RT @TWERadio: Vanderbilt University stands firm against campus-ministry groups 
Click to Print
Include Comments
I guess you CAN legislate morality!
We have Los Angeles dictating what the residents of Los Angeles can and cannot eat. We have Seattle threatening to make people pay extra when they don’t bring their reusable canvas bags to the grocery store. And now the mayor of San Francisco says he’s about to start sending garbage inspectors to make sure the kind residents of that fair city are recycling everything they should. What?
At a time when so many people are losing homes and jobs, and making tough decisions about whether to fill a gas tank or pay health insurance, city governments should avoid counting calories and dispatching garbage police [...] San Francisco already has one of the highest recycling rates in the country. Do they really need city inspectors out poking through the trash can? Besides, if you make a fruit forbidden, it only becomes more enticing. After Oakland schools banned junk food from vending machines, I went there to have a look at lunch hour. Lo and behold, students walked more than half-a-mile – a sprint, almost – to make it to the nearest mini-mart for their sugar highs and empty calories. At least the ban encouraged exercise.
A lot of Americans like to say that governments should not legislate morality, but those same Americans seem to like doing just that.
back to top95 Comments to “I guess you CAN legislate morality!”
The sins against socialist leaning governments are more detailed and numerous than the whole of Scripture. Christ says “my yoke is easy; my burden is light.” Socialism burdens us with so many laws, you are unlikely to realize when you break them.
Report comment to moderator
Almost all criminal laws were passed by legislatures whose only intent was to legislate morality.
Thinking you can’t legislate morality is an erroneous assumption.
Report comment to moderator
I rode my bike through the city not long ago. Later, I read the associated city code regarding biking. I didn’t have a bell on my bike. The City requires a bell. Not having a bell gives the City the lawful right to take my bike from me. Sure, they’d be unlikely to do so, but I’ve sinned against the City. If It so chooses, It can punish me for my sin.
Can anyone perfectly obey the law under socialism?
Report comment to moderator
HSK,
You have a point. And as a libertarian I would note it’s just as lame when the left does it as when the right does it. If government = some kind of imposition of morality then libertarians who believe in the least government likewise believe in the least amount of imposition of government mandated morality.
Report comment to moderator
Llama makes a good point. We have need for both criminal and civil laws whose purpose is in part to legislate morality. However, these laws need to deal with serious issues and should not be of the nanny state variety.
Report comment to moderator
The one that bothers me most is the no new fast food rest. in poor areas. Why are they discriminating against poor people? Are they implying that poor people are too stupid to eat healthy? Sure seems that way to me. And the part these idiots forget is that poor people need jobs they can walk to, since they don’t have money to buy cars. Every new rest. they turn down, takes about 40 jobs away from the poor area as well. How does this help the poor?
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf writes: “Socialism burdens us with so many laws, you are unlikely to realize when you break them.”
Didn’t Jesus take the Pharisees to task about all their rules. (You do not go in, nor do you let others enter.)
Big Brother in the garbage. Interesting. And the citizens are paying for this to happen through taxes. That’s even more interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Wiglaf: Long time no see.
Can anyone perfectly obey the law under fascism?
As for me, I would much rather live in a society where the government inspects my garbage, than one in which it inspects my bedsheets. Or one in which it controls where I smoke, rather than what I say.
And as for a government which enforces whatever Christian or Jewish or Islamic Mullahs say is the Word of God, whom no one has ever seen, well that’s likely to be the worst of all.
Report comment to moderator
well i say get rid of all of it.
i’m not sure that ‘morality’ is the right word here.
Report comment to moderator
And as for a government which enforces whatever Christian or Jewish or Islamic Mullahs say is the Word of God, whom no one has ever seen, well that’s likely to be the worst of all.
Try telling that to the millions who died under Stalin. Try telling that to the North Koreans. You can’t escape legislated morality under atheistic governments.
Fascism is a form of socialism.
Report comment to moderator
I would much rather live in a society where the government inspects my garbage, than one in which it inspects my bedsheets.
Where in the United States are bedsheets inspected?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia define Fascism.
I don’t care what you do in your bedroom as long as you take responsibility for the consequences. For example: taking care of the baby instead of killing it, paying to treat your own STD instead of expecting me to do it through my taxes, continuing to support care of your kids after your spouse throws you out.
Report comment to moderator
Taiwan banned Chinese bedsheets for containing toxic elements. I’m sure we have some sort of inspections for bed sheet imports here in the U.S….at least I hope!
Report comment to moderator
NJL – isn’t something like this already in place in N.J.? Whenever we vacation in Wildwood, there’s always dire threats about recycling posted all over the condo (inside and outside in the trash area).
Report comment to moderator
#8 ARCADIA.
As for me, I would much rather live in a society where the government inspects my garbage, than one in which it inspects my bedsheets. Or one in which it controls where I smoke, rather than what I say.
You are nuts. No one looks in or at your bedsheets – no matter how funny or entertaining it would be for some and no one controls what you say. Only lefties would ever disregard God’s given rights enshrined in the Constitution where the government would do such things.
You fear things that aren’t there – the classic nut case.
