The size and scope of Government

[Undesired Walrus]

What do you believe is the appropriate role of Government? How far can it reach into public life before it becomes unethical?

I was reading up on the 1964 Civil Rights Act today, and I thought the following quote from Goldwater (Who voted against the act) might be an interesting place to start a discussion:

"You can't legislate morality."

He was talking about Title II, that:

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I'm interested, is there anyone here who disagrees philosophically with acts like the CRA? For those that would have voted for it, what would you have said to Goldwater in debate?

I just thought there was a lack of threads about the reasons behind your political philosophies, and how you justify them, so I thought this would be interesting.

[Alt+F4]

I think societies' definition of morality changes with time.

Two days before 2010 I don't think anyone (except hard core white supremacists) could disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I think 20 years or so in the future, when former President Obama is writing his most recently biography and planning his libary, he'll look back on how silly his "moral argument" was against gay marriage....and he'll feel regret.

[KingMerv00]

"You can't legislate morality."

The government has always legislated morality insofar as it affects other people. The CRA is a good example of that.

[drkitten]

What do you believe is the appropriate role of Government? How far can it reach into public life before it becomes unethical?

I was reading up on the 1964 Civil Rights Act today, and I thought the following quote from Goldwater (Who voted against the act) might be an interesting place to start a discussion:

"You can't legislate morality."

He was talking about Title II, that:

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."



Goldwater is right, but irrelevant. You can't legislate morality, but you can regulate behavior. You can't force people to believe what you want them to believe, but you can force them to behave as you want them to behave. If you think, for example, that Moloch demands the sacrifice of babies, I can't legislate you out of your belief.

But I sure as hell can legislate you out of making that type of sacrifice.

And in a lot of cases, morality will follow behavior, simply because a lot of what people think of as "moral" is really just "habit" or "custom." When stores started to sell liquor on Sunday, and the sky didn't fall, this will cause a lot of people to start questioning whether or not it's really immoral to buy liquor on Sundays. So if you legislate the moral behavior you want, time may come when you've effectively created the moral beliefs that you want as well.

[Undesired Walrus]

I think societies' definition of morality changes with time.

Two days before 2010 I don't think anyone (except hard core white supremacists) could disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I think you'd be surprised. Many libertarians are opposed to it (Including Paul).

I think 20 years or so in the future, when former President Obama is writing his most recently biography and planning his libary, he'll look back on how silly his "moral argument" was against gay marriage....and he'll feel regret.

I really doubt Obama is against gay marriage in private (As I remember, there was a quote lost in the past in which he was much more favourable towards it). He presumably believed that it would make him unelectable to come out in favour of it. If this is true -and I base this squarely on an unskeptical hunch- then it is a shame.

[Alt+F4]

I think you'd be surprised. Many libertarians are opposed to it (Including Paul).

Ah, I didn't know that. But I shouldn't be suprised about Ron Paul, he's even opposed to himself!

[KingMerv00]

Goldwater is right, but irrelevant. You can't legislate morality, but you can regulate behavior. You can't force people to believe what you want them to believe, but you can force them to behave as you want them to behave. If you think, for example, that Moloch demands the sacrifice of babies, I can't legislate you out of your belief.

But I sure as hell can legislate you out of making that type of sacrifice.

And in a lot of cases, morality will follow behavior, simply because a lot of what people think of as "moral" is really just "habit" or "custom." When stores started to sell liquor on Sunday, and the sky didn't fall, this will cause a lot of people to start questioning whether or not it's really immoral to buy liquor on Sundays. So if you legislate the moral behavior you want, time may come when you've effectively created the moral beliefs that you want as well.

drkitten,

It is kinda scary how often I agree with you when it comes to the law. Please put this in your sig:

"If the above is a discussion of legal matters, KingMerv00 agrees."

:D

[daenku32]

Size wise, it should be just the right size to get things done.

[INRM]

Dr. Kitten,

You agree that there are certain behaviors or habits that are generally unacceptable, correct?

[Phrost]

The role of a just government is to preserve, defend, and maximize the freedom of the individual.

To that end, it should stay out of subjective moral issues, just like Goldwater advised.

[Undesired Walrus]

Do you not agree with the CRA?

[Arcade22]

Big enough to protect the weak and punish the wicked with excessive brutality. Small enough to give the law-abiding citizens a free existence.

[Thunder]

Big enough to protect the weak and punish the wicked with excessive brutality.

i thought you were not a fan of Sharia law?

[KingMerv00]

Small enough to give the law-abiding citizens a free existence.

