Legislating morality

[clarsct]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?

[Rob Lister]

That's what all law do. Law is an attempt (and often a poor one) to objectify morality.

'This is wrong, therefore it is now illegal'.

Wrong to whom?

[TragicMonkey]

Another view of law is that it's an attempt to stop that which is destructive to the society. Which means that even if the majority thinks something is morally wrong, it can still be legal.

[dann]

As long as poverty makes prostitution seem to be the better alternative to some people, mostly women, it won't cease to exist, clarsct. It has very little to do with morality and a lot to do with wealth: Rich people look down on poor people and what they have to do to get by. Rich people ascribe a moral quality to what they themselves don't have to consider doing, as if it were a question of not only financial, but also moral superiority-inferiority: 'I would never stoop so low!'
They do the same thing with the question of taste!

[Admiral]

Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?

I'm a libertarian, so I believe that laws should only be meant to stop people from infringing on other people's rights. Consensual "crimes" don't hurt anyone else- why are we punishing people for them?


What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?


The question there is whether a fetus is a human. If it is, then abortion is equivalent to murder (I'm pro-choice, but I can see how there are multiple sides to this issue). Just because there's a moral question about a law doesn't mean the law is "legislating morality"- there's moral questions about just about every law out there (that's why law is such a complicated area).


What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?


Murder involves one person seriously violating the rights of another. I suppose you could say that the principle of protecting people from being harmed by others is a "moral principle," but then you're stretching the definition of morality such that no law could possible escape.

I think what you meant by "legislating morality" was "enforcing values"- that is, because the majority consider prostitution a bad thing, they can make it illegal. I absolutely agree that values should never be enforced- I personally can't stand Madonna or Steven Seagal, but I wouldn't try to make them illegal.

[Cheesejoff]

As long as poverty makes prostitution seem to be the better alternative to some people, mostly women, it won't cease to exist, clarsct. It has very little to do with morality and a lot to do with wealth: Rich people look down on poor people and what they have to do to get by. Rich people ascribe a moral quality to what they themselves don't have to consider doing, as if it were a question of not only financial, but also moral superiority-inferiority: 'I would never stoop so low!'
They do the same thing with the question of taste!

I agree and would like to add that most religions are also opposed to prositution.

[dann]

Yeeeees, but .... aren't these religions always against any kind of sex that is not sanctified by their priests? I wouldn't count that as opposition to prostitution specifically. That a woman has to give in to sex because of poverty or because it is her duty to be subservient to her husband/owner aren't things that seem to bother religions much as far as I know: http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Judges+19&version1=51

[Ziggurat]

Can we legislate morality?

Yes, you most certainly can. Should you? Well, that question always runs the risk of trying to figure out what constitutes morality, but in a broad sense, yes, we should. And I'll give you an example of moral legislation which is fairly non-controversial and so often doesn't get considered in such debates: laws against animal cruelty. I am (generally speaking) in favor of them, and so are most people. But why have such laws? It's really a moral judgment about the act being wrong. Many other laws about "wrong" acts (such as murder) can also be justified on the grounds of preventing people from violating the rights of other people (for example, theft is a violation of property rights, etc), but no such argument exists for animals. They are not members of society, they have no real rights, they can be killed pretty much arbitrarily, so why make torturing an animal illegal when killing that same animal is perfectly legal? This is, ultimately, a moral decision. I'm quite happy with it, but that's what it is.

The cry that we should not legislate morality is often used by people who don't really have a problem with legislating morality categorically, but merely with the particular idea of morality being advanced. That being said, I would argue that legislation can never make people good, and it should not try to. We cannot outlaw every immoral act, and we should be ESPECIALLY cautious about outlawing an act on moral grounds if only a slim majority considers it immoral.

[Admiral]

I agree and would like to add that most religions are also opposed to prositution.

How is this, in itself, a reason to oppose the legislation? Remember that the strength of an idea is not based on who supports it. (I'm sure you've heard people say "Stalin was an atheist- atheism is evil"- same fallacy.)

[clarsct]

Was prostituion outlawed for religious reasons, though?


If you made an equivocation between animals and humans, for instance those people who believe that their dog is their child, then would it not make sense to outlaw cruelity to animals?
And couldn't an argument be made that someone who tortures animals is a risk to society in general? We lock up drunk drivers because their behavior is a danger to those around them. If you enjoy torture, be it animals, then is it a great leap to think that you would enjoy torturing a fellow human?


At what point do we say that society's morals are justified? If one person tells you what you're doing is wrong, then that is their opinion. If a hundred people tell you what you're doing is wrong, then they get to impose a moral code upon you? What about a thousand? A million?

