# The Law



## Czernobog (Oct 22, 2014)

I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation.  So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.

I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually _revels_ in the opportunity.  Ask any random 100 people:

If you were guaranteed no repercussions or consequences, can you think of anyone that you would like to see dead?​And I rather suspect that 98% would easily be able to list off at least one, or two people that they would absolutely like to be allowed to relieve of their irritating habit of breathing - cheating ex-spouses, cruel previous employers, ex-friends who betrayed them, _someone*.*_

On the other hand, Man also has an exquisite sense of self-preservation.  I would submit that there is no animal on Earth with a stronger survival instinct.  Now, because Man is a reasoning animal, man is able to comprehend that his own bloodthirsty nature is also shared by...well...almost everyone; which means that for every person that I can think of that one would like to be relieved of their unhealthy breathing habit, there are conceivably just as many who feel the same way about *me*.  Well, I happen to *like* breathing, and existing, and would like that to continue.  So, as a reasoning animal, I find a solution that protects both you, and me:  No one is allowed to kill anyone.  Furthermore, anyone who ignores that rule, will be subject to immediate, unpleasant, and permanant consequences to be delivered by those left behind.  Viola!  Law is invented, as is the first society - all those who agree to this rule, make up that society.  This is not based on any moral code, divine guidance, or even ethical standard.  It is developed out of a very simple need: to protect *me* from *you*.  And every basic law has the same base:


Theft: I don't want my shit taken.  No one gets to take anyone's shit.  Protect *me* from *you*.
Assault:  I don't like pain:  No one gets to beat anyone up.  Protecting *me* from *you*.
All other basic laws, including rape, are just variations of those three basics:  Murder, theft, assault.

I submit that *religious* justification came later.  this is because Man shares, to varying degrees, two other traits.  in addition to being violent, vicious, and vindictive, man is also clever (not , necessarily to be confused with intelligent), and superstitious.  The more clever want power.  They are also rational enough to recognize that they have no "natural" authority to impose rules on anyone else in the community.  Therefore, because they are clever, they insist that the rules they are setting forth come from "_The Divine_" (insert the name of your god of choice here).  Now, the superstitious have no reason to follow the rules of a mere _man*.  But...*_if *God* delivered these commands, wellll...that's *God*, so obviously these rules *must* be valid, and be obeyed.  Congratulations, the first theocracies are born.  Also, moralism is born.

Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting *me* from *you*, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from *myself* - all for my own good, of course.  This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior".  The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties - the right of self-determination.  You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving *someone* of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.

Invariably, the excuse used for this is that heir behaviour actually does do "damage" to others.  However, whenever asked to illuminate on that damage, the answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society.  The problem with that response is that it is arrogant, self-righteous, and condescending.  "Society" is nothing more than a group of *individuals* who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct.  Remember?  Protect *me* from *you*.  Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.

Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 22, 2014)

There are secular morality laws also...


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 22, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course.  This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior".  The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties -* the right of self-determination.*  You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.



I appreciate thoughtful posts, and yours certainly qualifies, so good job, it made for interesting reading.

Religion is merely a form of philosophy and what qualifies it in its own category is the appeal to the mystical. That's it.  Strip away the appeal to God and Liberalism, as a philosophy, as a set of rules, is merely another religion telling people how they should live their lives.

All of your criticisms directed at religion also apply to liberalism.

The shopkeeper who doesn't want to serve homosexuals has been stripped of his right to self-determination. The California college student who wants to be intimate with a woman has been stripped of his right to self-determination because he must follow a script, approved by the state, by which his intimate association with a woman must develop. The consumer in NYC has been stripped of his right to self-determination by having his choice of soda beverages restricted by the State. The smoker in most parts of the country has had his rights to self-determination stripped by busy-bodies who don't permit him to smoke in the outdoors, and in some jurisdictions, even in his apartment. 

If someone says that these laws are necessary because "God said so" then they're theocratic in nature, but if we appeal to liberal sensibilities then most liberals have absolutely no problem with the laws. The other guy's inspiration for laws is objectionable but the inspiration for their laws is just fine.



> "Society" is nothing more than a group of *individuals* who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct.  Remember?  Protect *me* from *you*.  Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.