Unless you are a muslim.

[INRM]

I think the basic concept for ideal size and scope of government should be the following: The government should be sufficiently small enough to prevent it from being able to intrude into every aspect of everybody's lives, yet able to function effectively.

[drkitten]

The role of a just government is to preserve, defend, and maximize the freedom of the individual.

To that end, it should stay out of subjective moral issues, just like Goldwater advised.

The only problem with that formulationsis that among the freedoms I would like to have preserved, defended and naturalizes are the freedom to sit where I would like on the bus, to live where I would like to live, to eat where and what I would like to eat, to go to school where I like and study what I like, and eventually to be buried in any cemetary I choose.

There's nothing at all subjective about being told that this particular facility -- such as the best university in the state, or a subdivision with low crime and good facilities, or even the bathroom at the local restaurant -- is off-limits to me. Even if the other person considers his reasons for barring me to be "moral."

[drkitten]

I think the basic concept for ideal size and scope of government should be the following: The government should be sufficiently small enough to prevent it from being able to intrude into every aspect of everybody's lives, yet able to function effectively.

Doesn't really help. Telling me that the government should be able to function effectively just tells me it should be good at what it does. It doesn't tell me what it should be doing (and therefore good at). As I posted earlier, I want the government to be able into intrude into almost all aspects of my life, in order to assure that I will not be unjustly deprived of those aspects by a third party.

There are few aspects of my life more personal and private than where and when I take a dump. But I nevertheless insist it is appropriate that the government take actions to assure that I can do that as I see fit.

[FlamingMoe]

I'm interested, is there anyone here who disagrees philosophically with acts like the CRA?

Insofar as it applies to non-government actors, I disagree with the Civil Rights Act.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why?

[FlamingMoe]

If someone owns a business and they only want to serve certain people, I see no reason I should be able to tell him otherwise. It's his property, not mine. It's his investment, not mine. It's his labor, not mine. If he wants to exclude large (or small) swaths of the population from his potential business pool, who am I to say he can't? If he wants to alienate a great deal of people he would serve but now won't because they find his practices revolting and won't give him their business, who am I to say he can't?

The government, on the other hand, must be barred from discriminating by virtue of the equal protection and privileges & immunities clauses of the 14th amendment.

In short, the CRA (as it applies to non-government actors) violates the rights of the individual to control his own property, with whom he associates, and his own labor.

[Skeptic]

I think 20 years or so in the future, when former President Obama is writing his most recently biography and planning his libary, he'll look back on how silly his "moral argument" was against gay marriage eugenics....and he'll feel regret.

I am not trying to compare the two in terms of morality, but merely pointing out that "the future belongs to us" arguments about how resistance is futile because "everybody knows" it is already a preordained result that X will happen is often wrong.

Indeed, it is no moral argument at all. Even when it is true, it merely shows X will happen. It does not show X should have happened.

[Undesired Walrus]

If someone owns a business and they only want to serve certain people, I see no reason I should be able to tell him otherwise. It's his property, not mine. It's his investment, not mine. It's his labor, not mine. If he wants to exclude large (or small) swaths of the population from his potential business pool, who am I to say he can't? If he wants to alienate a great deal of people he would serve but now won't because they find his practices revolting and won't give him their business, who am I to say he can't?


Should s/he be able to show abuse towards his customers?

In short, the CRA (as it applies to non-government actors) violates the rights of the individual to control his own property, with whom he associates, and his own labor.

Yet doesn't discrimination violate the rights of the black individual? The black individual's freedom is strengthened with the CRA, while before it was denied. The owner's discrimination violates another’s natural right to life and liberty. Why should the law be tilted in favour of the racist?

[NYer]

I'd like to see minimal governmental invovlement in my life. Lower my taxes, defend the security of the country, keep a safety net for those in need of assistance, and leave me alone.

[Darat]

Government should be just effective enough to deliver on my needs.....

[drkitten]

If someone owns a business and they only want to serve certain people, I see no reason I should be able to tell him otherwise. It's his property, not mine. It's his investment, not mine. It's his labor, not mine.

If someone owns a gun and they want to shoot certain people, I see no reason I should be able to tell him otherwise. It's his gun, not mine. It's his ammunition, not mine.


In short, the CRA (as it applies to non-government actors) violates the rights of the individual to control his own property, with whom he associates, and his own labor.

In short, laws against murder (as they apply to non-government actors) violate the rights of the individual to control his own weapons, his own ammunition, and with whom he associates.