Isn't that an ad populum argument?

[thaiboxerken]

We should only make those things illegal that interfere with a person's ability to be happy. That is to say, if you want to screw yourself up, that's fine. However, if you start screwing other people up while doing so, then there should be a law.

Why is prostitution illegal, but being a slut not?

[Ziggurat]

We should only make those things illegal that interfere with a person's ability to be happy.

In other words, you don't like laws that outlaw animal cruelty?

[thaiboxerken]

In other words, you don't like laws that outlaw animal cruelty?

I don't think they are necessary. I like pets, though.

[JamesDillon]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?

I think that the concept of "morality" is much too vague for that question to be really meaningful. If we define an immoral act as anything that is counterproductive to the ongoing maintenance of cooperative society, which is as good a definition as any I've heard, then the law is all about legislating morality (indeed, the principle that it is possible to legislate morality becomes a mere tautology), in that a chief goal of the law is (or at least, I think, should be) to prevent precisely those sorts of acts. But different people have different conceptions of the basis and content of morality, and since quite often the people debating the issue of legislating morality have very different notions of what morality is, I think they generally just end up talking past one another.

I suspect, from my own experience, that people who argue that "you can't legislate morality" quite often mean by that statement that it is impossible to persuade other people of the correctness of one's own conception of morality by enacting that conception into law. I think that view is wrong, or at least misguided, for two reasons. First, there's the crossover problem-- the law itself quite often carries some degree of moral force, such that a particular act may be deemed immoral simply because it is illegal. Insofar as that is the case, attitudes about the morality of some specific conduct can certainly be influenced by enacting a law imposing a criminal penalty on that conduct. Second, I think that the objection is misguided because, generally speaking, the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions on some kind of conduct is not, primarily, to persuade the public that the conduct is immoral, but rather, simply to prevent the conduct from taking place. Laws against prostitution and marijuana use, for example, might not persuade some portion of the public that those activities are inherently immoral, but they do prevent a significant portion of individuals who might otherwise engage in such conduct from doing so, and permit the state to punish those individuals who disregard the law and engage in the prohibited conduct anyway. From the perspective of deterrence, it isn't really relevant whether the legal prohibition in question is widely internalized as a moral norm or not, so long as the behavior in question is prevented, or at least substantially curbed, by the operation of the law.

So, in short, to the extent that the question has any clear meaning, it is possible to legislate morality to a significant degree. The questions whether all widely-held moral beliefs should be enacted into law, or whether all legal prohibitions should be regarded as carrying a moral force, are separate and somewhat more complicated questions that are not resolved by the affirmative answer to the question posed in the opening post.

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps legislation against prostitution isn't so much about morality as it is about taste.

[Admiral]

Was prostituion outlawed for religious reasons, though?

I believe it was largely a result of the reform movement in the early 20th century (I assume you're talking about America).


If you made an equivocation between animals and humans, for instance those people who believe that their dog is their child, then would it not make sense to outlaw cruelity to animals?

I agree.


And couldn't an argument be made that someone who tortures animals is a risk to society in general? We lock up drunk drivers because their behavior is a danger to those around them. If you enjoy torture, be it animals, then is it a great leap to think that you would enjoy torturing a fellow human?

This I strongly disagree with. As soon as you say "We're going to outlaw this behavior because we believe that people that do it are a risk to society," you open the door to tons and tons of terrible legislation.

For example, "homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters- let's make gay sex illegal." It's not true that there's a correlation, but who's to decide what correlations should be believed and which should? "People who drive red cars are more likely to be criminals, let's make red cars illegal." I doubt this is true either, but imagine that it were- would it be reasonable to make red cars illegal? People in WWII believed that the Japanese were more likely to be saboteurs- let's lock them up.

Punish people for what they do, not what you stereotype them as doing!


At what point do we say that society's morals are justified? If one person tells you what you're doing is wrong, then that is their opinion. If a hundred people tell you what you're doing is wrong, then they get to impose a moral code upon you? What about a thousand? A million?

Isn't that an ad populum argument?

I agree. About 80% of the country supports an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting flag burning- that doesn't mean Congress should be allowed to pass it (that's the reason we have the 1st amendment).