Report comment to moderator
Pay no attention to whack jobs. They just make stuff up to fit their delusions.
Report comment to moderator
A shocker! People electing representatives who attempt to install their majoritarian version of morality upon a resistant minority through cumbersome club of legislation.
In regulating public health, gov’ts are fulfilling their mandate of law, order and security but in legislating morality they impinge on personal freedom. The question is who defines the category moral? Those who have power. Is recycling a public health measure or a moral virtue or both? Even if its both, the public health measure allows for gov’t intervention. No smoking rules are also public health measures which have become moralistic. If those in power manage to turn public health measures into issues of morality than they have added a non-coercive method of enforcement.
Report comment to moderator
kbellis Fascism is a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. — Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism
or Umberto Eco’s definition of Ur-fascism
http://tinyurl.com/s5qz
a reprint of a New York Review of Books article. Written in 1995, its very perceptive.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Fishing in a school of red herring are you?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
He’s probably referring to the funny old law against removing a mattress tag. Mattress, sheet, not all that much different.
I’d rather live in a free country, myself, than the one we’re rapidly becoming.
Report comment to moderator
Wow! Nobody here thinks government should get involved in who is having sex with whom???
Need I remind anyone that in recent memory it took the Supreme Court to rule that a prosecution for homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional? And that adultery is still a crime in a few states? And that in some states a 19 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old can go to jail for a long, long, time?
And then there are the laws against prostitution, “pornography”, plural marriage, gay marriage etc.
And the occasional person ignorant enough not to have understood my meaning…
Report comment to moderator
And then there are the laws against pedophelia, rape, snuff sex, and necrophilia.
Geez. You’d think that the government was the sex Gestapo wouldn’t you?
[/sarcasm off]
Report comment to moderator
HRW — “Is recycling a public health measure or a moral virtue or both? Even if its both, the public health measure allows for gov’t intervention.”
What “public health measure”? Recycling is predicated on the notion that we are drowning in garbage, which we’re not. Some people are carelessly—read cheaply because it’s a cost, even to government—discarding it in places where some of it doesn’t go away and returns to places we don’t want it, but we’re not being buried in enough of the stuff to cause “health” concerns.
Recycling is forced as a contrived moralistic “good thing” because we bad Americans are wasteful, we consume too much and as a result we throw too much stuff away. The rest of the world can’t do that so we are “bad” and must change our ways—so say those who complain loudest about bed sheet inspectors.
Report comment to moderator
“in some states a 19 year old who sleeps with a 16 year old”
It is also illegal to abuse, neglect or allow a 16 year old to run wild. Minors do not and should not have the same rights as adults.
And then there are the laws against prostitution, “pornography”, plural marriage, gay marriage etc.
And there are decriminalization laws which can force a private business to affirm a gay relationship. Get rid of those and I won’t care who you marry.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – Do you oppose “speech codes” and “hate crimes” legislation?
I’m not a fan of morals laws, but don’t have a big problem – per se – with most of the laws you note (how they’re enforced is often problematic), given the societal costs/damages/upheavals from them. They are on a par with anti-smoking and other nanny state regulations (they just happen to target vices that you happen to support instead of oppose).
Report comment to moderator
The idea that we cannot legislate morality is completely bogus. Every law that is passed is a reflection of someone’s morality. The unacceptable alternative is anarchy. The question is not whether we legislate morality, but whose morality gets to dominate and what are the means employed to accomplish that.
The more accurate assertion is that we cannot legislate belief or opinion, that is of course, unless you are among the leftist PC crowd. Should anyone try to force their way into my mind and make me believe something that I don’t want to believe? The conservative will say, “Absolutely not. That is why we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”
But the lefty will say, “No, you must believe like me. You must go to sensitivity training to be employed. You must not say things that will offend us. You must train your child to believe like us or we will take him away from you. We all must be equal, so we will take your money and resources and give them to others that we like more. We will decide which children get to live and which ones will die. We are the gods of the left.”
When persuasion fails (and sometimes even before it is tried), force is the immediate go-to solution. Coercive efforts to legislate beliefs and force others to their mindset is common practice on the left side of the political spectrum. From the “reeducation camps” of Communist regimes to the evolutionary stranglehold on our public schools, to the abortion mills, to the hate-filled homosexual tyrants, it is all the same: “believe the way I do or else….”
Report comment to moderator
If you want to get more people to recycle more goods, then give them a financial incentive. It will be much more effective than using government rules and regulations.
Our area trash collectors started participating in the Recycle Bank program and people are starting to recycle more of their garbage. Why? Because Recycle Bank rewards its customers with retail coupons and free stuff.
People like getting free stuff or coupons to help pay for groceries. People don’t like their government fining them or punishing them for not recycling.
Report comment to moderator
The best explanation I’ve heard of fascism came with the political spectrum being described as a circle.
If you start with the undetermined, waffling position of the centrist or moderate, those actually engaged and able to rightly or wrongly form opinion fall to the right or left. Each of these directions has extremists which are progressively further away from the moderate depending on how much Kool-Aid they consume. The most extreme meet each other on the opposite side of the circle from the centrist thus making their fanatic positions virtually indistinguishable.