[FlamingMoe]

Should s/he be able to show abuse towards his customers?
That depends on what kind of "abuse" you mean. If you're talking about bondage games at Helga's House of Pain, then yes. If you mean a shopowner punching a customer in the face (as long as that's not the service the customer was paying for) then no.

Yet doesn't discrimination violate the rights of the black individual? The black individual's freedom is strengthened with the CRA, while before it was denied. The owner's discrimination violates another’s natural right to life and liberty. Why should the law be tilted in favour of the racist?
First, we're not talking about discrimination against any specific group of people. I believe a black business owner should be able to discriminate against whites just as much as I believe a white business owner should be able to discriminate against blacks.

Second, no. Discrimination by private individuals violates no rights. A person has no right to enter someone else's property. A person has no right to demand labor from someone else. The owner's discrimination does not violate anyone's right to life, for he is not killing them; it does not violate anyone's right to liberty, for they do not own the property upon which the business sits. Not being able to shop at a particular store is an inconvenience -- being forced to serve someone against your will is slavery.

As to your final question, the law should be tilted toward individual liberty and property rights, even if the owner exercises those rights in a manner you or I find morally repulsive.

[FlamingMoe]

If someone owns a gun and they want to shoot certain people, I see no reason I should be able to tell him otherwise. It's his gun, not mine. It's his ammunition, not mine.



In short, laws against murder (as they apply to non-government actors) violate the rights of the individual to control his own weapons, his own ammunition, and with whom he associates.

I'd put a picture of the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz here because your whole post is nothing but a strawman, but that may be interpreted by some as insinuating that you don't have a brain.

I don't need any more stupid warnings, so I'll just say it: STRAWMAN.

[drkitten]

I don't need any more stupid warnings, so I'll just say it: STRAWMAN.

Calling a reductio ad absurdam a "strawman" doesn't make it so.

Laws are made to protect people's rights. Your "right" to use your property does not include the right to violate other people's rights in so doing. If you insist you have the "right" to control your property in a way that infringes upon me,.... well, you're simply wrong.

[daenku32]

That depends on what kind of "abuse" you mean. If you're talking about bondage games at Helga's House of Pain, then yes. If you mean a shopowner punching a customer in the face (as long as that's not the service the customer was paying for) then no.


First, we're not talking about discrimination against any specific group of people. I believe a black business owner should be able to discriminate against whites just as much as I believe a white business owner should be able to discriminate against blacks.

Second, no. Discrimination by private individuals violates no rights. A person has no right to enter someone else's property. A person has no right to demand labor from someone else. The owner's discrimination does not violate anyone's right to life, for he is not killing them; it does not violate anyone's right to liberty, for they do not own the property upon which the business sits. Not being able to shop at a particular store is an inconvenience -- being forced to serve someone against your will is slavery.

As to your final question, the law should be tilted toward individual liberty and property rights, even if the owner exercises those rights in a manner you or I find morally repulsive.

As someone who surely believes that the private sector should provide essential services to people, you apparently are OK with this private sector prohibiting goods or services from those it doesn't like, meaning that the people who are discriminated against are well deserved not to receive what they need in order to live.

[drkitten]

As someone who surely believes that the private sector should provide essential services to people, you apparently are OK with this private sector prohibiting goods or services from those it doesn't like, meaning that the people who are discriminated against are well deserved not to receive what they need in order to live.

Well, this is the ultimate view of the free market theologians. People have a right to all sorts of things, but no one has the corresponding duty to provide them. You have the right to an attorney, for example. If it happens that no attorney will accept a case from your kind of person,... sucks to be you, I guess.

You similarly have the right to travel, as long as you don't actually plan to use any of the services necessary to travel.

[Corsair 115]

I'd like to see minimal governmental invovlement in my life. Lower my taxes, defend the security of the country, keep a safety net for those in need of assistance, and leave me alone.


Does this minimum government include such things as fire codes, building codes, and the like?

[Undesired Walrus]

That depends on what kind of "abuse" you mean. If you're talking about bondage games at Helga's House of Pain, then yes. If you mean a shopowner punching a customer in the face (as long as that's not the service the customer was paying for) then no.

Racist abuse can be just as damaging as a punch on the nose.

First, we're not talking about discrimination against any specific group of people. I believe a black business owner should be able to discriminate against whites just as much as I believe a white business owner should be able to discriminate against blacks.

I know that, but I don't believe a racist black man should be able to racially discriminate against a young white boy who wants nothing more threatening than some football cards.