[clarsct]

I think that the concept of "morality" is much too vague for that question to be really meaningful. If we define an immoral act as anything that is counterproductive to the ongoing maintenance of cooperative society, which is as good a definition as any I've heard, then the law is all about legislating morality (indeed, the principle that it is possible to legislate morality becomes a mere tautology), in that a chief goal of the law is (or at least, I think, should be) to prevent precisely those sorts of acts. But different people have different conceptions of the basis and content of morality, and since quite often the people debating the issue of legislating morality have very different notions of what morality is, I think they generally just end up talking past one another.

I suspect, from my own experience, that people who argue that "you can't legislate morality" quite often mean by that statement that it is impossible to persuade other people of the correctness of one's own conception of morality by enacting that conception into law. I think that view is wrong, or at least misguided, for two reasons. First, there's the crossover problem-- the law itself quite often carries some degree of moral force, such that a particular act may be deemed immoral simply because it is illegal. Insofar as that is the case, attitudes about the morality of some specific conduct can certainly be influenced by enacting a law imposing a criminal penalty on that conduct. Second, I think that the objection is misguided because, generally speaking, the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions on some kind of conduct is not, primarily, to persuade the public that the conduct is immoral, but rather, simply to prevent the conduct from taking place. Laws against prostitution and marijuana use, for example, might not persuade some portion of the public that those activities are inherently immoral, but they do prevent a significant portion of individuals who might otherwise engage in such conduct from doing so, and permit the state to punish those individuals who disregard the law and engage in the prohibited conduct anyway. From the perspective of deterrence, it isn't really relevant whether the legal prohibition in question is widely internalized as a moral norm or not, so long as the behavior in question is prevented, or at least substantially curbed, by the operation of the law.

So, in short, to the extent that the question has any clear meaning, it is possible to legislate morality to a significant degree. The questions whether all widely-held moral beliefs should be enacted into law, or whether all legal prohibitions should be regarded as carrying a moral force, are separate and somewhat more complicated questions that are not resolved by the affirmative answer to the question posed in the opening post.
WOW..

Now that's an answer!


Let me see if I can tackle it.

1) Morals and Laws. Does legal authority carry moral authority? I would say no. There have been several bad laws in America that were overturned by civil disobedience, and other measures. Law has no concept of fairness, and the Law can be an ass, as the saying goes.

2) Should widely held moral beliefs be made into law? Well, how widely held? What gives the majority the right to dictate what morals ought to be? I would say no. But, aren't many laws we have simply moral choices? If killing someone would be good for me, then isn't that a moral choice?
This one is a sticky one for me, and probably the heart of my question.
If we can legislate some morals but not others, then where is the line drawn?

[Ziggurat]

This one is a sticky one for me, and probably the heart of my question.
If we can legislate some morals but not others, then where is the line drawn?

If you are expecting objective criteria for making such decisions, I think you will be disappointed. There is no escape from making hard decisions on a topic like this by defering to some simple (and hence inflexible) principle. Sometimes in life, case-by-case is the best we can do.

[Admiral]

If you are expecting objective criteria for making such decisions, I think you will be disappointed. There is no escape from making hard decisions on a topic like this by defering to some simple (and hence inflexible) principle. Sometimes in life, case-by-case is the best we can do.

Libertarians would argue that it IS possible to decide on such issues based on principle- that laws should only prevent people from infringing on each other's rights. Of course, this principle leads to a lot of policies that are very unpopular, such as (for starters) drug decriminalization, legalization of prostitution, abolishment of anti-discrimination laws (for private firms, that is), etc...

However, I think using this principle is far better than the use of the phrase "for the good of society"- which is used by liberals to mean one thing, Christians to mean something else, fascists to mean something else...

[clarsct]

If you are expecting objective criteria for making such decisions, I think you will be disappointed. There is no escape from making hard decisions on a topic like this by defering to some simple (and hence inflexible) principle. Sometimes in life, case-by-case is the best we can do.


But the law doesn't do case by case very well. It does one rule for everyone.

I know it won't be totally objective, but it ought to be as objective as possible, in my own not-so-humble opinion.

[Ziggurat]

Libertarians would argue that it IS possible to decide on such issues based on principle- that laws should only prevent people from infringing on each other's rights. Of course, this principle leads to a lot of policies that are very unpopular, such as (for starters) drug decriminalization, legalization of prostitution, abolishment of anti-discrimination laws (for private firms, that is), etc...

Yes, a lot of libertarians would argue that. I happen to think they're wrong - not necessarily on all the specifics (I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it), but on the rigidity of it. As I mentioned, animal cruelty laws don't fit with libertarian notions of law. Thai said he was OK with getting rid of them, I'm not.

However, I think using this principle is far better than the use of the phrase "for the good of society"- which is used by liberals to mean one thing, Christians to mean something else, fascists to mean something else...

