulated. If there is no big bad government to facilitate the social compromise and punish (highlight: moral) those that seek to benefit at others' cost, who will do it?

Your argument just boils down to mouthing off your ideals and principles (eg: "I dont have a right to work for someone else at the level of compensation I want") without anything concrete.

 

[BasketCase]

WTH you talking about? Try quoting me when you claim I did something.

No need. It's your post, you wrote it.

I'm arguing with various people about half a dozen different things at the same time, so don't go yelling at me about changing the subject. If you don't want me changing the subject all the time, don't reply to me.

Until you can fund your government without threatening to kill people for their money to pay for your government, dont tell me government can and should legislate morality.

Okay.

Government can and should legislate morality.

(Translation: your claim about the U.S. government's method of funding is bullcrap)

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint, rape dont fit the definition.

Rape is coercion, and it does fit the definition.

 

[Berzerker]

That's the problem. You think it's so simple. Is it now? What if all jobs available are pretty much the same?

You accuse me of thinking its simple, and then you ask what if all jobs were pretty much the same? They aint, so much for simple.

I don't get why free market advocates/Libertarians insist that companies want to steal blue collar labour from each other. They are generally not interested in offering blue collars higher wages to attract them.

If all you can do is pick food yer labor aint worth much. But if you can run a lathe, yeah, companies will offer you more money. Thats just how it works...

Go for retraining, you'd say. Yeah, I support that. But the fact that there exists legislation providing retraining to blue collar or older workers and setting minimum wages already says a lot about how the free market and private freedoms should be regulated. If there is no big bad government to facilitate the social compromise and punish (highlight: moral) those that seek to benefit at others' cost, who will do it?

The person who aint getting properly compensated for their labor will do it. They can quit and tell you all about why and you can complain and start a boycott. And it aint the free market's fault the government schools do a lousy job of training future employees.

Minimum wage laws destroy jobs, The California Sierra Club lobbied the state for a higher minimum wage and asked to be exempt from the new hike because they would have to lay off people. Guess who else is exempt? All that cheap migrant labor. How much would food cost if we were paying the minimum wage to pick food?

Your argument just boils down to mouthing off your ideals and principles (eg: "I dont have a right to work for someone else at the level of compensation I want") without anything concrete.

I do have that right? Okay, hire me for $250,000 a year. Oh, you dont have the money? Yer violating my rights

 

[BasketCase]

NOW HIRING

Specialist needed for short-term contract work.

Job requirements: candidate must be highly skilled at breaking and entering, covert sanitation operations, and long-range firearms. Candidate must be willing to learn the North Korean language and customs. Close proximity to Kim Il Jung will be a plus, but any skills that will get him in your crosshairs are acceptable.

Salary: $250,000 per year.

Benefits: Full health and dental coverage. 401k plan. Burial at Arlington with 21-gun salute and full honors.

 

[aelf]

You accuse me of thinking its simple, and then you ask what if all jobs were pretty much the same? They aint, so much for simple.

If all you can do is pick food yer labor aint worth much. But if you can run a lathe, yeah, companies will offer you more money. Thats just how it works...

The person who aint getting properly compensated for their labor will do it. They can quit and tell you all about why and you can complain and start a boycott. And it aint the free market's fault the government schools do a lousy job of training future employees.

Minimum wage laws destroy jobs, The California Sierra Club lobbied the state for a higher minimum wage and asked to be exempt from the new hike because they would have to lay off people. Guess who else is exempt? All that cheap migrant labor. How much would food cost if we were paying the minimum wage to pick food?

I do have that right? Okay, hire me for $250,000 a year. Oh, you dont have the money? Yer violating my rights

Obviously, you know nothing about realities. Quit and boycott? The last I heard, such initiatives created labour unions, whose pressure you don't like at all. Talk about naive.

And what is the difference between assembly line work here and there? Hardly any. That is the reality. Companies would not pay more just to undercut others and attract more labour to such jobs. In fact, the trend is to cut costs and outsource these jobs to places where labour laws are lax and labour prices are low. Is the solution then to get rid of domestic labour laws? Well, if you are eager to create a social underclass who would threaten political stability, then yes.

Again you betray your lack of insight and reveal that your posts regarding such issues aren't really worth replying to.