Second, no. Discrimination by private individuals violates no rights. A person has no right to enter someone else's property. A person has no right to demand labor from someone else. The owner's discrimination does not violate anyone's right to life, for he is not killing them; it does not violate anyone's right to liberty, for they do not own the property upon which the business sits.


I don't see how it can end up not violating their right to life. Consider a black woman needs supplies, and is refused by every shop in town. She is essentially left to starve, while the white community get all the goods they want. One has to ask, how does that not violate her right to life? A black child is refused a vaccine at a local doctor's surgery, how does that not violate their right to life?

I'm curious as to why we can't reverse your last sentence to: "Not being able to racially discriminate is an inconvenience".

Out of interest, would you also support the decision of a bus company to refuse the blind to bring on guide dogs?

being forced to serve someone against your will is slavery.


Not quite, you still pocket the cash.

[NYer]

Does this minimum government include such things as fire codes, building codes, and the like?

Yes and maintaining roads and keeping the country secure.

[Corsair 115]

Yes and maintaining roads and keeping the country secure.


Then I would submit that your original description of the role of government needs to be expanded. Either that, or you need to be more clear about what falls under the "security of the country" or "safety net" areas.

[FlamingMoe]

Calling a reductio ad absurdam a "strawman" doesn't make it so.
No, an argument being a strawman is what makes it a strawman. Are you seriously asserting that denying someone entrance to private property is at all comparable to murder? I really have no rebuttal to an argument of such vast stupidity.

Laws are made to protect people's rights. Your "right" to use your property does not include the right to violate other people's rights in so doing.
Exactly. Which is why murder is not defensible under the "my gun, my right to use it however I want" theory.

If you insist you have the "right" to control your property in a way that infringes upon me,.... well, you're simply wrong.
Perhaps we simply disagree on what "rights" a person has. I believe a person has the right to control their labor, association, and property. You believe someone else has a right to trump those rights in order to buy a can of Coke.

[FlamingMoe]

Racist abuse can be just as damaging as a punch on the nose.
Uh, you don't have the right to be free of hurt feelings.

I know that, but I don't believe a racist black man should be able to racially discriminate against a young white boy who wants nothing more threatening than some football cards.
And I don't believe football cards are an adequate reason to compel labor from an unwilling individual.

I don't see how it can end up not violating their right to life. Consider a black woman needs supplies, and is refused by every shop in town. She is essentially left to starve, while the white community get all the goods they want. One has to ask, how does that not violate her right to life? A black child is refused a vaccine at a local doctor's surgery, how does that not violate their right to life?
First of all, in this day and age I believe it is so exceedingly unlikely such a scenario would exist that we can consider the odds of occurrance to be trivial at best.

Second, even if it did happen, there would be people who would see a large untapped market in that area, move in, and take the money others won't.

Third, even if the second point didn't materialize, those individuals always have the opportunity to leave and go somewhere else.

I'm curious as to why we can't reverse your last sentence to: "Not being able to racially discriminate is an inconvenience".
You can. The difference is that it's still a violation of rights in addition to being an inconvenience.

Out of interest, would you also support the decision of a bus company to refuse the blind to bring on guide dogs?
I would not support it, but I would support their right to do it so long as it is a private company.

Not quite, you still pocket the cash.
Pre-Civil War slaves were given shelter and food for their labor. And it was no less slavery because of that fact.

[Undesired Walrus]

Uh, you don't have the right to be free of hurt feelings.

Why is a punch on the nose against the law but the racial exclusion of a black family from a medical center fine?

First of all, in this day and age I believe it is so exceedingly unlikely such a scenario would exist that we can consider the odds of occurrance to be trivial at best.

Your political philosophy can't rely on the luck of the draw. Besides, It's something that can happen, has happened, and does happen, around the world. The middle east, for example, with women.

Second, even if it did happen, there would be people who would see a large untapped market in that area, move in, and take the money others won't.

Eventually, perhaps. But food and medical care are a necessity instantly, not at some hopeful and vague period in the future. Besides, their right to life is still being -at some time or other- denied.

Third, even if the second point didn't materialize, those individuals always have the opportunity to leave and go somewhere else.

This strikes me as very naive.

[drkitten]

No, an argument being a strawman is what makes it a strawman. Are you seriously asserting that denying someone entrance to private property is at all comparable to murder?

Yes, in that they are both criminal actions that deprive people of their rights.

Unsurprisingly, the courts also see it that way.

Which means that this "argument of vast stupidity" is evidently not stupid enough for the SCOTUS -- or any other court of competent jurisdiction, for that matter -- to see any issue with it whatsoever.

I suspect the "vast stupidity" is not on my part.