Sure, libertarianism hasn't really seen the sort of horrific abuse that various government-heavy ideologies have led to. Part of that is intrinsic to libertarian notions of small government (and government malice can be much worse than government neglect), but it's also because, well, libertarianism has never really been very popular.

[Earthborn]

However, I think using this principle is far better than the use of the phrase "for the good of society"- which is used by liberals to mean one thing, Christians to mean something else, fascists to mean something else...That principle hardly solves that problem, it just shifts it onto another concept; from "the good of society" unto "rights". There is still the problem that liberals, Christians and fascists mean different things when they speak about rights.

[Art Vandelay]

If you made an equivocation between animals and humans, for instance those people who believe that their dog is their child, then would it not make sense to outlaw cruelity to animals?I'm not sure you're clear on what "equivocation" means.

And couldn't an argument be made that someone who tortures animals is a risk to society in general? We lock up drunk drivers because their behavior is a danger to those around them. We lock up drunk drivers because the drunk driving, in and of itself, is dangerous, not because it's an indicator of risk. If you're going to lock up animal torturers, what about locking up child abuse victims? They have a much higher rate of high than the general population. People should be charged with what they've done, not what you think they will do.

We should only make those things illegal that interfere with a person's ability to be happy. So, I take you think that fundamentalist Christianity should be illegal?

Why is prostitution illegal, but being a slut not?Perhaps it's for the same reason why a Senator screwing up the country for free is legal, but taking bribes to do it isn't.

If we define an immoral act as anything that is counterproductive to the ongoing maintenance of cooperative society, which is as good a definition as any I've heard,So it's immoral to spend money on beer rather than a charity?

For example, "homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters- let's make gay sex illegal." It's not true that there's a correlation,I would imagine that there is a correlation between child molestation and same-sex intercourse, simply because child-molestors are less likely to be discriminating regarding the sex of their "partners". The issue shouldn't be whether the correlation is real. The issue is that even if it is, that's not a valid basis.

I agree. About 80% of the country supports an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting flag burning- that doesn't mean Congress should be allowed to pass it (that's the reason we have the 1st amendment).The First Amendment would have no bearing on an Amendment prohibiting flag burning.

1) Morals and Laws. Does legal authority carry moral authority? I would say no. There have been several bad laws in America that were overturned by civil disobedience, and other measures. Law has no concept of fairness, and the Law can be an ass, as the saying goes.The claim wasn't that they're identical, only that law helps make people think of something as moral.

Yes, a lot of libertarians would argue that. I happen to think they're wrong - not necessarily on all the specifics (I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it), but on the rigidity of it. As I mentioned, animal cruelty laws don't fit with libertarian notions of law.And, to me, that is a rather compelling argument against it.


They are not members of society, they have no real rights, they can be killed pretty much arbitrarily, so why make torturing an animal illegal when killing that same animal is perfectly legal? This is, ultimately, a moral decision. I'm quite happy with it, but that's what it is. Animals are a rather bizarre area of the law. If you stick something up a cow's vagina to atificially inseminate her, that's legal. If you do it for sexual reasons, that's illegal. If you shoot a cow in the head to get meat, that's legal. If you do it because you enjoy watching cows suffer, that's illegal.

The question there is whether a fetus is a human. If it is, then abortion is equivalent to murder (I'm pro-choice, but I can see how there are multiple sides to this issue). If someone were to, against my will, suck blood out of my body, that would be assault, wouldn't? And if I killed him, wouldn't that be self-defense? Rather than murder? If we force a woman to have something travel through her vagina, isn't that rape? Doesn't a woman have the right to do whatever it takes to prevent being raped, even if it includes killing an innocent human being?

The idea that the fetus is a human being is actually not sufficient to establish that abortion should be illegal. We also must accept that it is okay for the law to confiscate one person's body in order to save the life of another. I accept neither principle. If someone needed my kidney to survive, I have the right to refuse to give it to him. And if someone needs a woman's womb to survive, she has the right to refuse.

[billydkid]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?

This is of particular interest to me because we have talked about it before and I would like to know where my thinking falls apart. I really wanted to start out saying - yes, they should legislate morality, so long as it's my morality - and that's the crux of the problem isn't it.

The way I look at is this - law, or at least criminal law should be based on the preservation of individual liberty. Murder and rape, as examples, are certainly morally repugnant, but they should be illegal because they involve the violation another's individual rights and liberty. I think it is clear that basing law on morality is incredibly stupid. In the Muslim world it's moral to stone your daughter to death for having been the victim of rape. I think it makes for a very poor basis for civil law. Can anyone give me an example (in criminal type law, since I haven't really thought about other kinds.) where basing laws on the preservation of people's rights falls down?