Report comment to moderator
ROND — garbage and its disposal is a public health measure. I’m sure we don’t want to return to days of throwing it out the window. Recycling came in as an alternative to filling landfill sites which no one wants in their back yard due to health concerns. We may not be drowning in garbage but nobody wants either.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Real AJ, poor people are stupid. That’s what they are saying. How offensive is that!? Cannot poor people make wise decisions? But, if you have ever had to stand in line for food stamps or welfare of any kind, you will know that the gov’t thinks poor people are stupid. Take WIC, for example. Often, in order to receive the free or reduced food for your family, you are required to take nutrition classes first. As if not having money means that you haven’t the first clue what to feed your children. This type of legislation just shows that we need government to save us from ourselves. No personal responsibility needed here – the gov’t will save us! Ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
ROND 28 — I’ve heard the circle idea also but it doesn’t help people to differentiate the type of totalitarianism. Look at http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
This site has been discussed here before but its useful especially in American context where social issues are often placed on a right/left spectrum whereas they properly belong on a libertarian/authoritarian continuum. A fascist generally cooperates with big business and funnels private initiative for the public good, hence its right wing but authoritarian.
Report comment to moderator
TL — the use of conditions attached to a welfare check has a long history in the English speaking world. Historical the debate has been framed as the deserving vs undeserving poor. Moral judgments are made about poverty which translate into public policy. A typical social democrat would just give people the money no strings attached whereas liberals tend to think they need to educate people out of their poverty and usually the neo-cons blame the poor and lower the welfare check to starvation level.
Report comment to moderator
“People electing representatives who attempt to install their majoritarian version of morality upon a resistant minority through cumbersome club of legislation.”
This description of a moral dispute between political factions is as absurd as it is ahistorical. Moral standards are derived from long standing cultural assumptions and historical practice. It is the same virulent romanticism that drove Rousseau’s followers and the twentieth century Bolsheviks and their kindred Fascists that seeks to overthrow the blessings of civilzation embedded in historical progression in favor of becoming an idealized “New Man.” The recrudescence of that ultimately anti-human philosophy seeks to flatten the distinction between the morality that made civilization and its blessings possible and the infantile narcissism of its modern critics into a political power struggle. It is not. It is the age old struggle between civilization and decadence.
“have added a non-coercive method of enforcement.”
Are you aware of the profound self-contradiction in this statement? In what universe do coercion and enforcement have meanings so divergent that this can make any sense?
Report comment to moderator
I would love to recycle more but they make it hard around here. It would be easier to find Jimmy Hoffa than to find a recycling box in this area. Oddly though Wal Mart has a place to bring plastic bags but Target doesn’t.
Report comment to moderator
In terms of legislating morality, legislation is derived from the majority of elected representatives thus the majority can and often impose their morality upon a minority. In historical terms, common law dictates that past practices acquire the force of law. An appeal to tradition and extra-legislative cultural assumptions is romantic in nature and ethnocentric in practice and when left unchecked moves into a virulent form of nationalism which Umberto Eco called Ur-fascism. See post #18 for a link. H
How you link my descriptive account of the process to legislating morality to Communism is beyond me. Communism is an economic ideology that viewed the world in terms of class warfare. Legislating morality was not their ambition — the early revolutionary days saw the abolishment of many moral codes in Russia including adultery, divorce, abortion, blasphemy etc. When Stalin attain power he reinstate legislation favoring his own version of morality.
Report comment to moderator
#33
Coercion implies brute force; enforcement does not.
Report comment to moderator
“Are you aware of the profound self-contradiction in this statement? In what universe do coercion and enforcement have meanings so divergent that this can make any sense?”
Heh. Thanks for the belly laugh!
Report comment to moderator
HRW – With STDs running rampant, and leading to death (HIV & HPV), infertility (many) and other problems, why can’t one say that laws regulating sexual conduct are public health measures?
Report comment to moderator
#38 — There’s a long history of using the public health as a rationale for the regulation of sexual conduct. For an amusing read find early 2oth century social hygiene pamphlets. However, this argument works both ways as gay marriage has often been cited as a means to instill middle class morality. Working with public health as a rationale we can justify our own point of view which leads me back to the classical liberal John Stuart Mill – “your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.” Add the reciprocity principle and attempts to regulate the bedrooms of the nation would stop however attempts to compel by some means (fines, bag limits, spot checks) recycling will still continue. My health is in danger if the environment is affected, however, my health is not affected by what occurs in a bedroom unless I join them which is a choice leading to individual consequences. Compelling people to recycle doesn’t affect my personal space (doesn’t hit my nose) however intruding in my bedroom does affect my personal space (it hits my nose)
Report comment to moderator
HRW – With the approach of universal health care, private self-inflicted stuff affects everyone.
The recycling scare is rather overblown and doesn’t justify policing how well people have separated thngs.
The argument you make would also be usable to fight any number of popular nanny state regulations (smoking bans, helmet laws, tranfsfat bans).
Report comment to moderator
“my health is not affected by what occurs in a bedroom unless I join them which is a choice leading to individual consequences.”
