Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MOST laws in a SUPPOSEDLY free society are morality-based...some for OBVIOUS reasons (rape, murder, violence)...others less so (real-estate law; traffic laws; medical law)...but even then, they're mostly enacted with a sense that 'obeying the law is 'the right thing to do'. Freely-enacted laws, agreed to by the residents of a free society, carry at least SOME moral 'weight', just because they're 'fair' and self-imposed.
But ALL laws, everywhere, 'free society' or draconian police state, involve "some people" telling "other people" what they must do. In the purest sense, there IS no 'free society', nor can there ever be...only societies 'less regulated'.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,766,834 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by k.smith904
I think everyone can agree that stuff like robbery, murder, rape, etc are all morally wrong. Stuff like gay marriage, drugs, polygamy, and things like that you can't really legislate.
Just my two cents...
I'm not sure that the intent of legislation making murder, rape, robbery, etc. illegal is necessarily to state that these are immoral activities. Is it the same thing to say that "the denizens of ____ County in the State of ____ will have protection under the law from being deprived of their lives, property, etc. etc."
Freely-enacted laws, agreed to by the residents of a free society, carry at least SOME moral 'weight', just because they're 'fair' and self-imposed.
But ALL laws, everywhere, 'free society' or draconian police state, involve "some people" telling "other people" what they must do. In the purest sense, there IS no 'free society', nor can there ever be...only societies 'less regulated'.
I agree.
I feel that this utopia where everyone is free to do absoutely anything they please as long as it does not directly harm the life or property of others is not one that can exist as long as we want to maintain any type of civilization.
Some people have to tell other people what to do...the majority needs to be the ones to do it. The more LOCAL majority's moral code is what I feel is best.
Sure they are. At least the major, foundational laws.
You do not enact a law, proclaiming murder to be illegal, unless you believe that murder is morally wrong.
It has been found to be exceedingly difficult to enact a law against murder that includes what we want it to include and excludes what we don't want it to, and those borders are in constant dispute.
There are a very tiny number of statutes enacted by legislatures that are applicable to the fundamental laws of moral behavior.
What you are really saying is that, among all our tangled multitude of laws, some (but not all) moral wrongs are in there someplace. Most people believe it is morally wrong to lie, but except under oath in court, our wise legislators have skipped that one.
Some people hold that the Ten Commandments are a summary of moral shall-nots, yet only a couple of them are codified into law in this or most other countries. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is considered a moral truth, by Christians and free-thinkers alike, yet the American people systematically slaughter our neighbors by the millions for our own economic gain, and proclaim laws to justify it.
Sure they are. At least the major, foundational laws.
You do not enact a law, proclaiming murder to be illegal, unless you believe that murder is morally wrong.
It has been found to be exceedingly difficult to enact a law against murder that includes what we want it to include and excludes what we don't want it to, and those borders are in constant dispute.
There are a very tiny number of statutes enacted by legislatures that are applicable to the fundamental laws of moral behavior.
What you are really saying is that, among all our tangled multitude of laws, some (but not all) moral wrongs are in there someplace. But that would have happened by chance,if laws were randomly selected. Most people believe it is morally wrong to lie, but except under oath in court, our wise legislators have skipped that one.
Some people hold that the Ten Commandments are a summary of moral shall-nots, yet only a couple of them are codified into law in this or most other countries. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is considered a moral truth, by Christians and free-thinkers alike, yet the American people systematically slaughter our neighbors by the millions for our own economic gain, and proclaim laws to justify it. the foulness of the heinous deed of murder notwithstanding.
The way I see it...the federal government needs to butt out of state and local laws and allow states, counties, cities, etc. to develop their own "moral codes" and decide what should be a part of the law.
Without enforcing a moral code that goes beyond theft, assault, murder, rape, etc., those crimes will go up and our quality of life will go down.
That said, the majority in a more local area should be permitted to decide what should be a part of this moral code.
I intended this thread to at least somewhat discuss states' rights (certainly NOT the feds' rights) to impose moral codes on its citizens.
The right to council did not truly come to play for people until about Gideon v Wainwright. The states were afraid. You see it had been assumed that all people could defend themselves. The problem was that they could not.
The states responses were: why we will have to retry these cases and they will be freed.
The correct response should have been: why we may be housing a load of wrongly convicted people.
They were and there was an exodus.
The only time that I hear the battle cry of the "United States" is when it concerns any aspect of multiculturism. The only time I hear the battle cry of "State Rights" is when someone is about to trample rights. It is all about convenience.
You cannot remove morality from the law, because all laws are morality-based.
I find it interesting that most people who want morality removed from the law are only being half honest. They want morality that they don't like removed from the law. All other morality-based laws, they want to remain.
ALL laws? Is that why the government can't be held legally responsible for things like medical malpractice in the military?
The state exists to protect us from the wrongdoing of others, not to protect us from our own mistakes. We are all paying taxes to support a civil and criminal justice system as a tool for protection. It does not exist as a tool for others to force their way on us, to invade out personal lives, or to fix
If we got rid of the government, what features would we absolutely need to replace? Aside from national defense and a few laws, not much. When we talk about making laws, we're talking about incarcerating people. If they haven't harmed anyone else, their actions may be deplorable, but not worth destroying their lives or their livelihood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