As far as I can see, the only laws that do not fit into this paradigm are specifically those laws which have only morality as their basis. There will always be a segment of the popultion who feel that it's their perogative to tell other people what they can and can not do, even if what they are doing does not effect (affect???) anyone else. Now I know some people will stretch that idea like this - prostitution lowers the moral standard of society and makes us more coarse - or something. You could make some sort of similar argument about virtually anything you don't personally approve of. It doesn't make you right. Man, imagine a society in which everything that anyone doesn't approve of is banned - I wonder what would be left that a person can still do?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?


We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

The debate is whether prostitution is immoral.

I say it isn't.

[Ziggurat]

Can anyone give me an example (in criminal type law, since I haven't really thought about other kinds.) where basing laws on the preservation of people's rights falls down?

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children). From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.

Now I know some people will stretch that idea like this - prostitution lowers the moral standard of society and makes us more coarse - or something. You could make some sort of similar argument about virtually anything you don't personally approve of. It doesn't make you right.

That's what the democratic process is for: balancing those conflicting opinions. Absent unconstitutional measures, I see no intrinsic problem with laws motivated by morality (though there can certainly be problems with particular laws of that nature, just as there can be problems with laws based on any other motivating factor).

[Art Vandelay]

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children).You still can't reject out of hand the assertion that in the case of sex, parents do not have the right to give consent of behlaf of their children.

From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.Only if you don't think that having sex with children is a violation of their rights.

[clarsct]

We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

The debate is whether prostitution is immoral.

I say it isn't.


So it is a question of WHICH morality we legislate?


Who decides? Majority rule? *ponders* Ad Populum?


I am fairly uncomfortable with that idea, and I haven't put my finger upon why yet.


*ponder*

[Admiral]

So it is a question of WHICH morality we legislate?


Who decides? Majority rule? *ponders* Ad Populum?


I am fairly uncomfortable with that idea, and I haven't put my finger upon why yet.


*ponder*

A lot of democratic thinkers (Madison, Tocqueville, etc) wrote about the idea of the "tyranny of the majority." That is, a democracy allows a faction that controls 60% of the population to force its will onto 40% of the population.

This is the reason we have a Bill of Rights- to say that there are some things the government must not be allowed to do even if a majority supports it.

[clarsct]

Well, Ok. I get that.


But we're still stuck with 'Who decides?' when we decide that morality can be legislated, aren't we?

[Admiral]

We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

Actually, it is (some people disagree with you). Who says we can legislate a particular morality?

Actually, I should ask you how you define morality. Not just what you find moral and immoral, but rather what the definition of morality, or of a moral, is. Is it particular values, like "It's immoral to drink alcohol"? Is it a list of things that should be illegal? Is it a framework to judge actions?

I'm not sure everyone agrees on what "legislating morality" means. From the context of the first post, I took it to mean judging certain actions as wrong and passing laws against them, even if they don't harm anyone. (The reason I make that distinction is that I think what seperates prostitution from crimes such as murder or robbery, in the OP's mind, is that prostitution is consensual.)

[Whoracle]

We shouldn't be legislating religious morality, which is what we are really talking about when it comes to legislating morality, not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.

[Admiral]

Well, Ok. I get that.


But we're still stuck with 'Who decides?' when we decide that morality can be legislated, aren't we?

I personally don't think that morality should be legislated (if morality means what I think you mean by it).

The reason I prefer small government is that government is essentially a tool used by the majority to force the minority into something. Whether that's imposing their values onto the minority or taxing the minority or whatever, it's not a good "power" to be lying around. In fact, the situation is even worse- thanks to corporate donors and lobbyists, it's often the minority forcing their will onto the majority.

Essentially, I'd say the best answer is "limiting the government to protecting people's rights from infringement by each other." Obviously the interpretation of this mandate is something that has to be decided by someone, and it would have to be a democratic system (I'd be OK with the checks and balances we have now as a system for interpreting and enforcing laws meant to protect people from each other).

That way, a majority of whites can't decide to pass laws harming blacks, a majority of non-drug-users can't criminalize drugs, a majority of Christians can't impose a state religion, a majority of pizza-haters can't make pizza illegal... there have to be these "rules" for what government can do.

[Admiral]

We shouldn't be legislating religious morality, which is what we are really talking about when it comes to legislating morality, not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.

Can you define "universal morality"? Not everyone shares the same values you do.