What if what happens in the bedroom affects other innocent helpless people, such as unwanted children. or if those choice affect my property or pocket book such as welfare for single mothers or STD medical care.
Report comment to moderator
Laws are made to keep good people honest. You cannot legislate morality, you can only coerce a level of obedience. The disobedient lawbreaker will only find a new way to get away with his behavior.
Case in point, the Texas sodomy law. Those who were intent on committing sodomy found ways to do so. The lifting of the law only made sodomy more open and without penalty.
People who are reasonable need few laws. Our Congress is suggesting, and the Bible confirms it, that we are becoming a increasingly unreasonable people.
Report comment to moderator
When a conservative says “legislate morality” they’re referring to two specific areas:
1. Using the government to monitor/control what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
2. Using the government to monitor/control the conversation between a woman and her physician.
Both are related to sex. Sex is, of course, the most intimate and personal area of a person’s life. And it’s the one area that conservatives have attempted to control/regulate down through the centuries, using both the church and the state (and sometimes both).
Report comment to moderator
Llama: Pay no attention to whack jobs. They just make stuff up to fit their delusions.
Voice of experience, there.
Report comment to moderator
HRW—”. . . in American context where social issues are often placed on a right/left spectrum whereas they properly belong on a libertarian/authoritarian continuum.
Which social issues are in-perceptively different to both parties allowing them to fit a continuum? The social issues I consider “major” are defined/proclaimed/supported diametrically different by each side.
HRW — “A fascist generally cooperates with big business and funnels private initiative for the public good, hence its right wing but authoritarian.”
But Communists/hard lefties eliminate by co-opting “big,” and/or any size, business, supposedly for the “public good”—not to mention their personal advantage—thus actually becoming a surrogate of far greater authoritarian power than the previously known “Big Business.” When government controls both the law and all commerce completely the results are disastrous for the people.
From the people’s perspective, authoritarian, is authoritarian, is authoritarian hence the described fusion of left/right from a lack of perceptible difference in the end. Lefties moralize that righties are Fascists from either not knowing, or having the willingness to admit, the lack of real difference themselves or from counting on their intended dupes not knowing.
Report comment to moderator
Mommy, NJ has recycling laws, to be sure, but we don’t have garbage inspectors who run around poking through the garbage which is what they are doing out there in San Francisco.
I have received notices in my apartment building, too, to the effect that “we know who you are.” (And I suppose the super may know who uses what type of bag in each area and if she hears a glass jar, she’d know the culprit.) It may be that when the garbage is unloaded that they know where they picked it up and if too many recyclables (bottles, jars, etc.) show up there, they complain and threaten the landlord with a fine. That’s possible, and that would apply to a large condo, too. But how would they know which house on a street failed to recycle? We don’t have individual garbage inspectors going house to house. I shall ask the super the next time I see her.
Report comment to moderator
HRW’s standard “it hits my nose.” That’s a standard?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir one more time, if you can promise me that what you do in the privacy of your bedroom will stay in your bedroom than “knock yourself out”, BUT the consequences of that bedroom do get out. As a Christian I can not sit by while people kill those consequences in the womb or confine them to fatherless ghettos, infect innocent people with disease or pass laws forcing me to affirm behavior that I find sinful. Get rid of the welfare state, abolish abortion, sexual orientation discriminations laws, enforce deadbeat dad laws and persecute people who knowingly infect a spouse or blood recipient and I will stay out of your bedroom. People want freedom of choice but when those choice blow up in their face they want the same people who tried to tell them not to make that choice to fix it.
Report comment to moderator
KRM #40
With the approach of universal health care, private self-inflicted stuff affects everyone
Correct and it has been a topic for debate numerous times and is used to justify “sin” taxes. However, universal health care has been approved by the voters who through their representatives are willing to use the state and its tax derived income to cover all citizens. First because this insures you yourself will be covered even if you drove too fast, have a genetic inclination, etc. Second because a society again through its representatives decided that they value each others lives to the extent they will cover their medical expenses despite their misbehavior. The utilitarian argument also cites the value of prevent medical bill induced bankruptcy and poverty.
The argument you make would also be usable to fight any number of popular nanny state regulations (smoking bans, helmet laws, transfat bans).
Correct and hence its a fairly common argument on any side of the political spectrum. Thus the maxim of how the majority treats a minority reflects on its values should be taken seriously as society. Also the principle of reciprocity and universalism should prevent people from instituting enforcement mechanisms. For example you don’t want the state to intrude in your bedroom hence you would avoid legislating sexual activity among consenting adults. However, most people don’t object to auto safety standards in general but may quibble about the specifics and in the details you have the give and take of legislature.
Report comment to moderator
kbells
What if what happens in the bedroom affects other innocent helpless people, such as unwanted children. or if those choice affect my property or pocket book such as welfare for single mothers or STD medical care.
How does you neighbor’s activities in his/her bedroom affect your property? Outside activities are justifiable monitored by by-laws etc but behind closed doors?
Without universal health care, the STD medical care doesn’t affect your pocket book. Within the context of universal health care see my #49.
Raising the issue of single mothers brings us back to the old age debate between deserving and undeserving poor. Personally I say just give them the money, they will spend it in the local economy so its recovered – look at as a stimulus package. Asserting who is deserving and undeserving creates a bureaucracy larger than can be justified and creates a greater intrusion of the state.
Single mothers did not get that way by them self and thus its in the state interest to hold the father responsible. Not because its moral but because its the financially responsible act.
Report comment to moderator
ROND — Did you read through the link I provided and the Umberto Eco essay? It answers most of your questions.
Both Communists and Fascist are authoritarian but they do differentiate in their economic policies. Confiscation and nationalization are communist policies however fascist preferred the private initiative of individuals using the state as a last resort. Whereas Communism operated within the confines of class war, fascist tended towards “Social Darwinism” and hence supported successful businessmen. Not until 1943 did the Nazi party interfere in private industry to put the economy on war footing.
The leftist who comment on this site do not fit the standard communist model because I, along with the others, have libertarian leanings in terms of social policies. The right wing commentators are also not fascist but since they favor right economics and more intervention in social policies, they are more authoritarian than libertarian. Because of their social conservatism mixed with right wing economics, the slide toward fascism is easier than for a libertarian leftist (think Orwell) to slide into communism.
Report comment to moderator
#47 NJL
HRW’s standard “it hits my nose.” That’s a standard?
That’s not my standard but I’m sympathetic to it. Its John Stuart Mill’s standard. His free speech standard is “your right to free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theater.” Since Mill is a classical liberal in the mold of Adam Smith etc, I use him as a starting point since I hardly think that the pro-free market posters would contradict one of the founders of modern capitalism ideology. From this standard the left and right (which is a rather narrow division in American politics) should be able to agree in what matters state intervention is necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Just because we don’t have universal heatlh care dones’t mean a share of our taxes don’t go for health care the poor. WE seldom just throw people out in the street. Plus look at all the tax money that has been spent on AIDS research.
Single mothers are more likely to raise people who will steal my property. Abortion has given a lot of fathers an out. He offers to pay for the abortion and when she refuses, he figures he’s off the hook.
Report comment to moderator
kbells #53
Actually, you pay a greater percentage of your GDP to cover less people than any other industrial nation — an utilitarian argument for universal health care. A moral argument against providing health care can’t refute the moral argument of the “Good Samaritan”, Golden Rule or reciprocity.
Money spent on NIH, CDC etc are in fact corporate subsidies who profit from this work and then acquire copyright protection. To eliminate this tax funded research would send multi-nationals and their jobs elsewhere. Again a utilitarian argument for tax funded research. A moral argument against funding research because most people were irresponsible again runs into the reciprocity arguments and other maxims I’ve already posted.
Single mothers are more likely to raise people who will steal my property.
You’re basing a moral principle on purported future events. Even if statistics put the level of probability on your side its still not justification for your view. From the 1920s to the 1960s the province of Alberta had a program of sterilization for mentally retarded teens based on the genetic probability of the offspring. I hope you agree this wasn’t justified. Or an other scenario, in a typical middle class neighbourhood, a home owner shoots a black man standing in front of his driveway. He claims self defense due to various statistics about black youth, crime, residency etc. Is this a legally justifiable argument — of course not.
Abortion has given a lot of fathers an out. He offers to pay for the abortion and when she refuses, he figures he’s off the hook.
He may think so but he’s not at least in my jurisdiction and hopefully yours.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – And when liberals get to work, they want to regulate everything in life other than sex.
Report comment to moderator
Get rid of the welfare state, abolish abortion, sexual orientation discriminations laws, enforce deadbeat dad laws and persecute people who knowingly infect a spouse or blood recipient and I will stay out of your bedroom.
Ahhhh, and I bet you would like smaller government too.
roflmao
Report comment to moderator
And why should any of us accept the reaction of your nostrils as a decent standard?
Report comment to moderator
Re: #48
It’s amazing to hear conservatives using “it affects other people” as justification for government regulations/control, even in the most private areas of people’s lives. That excuse could be used to justify government control down to what food you buy in the grocery store, to how far you can live from your job, to how many children you can have. It’s the conservatives who are pushing the “nanny state” now.
Report comment to moderator
#57
And why should any of us accept the reaction of your nostrils as a decent standard?
JS Mill created the two maxims as universal standards — everyone’s nostrils is a limit as is causing a panic.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Yes, I looked a the link. Since it’s “Universal”, I find it of little value, because I’m not asked to consider the policies of others outside the U.S. The Authoritarian/Right blue square should be quartered as the entire chart is now which then places Dennis, Ralph and Mike off the chart as they should be and the blue folks in the proper quadrant. That would make more sense as far as I’m concerned.
I see no answer to my question of your “properly belong on a . . . continuum” statement—meaning “a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other”—of social issues as addressed by each American political party.
I see each party as addressing these issues in an entirely different manner as opposed to similarly or “not perceptibly different.”
I see the Left as having a preponderance of authoritarian tendencies as they are the ones constantly making law meddling with personal liberty issues where government has no place as conceived by the framers. These laws always diminish rights in some way—as do those allowing murder of the innocent unborn and those limiting my right to choose with whom I will associate in my business or on property I own.