My principle would be that "People should be free to do what they want until they begin to infringe upon other people's freedoms." You can get quite a bit of legislation out of that, but, in my opinion, that's where it stops.

[Earthborn]

... not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.Universal morality? Does such a thing even exist? Even the definition of "murder" is not universal.

[sphenisc]

My principle would be that "People should be free to do what they want until they begin to infringe upon other people's freedoms." You can get quite a bit of legislation out of that, but, in my opinion, that's where it stops.

Are you against all forms of property ownership?

[Francesca R]

The reason I prefer small government is that government is essentially a tool used by the majority to force the minority into something.How can that not happen? Unless no rule can be made without 100% consent then there will always be a minority—even if it is a minority of 1—in disagreement that has majority preferences forced onto it.

Whether that's imposing their values onto the minority or taxing the minority or whatever, it's not a good "power" to be lying around.The alternative appears to be no laws at all. And in that situation the power vacuum (nobody controlling anyone else's decisions) would hardly stay a vacuum. The result would simply be informal force exercised by some onto others against their will. I contest that this "power" you refer to—if democratically dispensed—is indeed a "good" power.

In fact, the situation is even worse- thanks to corporate donors and lobbyists, it's often the minority forcing their will onto the majority.This occurs whenever "one person = one vote" is corrupted into "one [currency unit] = one vote". It is usually a subversion of democratically-inspired legislation and to oppose it is to oppose corrupt government, not to oppose government which is not intended to embody such corruption. And of course, money is not the only means of corrupting legislation.

Essentially, I'd say the best answer is "limiting the government to protecting people's rights from infringement by each other." I think the de-facto answer is that "government powers (in equilibrium) are limited to what the majority of the people want them to be limited to" in general—but there are many exceptions I guess.

There is no escape from making hard decisions on a topic like this by defering to some simple (and hence inflexible) principle. Sometimes in life, case-by-case is the best we can do.Agreed.

[The Painter]

most religions are also opposed to prositution.

Didn’t Jesus have a hooker in his entourage? Mary Magdalene?

[Ziggurat]

You still can't reject out of hand the assertion that in the case of sex, parents do not have the right to give consent of behlaf of their children.

But WHY? I agree that they cannot, but I think the only justification for why they cannot is ultimately a moral one. After all, parents can grant consent for most other actions that children cannot consent to themselves. What's special about sex? I see no libertarian argument that makes it any different.

Only if you don't think that having sex with children is a violation of their rights.

How can it be, if they and their parents were to consent to it? The only out I see is for some right to be asserted on moral, not libertarian, grounds. And I'm OK with that.

[marksman]

I think that the concept of "morality" is much too vague for that question to be really meaningful....
Nominated!

[marksman]

Law is a public expression and enforcement of the lawmakers' morality. Even libertarians are enforcing their morality through the law, even if they believe their morality is rationally based.

[Admiral]

Are you against all forms of property ownership?

Sorry, I didn't make my views clear- I was vastly oversimplifying.

I'm absolutely in favor of property ownership. I feel that each person has has a right to property, along with rights to liberty, to privacy, etc. The government should protect these rights, and prevent other people from infringing on them.

How can that not happen? Unless no rule can be made without 100% consent then there will always be a minority—even if it is a minority of 1—in disagreement that has majority preferences forced onto it.

The ONLY case when government should be allowed to pass laws is if they are meant to protect people's individual rights. If the minority you're referring to is people who think murder should be illegal, than, absolutely, they shouldn't be allowed to prevent muder being legal. However, in the case of prostitution, it's simply a minority of people who aren't hurting anyone that the majority is imposing their values onto.

Do you support freedom of speech? If you do, then you agree in theory that even if a law is popular and arises from a democratic process, it shouldn't necessarily be passed. I'd support adding a lot more similar rules meant to limit the power of the government.


The alternative appears to be no laws at all.

Strawman. For some reason, every time I get into an argument like this, the other side jumps to "Then why have government at all?" I NEVER supported anarchism. As I said, laws should be passed to protect our individual rights. That includes pretty much any kind of crime that has a victim.


And in that situation the power vacuum (nobody controlling anyone else's decisions) would hardly stay a vacuum. The result would simply be informal force exercised by some onto others against their will. I contest that this "power" you refer to—if democratically dispensed—is indeed a "good" power.

Just being democratically dispensed isn't enough, if it isn't accompanied by limits to the government's power. Suppose 60% of the country wants to impose a state religion. You obviously wouldn't support it, and would probably point to the First Amendment (as you should). But if the government got to do whatever the majoritarian opinion was, they wouldn't have a problem imposing a state religion.