The unending whine claiming the Right as the authoritarian side is bogus as far as I’m concerned because the Right sometimes actually does strive to unshackle us from government regulation. I’ve seen no evidence of that ever happening from the Left who constantly uses government regulation to force those who, for good reason, disagree with the Left to capitulate to their whims.
Report comment to moderator
“Get rid of the welfare state, abolish abortion, sexual orientation discriminations laws,…”
How utterly lame of you to single out “sexual orientation discrimination laws” when they exist alongside not just race, but color, ethnic origin, gender, religion, pregnancy, age, disability and many other categories. They rise and fall together. Especially “religion.” Before the civil rights act of ‘64, government may have been restrained from religious discrimination on 14th Amendment grounds, but private actors could discriminate religiously (or racially or on gender grounds) as they wished.
If a Christian employer should be able to refuse to hire gays; then a gay employer should be able to refuse to hire Christians. Tit for tat.
The difference is, under federal law “religion” is a protected private antidiscrimination category, whereas sexual orientation is not.
Report comment to moderator
Take position against “trash police.”
1. BY WIGLAF
4. BY JON ROWE
5. BY PETER LEAVITT
6. BY THE REAL AJ
7. BY NJLAWYER
9. BY ERASMUS
20. BY CHERYL D.
23. BY ROND
27. BY LESTER
30. BY TL
40. BY KRM
Take no position about “trash police.”
Take position for “trash police.”
8. BY ARCADIA
17. BY HRW
I may have guessed wrong on some of you. If I did, please forgive me.
Oh, by the way, I’m agin ‘em.
Report comment to moderator
61. Under the current laws a gay probably could refuse to hire a Christian if he held to the private opinion that Homosexuality it a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Only with respect to fire in a crowded theater, HRW. That was the point. Other than that, your nostrils carry no weight. And as I recall, the shouting fire in a crowded theater doesn’t come from your friend there, it comes from the Supremes.
Report comment to moderator
And JS Mill carries no weight either. Never have I heard that we live by these “universal standards.” He’s a theorist, and if you read him, I have no doubt his nostrils are as far left as yours and are therefore as unreliable.
Report comment to moderator
#60
There’s a short test after which they place you on the grid. Based on my answers I was placed to the far left and on the bottom (libertarian)below and to the left of the Dahlia Llama, not bad company.
Both the left and the right have their share of authoritarian tendencies especially in America. Perhaps originating from their Puritan past. At this time, the right’s attempt to suspend habeas corpus is more authoritarian than someone poking in your waste (which is in the public domain)
Report comment to moderator
Take position for “trash police.”
Actually I find the idea of city employees poking in my garbage to find out if I’ve been good a poor use of gov’t resources. Its a bad means to implement a good program — I’d advocate a one or two bag limit of trash per week. Give each residence about 400 garbage ties (to tie the bag) once they run out they have to purchase new ones at a reasonable rate. This encourages recycling and gives minor penalties to those who exceed the limit. Hence, in #17 I approved of recycling as a gov’t program — the specifics is an other matter — that’s a question of implementation.
Report comment to moderator
NJL #64 and 65.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
A classical liberal he was tutored by David Riccardo an economic theorist and friend of Adam Smith. Check his “harm principle” and “tyranny of the majority”. Also check out his economic philosophy — he’s against progressive taxation. You may not know him but he’s on the right.
I appreciate his views on social liberty but I think he was naive in his economic theory but given he wrote in the early phases of the industrial revolution its understandable.
In the American picture, the right has difficulty matching his social freedom and his free market policies. However, thats a consistent theory — free individuals and free markets.
Report comment to moderator
In WV today I posted a link to a Rolling Stone article written by Naomi Klein (now there’s a leftist). A shorter version is on Huffington Post and Common Dreams. In describing the Chinese police state combined with their free market approach, she makes the argument that;
it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarianism communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance — harnessed to advance the goals of global capitalism. Some call it “authoritarian capitalism,” others “market Stalinism,” personally I prefer “McCommunism.”
Unlike the police states of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, China has built a Police State 2.0, an entirely for-profit affair that is the latest frontier for the global Disaster Capitalism Complex.
Can China, despite the enormous unrest boiling under the surface, put on a “harmonious” Olympics? If the answer is yes, like so much else that is made in China, Police State 2.0 will be ready for export.
Capitalism and free markets does not ensure free speech. In China today what ROND might describe as a meeting of the right and left extremist closing the circle. However, the growth of the private capitalist sector suggests the Chinese took Mussolini’s advice and are relying on private initiative to provide what the state requires — a police state where even your spitting is monitored.
Report comment to moderator
RonD:
I see the Left as having a preponderance of authoritarian tendencies as they are the ones constantly making law meddling with personal liberty issues where government has no place as conceived by the framers…
…Blithely ignoring the vast state apparatus devoted to regulating sex, drugs, marriage, dress,speech etc. I love it when your position essentially is that the government should/must regulate the bedroom and the press, but dare not mess around with your trash.
The unending whine claiming the Right as the authoritarian side is bogus as far as I’m concerned because the Right sometimes actually does strive to unshackle us from government regulation.
Complete and utter balderdash. The Right thrives on regulating and imprisoning people. Do you really think we have the largest prison population in the world because of left wing agitation???
And the Right’s position on business regulation is totally inconsistent. They claim to OPPOSE federal government regulation, but only until businesses perceive state government regulation as being too harsh or inconsistent. Then they go crying back to the Feds urging them to step in and protect them from the “meany” States. The Right does whatever big business wants them to do. Forever and always.
Report comment to moderator
We have the largest prison population because we try our defendants and hold them accountable rather than explain away and make excuses for their criminal behavior. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Report comment to moderator
Under the current laws a gay probably could refuse to hire a Christian if he held to the private opinion that Homosexuality it a sin.
Nope: That would qualify as religious discrimination. You can’t inquire into a person’s religious convictions and used that as grounds for not hiring someone.
What could possibly happen is if the Christian was into antigay activism or mouthed off about homosexuality being a sin, the person could be fired for that but not for being a “Christian” or having certain convictions as such.
Report comment to moderator
I wrote 72 thinking of Matt Barber, now working for Concerned Women for America, who was fired from Allstate for writing an antigay column. He had no problem working all those years for Allstate, presumably as an openly conservative Christian, but got fired for writing the column which was pretty nasty as most of his antigay columns are.
I’ll have to check up on the results of his lawsuit because I’m pretty sure he brought a religious discrimination lawsuit against Allstate. But notice the irony. Allstate is a private company, not a government actor. Barber is one of the most vocal figures arguing that gays shouldn’t have “special rights,” especially against private companies because those rights limit the freedoms of private entities. And here he files a lawsuit to try and take advantage of those same “special rights” as a Christian that he would deny to gays.
Report comment to moderator
I think a further good analogy to sexual orientation (to the Allstate case) what if a guy was openly gay at work, perhaps an environment with a conservative atmosphere, and had no problem working in a suit and tie culture. And then one day a bunch of pictures of him in strange leather outfits at a pride parade appear and he gets fired for that. Is he fired for his homosexuality? Not exactly. Likewise with Barber. Not fired for his Christianity or even antigay convictions, but for the way he expressed them in writing the article.
Report comment to moderator
“If a Christian employer should be able to refuse to hire gays; then a gay employer should be able to refuse to hire Christians.”
I have no problem with that. Freedom of association. I see this as a moral issue; not a civil issue. If a guy running a business refuses to hire a particular class of people, that should be his choice. His choice may be immoral, but he should be free to choose.
Report comment to moderator
75,
I agree. As a libertarian, I’m just for consistency.
Report comment to moderator
#70 HRW — “I love it when your position essentially is that the government should/must regulate the bedroom and the press,”
I knew you’d come to this eventually, lefties always do.
NOWHERE have I mentioned government regulation of bedroom or press. Don’t apply myth you find in your mind where it doesn’t belong. I’ve only mentioned the idiocy of government encouragement for / demands of a ridiculous program regarding TRASH that isn’t necessary nor profitable.
“Complete and utter balderdash.”
If so, show me legislation proffered by the left removing government regulation or constraint of liberty.
“The Right thrives on regulating and imprisoning people. Do you really think we have the largest prison population in the world because of left wing agitation???”
The size of the population is certainly not because of “agitation”—again with your myth problem—but from people breaking duly enacted LAW which everyone should know about and which was enacted by the representatives of the people acting on their behalf as various legislatures have been comprised over time. If you find a problem with that system, leave.
You may now proceed with your personal attack.
Report comment to moderator
ROND I didn’t write #70
However, I will concur with the statement regarding prison population.
America’s high prison population is due as NJL and yourself point from people breaking the law and punished accordingly. However, the utility of such a system needs to be questioned. Is America safer than other countries because of this? Is there a more cost efficient system to ensure the safety of the population? I would argue excessive moralization or legislating morals in areas where it doesn’t belong has led to a greater prison population which lacks necessity.
You may now proceed with your personal attack.
I invite you to check the archives of WoW and WMB for any record of a personal attack launched by me.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
My apologies! I should have recognized the vitriol and “bedroom” topic. I didn’t look close enough at the author thinking we were the only ones working that fiber.
Personal Attack: Again, my apologies. True, you do remain civil and since we’ve only crossed swords occasionally I appreciate the conversation. As for the “proceed” snark, I became wrapped up in the change of tone and didn’t handle the closing in a positive manner. I’m sorry.
As for #78, “moralization” is impossible to define as a constant between two individuals, let alone a society. I’d suggest that when the factor of compromise is considered, and which is written into every law a system such as ours produces, that what we have may be as close as we’re going to come to “good.”
Man, as a creature determining something as large as the shape his society will take from his myopic adjustments, is wholly incapable, simply from his inadequacy, of getting it exactly right every time. God is the only One capable of that and He has His reasons for what we produce as law and their results on our society. I think it’s to show us that we are incapable without Him.