This occurs whenever "one person = one vote" is corrupted into "one [currency unit] = one vote". It is usually a subversion of democratically-inspired legislation and to oppose it is to oppose corrupt government, not to oppose government which is not intended to embody such corruption. And of course, money is not the only means of corrupting legislation.

Right! You agree that there are many ways to corrupt legislation!

The reason corporations donate and lobby is that the government has so much power in the economic system. Corporate and agricultural subsidies, for example- what right does government have to take our money and use it to bail out airlines and oil companies, or subsidize crops that no one wants? As soon as the government is able to give handouts to oil companies and farming unions, those organizations start doing everything they can to bribe politicians.

If you got rid of pork (legislation meant to "stimulate the economy" that sends money straight to corporations), as well as anti-trust legislation (which is usually used by monopolies to break up their competitors rather than the other way around- the market pretty much never supports a monopoly unless the government backs it up with force) we wouldn't have to worry about corporations bribing politicians.


I think the de-facto answer is that "government powers (in equilibrium) are limited to what the majority of the people want them to be limited to" in general—but there are many exceptions I guess.

Right. I don't feel that the government should be allowed to pass the Patriot Act whether it is popular or not.

Think about this- Jim Crow laws were passed democratically (although, admittedly, only after democratically passing laws disenfranchising the blacks). Just because a majority thinks government should be allowed to segregate, and back it up with force, doesn't mean that we should let government do it.

I think your problem is that you still don't see who gets to decide what the limitations are. In the end, it does have to fall to a system of checks and balances to determine where to draw the line. However, government HAS to be run by laws, not men. We should impose further amendments to the Constitution that limit the government's power to infringe upon our rights, (that is, make laws against drug use and other victimless crimes unconstitutional) and give the Supreme Court the obligation to keep the government from violatng these principles.

(By the way, my arguments are very focused on American politics- I don't mean to assume that you're American, since I don't know.)

[Francesca R]

(By the way, my arguments are very focused on American politics- I don't mean to assume that you're American, since I don't know.)I'm not American.

Do you support freedom of speech? If you do, then you agree in theory that even if a law is popular and arises from a democratic process, it shouldn't necessarily be passed. I'd support adding a lot more similar rules meant to limit the power of the government.It sounds like you want "small government" but large "government of government". Setting aside your constitution and its mechanics, who governs the government? An independent judicuary? Who are they accountable to?

Strawman. For some reason, every time I get into an argument like this, the other side jumps to "Then why have government at all?" I NEVER supported anarchism. As I said, laws should be passed to protect our individual rights. Merely devil's advocate. Who decides what the rights are? Assume you do not have some god-like "founding fathers" who decided all that for everybody long ago and set it in stone.

I think your problem is that you still don't see who gets to decide what the limitations are. In the end, it does have to fall to a system of checks and balances to determine where to draw the line.A system arranged and controlled by whom?

[billydkid]

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children). From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.
.
I will have to think about this and get back to you. I think the answer is simple (by which I mean, there is a reason to outlaw it from a libertarian perspective) but I just haven't figured it out yet.

[Admiral]

I'm not American.

Which is why I asked- I'll try to focus less on complaining about American government specifically.


It sounds like you want "small government" but large "government of government". Setting aside your constitution and its mechanics, who governs the government? An independent judicuary? Who are they accountable to?


I'd support the current American system of checks and balances myself (where the judiciary is appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch). This way, no one individual, or even one group, can use government purely to their own ends (needless to say, I'd support adding some more checks and balances to the system).

If you have an idea for a better system, I'd really be happy to hear it.


Merely devil's advocate. Who decides what the rights are? Assume you do not have some god-like "founding fathers" who decided all that for everybody long ago and set it in stone.


Winston Churchill once said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." In no way am I suggesting that a libertarian government would be anywhere near perfect- there's always a balance between what the people want and what individual rights have to be, and it's impossible to resolve it by democratic means (you can't take a vote on how much majority rule should matter any more than you can allow a king to decide how extensive his powers are).

A system arranged and controlled by whom?

Yeah, I see what you're going towards. I don't have an answer.

However, you're still not addressing the fact that a government based on such principles (being limited, that is) would allow for much greater individual freedom, and would limit the possibility of tyranny or of the majority imposing their will on the minority.

[Beerina]

Universal morality? Does such a thing even exist? Even the definition of "murder" is not universal.