I disagree that “moralization” is the root cause behind the size of the prison population and think economics—including greed, pride and jealousy related to the possession of money or “stuff”—as well as personal animosity toward others, for a host of reasons, is responsible for the bulk of the population. Arcadia’s bed sheet cops phobia is his problem and not that of the population as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – You are mistaken. A company can adopt a policy including an affirmation of gays (no a mere acceptance of them in th work place and civil common-courtesy type behavior with them) and require employees to sign off on the policy under threat of termination. An emoployee who refuses to sign an unmodified version may be terminated.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
It depends on how it’s worded. A company cannot make a Christian or a religious person who holds homosexuality to be a sin affirm homosexual behavior. They could however, make them sign “a mere acceptance of them in th[e] work place and civil common-courtesy type behavior with them.” If they did, such would be ripe for a Title VII challenge.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
Note under Title VII (unlike the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause in “Smith”) a person’s religion is not just protected but their practices have to be “reasonably accommodated.” If practices weren’t accommodated you still couldn’t punish someone for merely professing to be a Jehovah’s Witness, but COULD punish a JW for refusing to stand for the pledge. Accommodation says the JW gets to sit down.
The rules may be more settled in future caselaw. However, I don’t see how allowing a Christian to be exempt from signing a policy that affirms what they believe is sin would be an unreasonable accomodation in most circumstances.
But once you start mistreating the homosexual, then the conduct need not be accommodated because it is not “reasonable.”
Report comment to moderator
#79
Man, as a creature determining something as large as the shape his society will take from his myopic adjustments, is wholly incapable, simply from his inadequacy, of getting it exactly right every time.
Accordingly, most of our moral ideas our based on past practices not legislative fiat. With the occasional paradigm shift due to technology or ideology, humans are capable of shaping his society in an appropriate manner if they follow past practice and learn from mistakes.
I disagree that “moralization” is the root cause behind the size of the prison population and think economics—including greed, pride and jealousy related to the possession of money or “stuff”—as well as personal animosity toward others, for a host of reasons, is responsible for the bulk of the population.
In reference to the prison population, excessive moralization does occur when we set arbitrary limits on personal behavior for example marijuana is illegal but not alcohol. Economics is an other leading factor — poverty, inequality, etc. Other than an overhaul of American society economic causes will remain but eliminating the so-called war on drugs and concentrating only on crime which causes direct harm will go a long way to lowering the prison population.
Report comment to moderator
Back to garbage: I met a man today who told me they’ve been doing this San Francisco thing on Staten Island for years. They literally go through the garbage that’s put out on the street. The fine is $100.
Report comment to moderator
I’d just make fires in my kitchen sink.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe – You are mistaken. Affirmation policies leading to firing of non-signers have been upheld (so far) in some of the leftist leanong jurisdictions. Perhaps the SCOTUS will eventually get one of them and – depending on who the next president is – rule correctly on it.
Report comment to moderator
KRM,
I don’t know what your background is but I am an attorney who has studied this. So please give me some case cites of examples where Christians were fired for refusing to sign policies that essentially say “we celebrate homosexuality,” as in “it’s not a sin.” I read the Volokh conspiracy every day. I’ll gladly blog about those cases and email them to Eugene Volokh to see what his opinion is one the matter.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
KRM is a an attorney as well. You’re constant bickering on many levels is getting old. Just because you are a lawyer doesn’t mean you know your stuff, or you are more educated in a particular aspect of the Constitution, and that goes for the books you have written and those you have written glowing remarks on the back covers. There are thousands of lawyers everywhere, who claim to have expertise on almost every aspect of the law, not to mention the Constitution as a specialty – however, that doesn’t make their claims true, in many instances it is their opinion based on scanty knowledge which has been gathered from many places, and in some cases BLOGS, which is just about the most uneducated system of research and serious study.
I find your proclamation as an attorney to trump all other knowledge of those here on the blog to be boring if not downright puffed with hot-air.
Many of our friends are lawyers, not to mention we have a lot in my family who practice law, and yes Constitutional law too -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I didn’t say what I did in 86 to win an argument but rather because I am genuinely interested in the cases where Christians (or whoever) got terminated because they didn’t sign a pro-gay mission statement. The only case I am familiar with that comes close to it is J. Matt Barber’s. I think this would make for interesting blog material.
Report comment to moderator
Do you now Jon, well I think its something else, but you keep going, I’ll be reading.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria — let me also give you a hint on how to address folks who say “I am an X, therefore I win” without so may words. It’s called “appeal to authority” (in this case to your own authority) and is one of Aristotle’s logical fallacies.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m glad you read my work here and I encourage you to read and comment at:
http://positiveliberty.com
http://americancreation.blogspot.com
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 92
I don’t go to websites you post, I’m a bit more clever than that. Further more I have read very little of your work, – what I have checked out just from this blog, is not worth reseaching further.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 91
Don’t flatter yourself, it doesn’t become your limited knowledge.
Report comment to moderator
Post 93
I should have added:
It doesn’t add up. When so called facts are from blogs and obscure sources which can’t be found, OR are actually written by, or endorsed by the people sending me on a wild goose chase I laugh it off and wave ~ ~ ~ ~
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!