That some culture feels it's ok for them to murder me does not make it ok for them to murder me. Is your existence conditional, philosophically, on the approval of others? How did they get this power, and why did you let them?

[Art Vandelay]

But WHY? I agree that they cannot, but I think the only justification for why they cannot is ultimately a moral one. After all, parents can grant consent for most other actions that children cannot consent to themselves. What's special about sex?[/quoite]Disease, pregnancy, social stigma, emotional involvement.

[quote]How can it be, if they and their parents were to consent to it? The only out I see is for some right to be asserted on moral, not libertarian, grounds. And I'm OK with that.What do you mean by "moral, rather than libertarian"? Do you belieive that having sex with a child is a violation of that child's rights? If so, then there is a libertarian justification.

[Ziggurat]

Disease, pregnancy, social stigma, emotional involvement.

Disease is just as much an issue with surgery. Pregnancy is irrelevant to pre-pubescent children. Social stigma and emotional involvement? Those only matter to the extent that you're making a moral judgment of their value or importance - I've never seen a libertarian appeal to them before. Certainly social stigma is discarded as being relevant whenever legalization of recreational drugs is discussed.

What do you mean by "moral, rather than libertarian"? Do you belieive that having sex with a child is a violation of that child's rights? If so, then there is a libertarian justification.

I don't think you can define a right of the child that is being violated (in the absence of force or undue coercion) without justifying that right on moral grounds. I don't think it's classically libertarian because you can't define a freedom of the child that is infringed upon (the standard method to define rights without resorting to moral justifications). If you want to call it libertarian nonetheless because you think there's still a right being violated, that's fine, I really don't care about the semantics. But it's still legislating morality. And I think it's a good thing, too. Conceeding that we should legislate some morality does not require that we try to legislate all moral issues.

[Francesca R]

Which is why I asked- I'll try to focus less on complaining about American government specifically.

I'd support the current American system of checks and balances myself [ . . . ] If you have an idea for a better system, I'd really be happy to hear it.

Hmm, . . . doesn't sound like you are complaining too loudly after all. :)

I don't have any great ideas for a better system. Some say that separation of power between executive and legislative achieves little beyond policy stasis (hence proponents of the "Westminster System"). Others point out that a judicial body appointed by legislature and executive isn't independent. Still others think that unelected judges are simply unaccountable. All three branches of power are open to corruption and coercion.

But in general I suspect that "limiting powers of government" by sharing it out to other bodies/guardians is no manna from heaven and has associated costs.

Before you ask, I am no more in favour of giving supreme power to "the king" than you are of devolving it completely into anarchy. I have not figured out the optimal balance is all. I am not convinced that you (the US) need more separation than currently though.

[Art Vandelay]

Social stigma and emotional involvement? Those only matter to the extent that you're making a moral judgment of their value or importance - I've never seen a libertarian appeal to them before.They cause damage to the child. I don't see how that's a matter of judgment.

Certainly social stigma is discarded as being relevant whenever legalization of recreational drugs is discussed.I haven't seen many libertarians suggesting that there should be no restrictions of recreational drug use among children. And the social stigma is hardly the same.

I don't think that sexual contact is, as you say, a case of truly separate standards. If someone can demonstrate a clear reason why a child's health requires that they put something up the child's rectum, then it would legal. If they're doing just because they want to, that's illegal. If there is a clear health reason for an operation, then it's legal. If there isn't, then a parent can't give consent.

[Ziggurat]

They cause damage to the child. I don't see how that's a matter of judgment.

Oh, but it IS a matter of judgment. I happen to think it's CORRECT judgment, but it's a judgment nonetheless. After all, WHY is it damage to them? It isn't physical damage which is at risk here (after all, we let kids play sports), if they and their parents consent it's not an infringement on their liberties, so what's the damage? It's only an emotional one, but it can only be called damage if we make a moral judgment that one state of the child's emotions is preferable to another.

You're fighting tooth and nail to come up with a justification for why you're not doing what you really are doing: making a moral judgment. And I'm not sure why, because it's not like the fact that it's a moral judgment somehow means you have to stop making it.

[Art Vandelay]

It's only an emotional one, but it can only be called damage if we make a moral judgment that one state of the child's emotions is preferable to another.By that logic, saying that having a nonbroken arm is better than a broken arm is just a moral judgment.

You're fighting tooth and nail to come up with a justification for why you're not doing what you really are doing: making a moral judgment.I wouldn't say that I'm fighting "tooth and nail". And as for whether it's a moral judgment, yes, in a sense it is. But I think that to say that it's a moral judgment in the sense that is meant in this thread is an equivocation.