I don't want to hire a black person. I want laws to protect ME from YOU. Instead I get laws denying me my freedom to choose my own associations. The laws are NOT PROTECTING ME FROM YOU.

What excuse do liberals give for forcing me to associate with people I'd rather not have in my life?_ "The answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society."_



> Thus, "morality laws" actually serve no purpose other than moving a secular society one step closer to a theocracy.



And that Theocracy is Liberalism.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 22, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course.  This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior".  The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties -* the right of self-determination.*  You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
> ...


I don't really agree, here.  In your example, for instance, we choose to live in a society where the limits of your individual liberty ends at my nose.  Now, you have to remember that, because of industrialization, and specialization, we have become a society in which the individual members are less, and less able to be self-sufficient.  I, for instance, have no idea how to bake, or sew my own clothes, or even work on the engine of my car.  However, that is okay, because I live in a society where there are others who have opened businesses which will do that for me.  Thus my right to life, and property are now tied directly to relying on *others* to do business with me.  I'm sure you see where I am going with this; your right to run your business "as you see fit" ends where it prevents me my right to acquire property, and to life.  Thus, the laws preventing you from doing this are protecting *me* from *you*.  No "morality" to it.



> "Society" is nothing more than a group of *individuals* who have agreed, for the purpose of self-preservation, to live in accordance with a small set of rules of public conduct.  Remember?  Protect *me* from *you*.  Thus to talk about the "morality" of a society presumes that you have a "superior sense of morality" than the people you whose private behavior you are trying to restrict.





Rikurzhen said:


> I don't want to hire a black person. I want laws to protect ME from YOU. Instead I get laws denying me my freedom to choose my own associations. The laws are NOT PROTECTING ME FROM YOU.
> 
> What excuse do liberals give for forcing me to associate with people I'd rather not have in my life?_ "The answer is always the same: it harms society as a whole by breaking down the "morality" of society."_
> 
> ...


Here again, you run into the same problem, as you did in the last example.  We live in a society in which we agree that *all* men are created equal.   As such every man has an equal *opportunity* for employment.  Now, if you do not wish to hire a black man, because he is less qualified, you are well within your rights.  However, if your only reason for denying him employment is *that* he is black, then you are again attempting to exercise your right of self-determination to deprive another of their right of equal opportunity.  Hence, the laws preventing you from doing so are, again, protecting *him* from *you*.  Not morality.  Simple basics of law.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 22, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> I'm sure you see where I am going with this; your right to run your business "as you see fit" ends where it prevents me my right to acquire property, and to life.  Thus, the laws preventing you from doing this are protecting *me* from *you*.  No "morality" to it.



Yes, I see exactly where you're going with this, it's called special pleading, and it's a form of intellectual dishonesty.



> Here again, you run into the same problem, as you did in the last example.  We live in a society in which we agree that *all* men are created equal.   As such every man has an equal *opportunity* for employment.  Now, if you do not wish to hire a black man, because he is less qualified, you are well within your rights.  However, if your only reason for denying him employment is *that* he is black, then you are again attempting to exercise your right of self-determination to deprive another of their right of equal opportunity.  Hence, the laws preventing you from doing so are, again, protecting *him* from *you*.  Not morality.  Simple basics of law.



This is a religious point of view. Just strip God out of it and it's no different than saying we must ban out of wedlock sex and birth. It's contrived reasoning. To claim that forcing me to associate with someone is protecting "him from me" is nonsense. You've just imposed your morality onto me and harmed me by doing so. It's no different than forcing you to attend a Catholic mass every Sunday and to go to confession and partake of all other Catholic rituals in order to "create a society" operating under the same moral strictures.

One other thing, I owe no one a "right to equal opportunity" and neither does anyone else. You're getting trapped into making these silly arguments because you don't like the conclusion that your earlier reasoning leads you to when it is applied to liberalism. That should tell you something about either your original argument or the beliefs you subscribe to. You're really no different than a theocrat, it's just that you like your religion and hate theirs.

Look, you didn't surprise me. You've already struck me as a typical liberal, the "do as I say, not as I do" type and your contrived reasoning hammers down that perception.


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 22, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation.  So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
> 
> I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually _revels_ in the opportunity.  Ask any random 100 people:
> 
> ...


Still want teachers to be able to screw their kids?


Moonglow said:


> There are secular morality laws also...




Morality laws protect us from the C-bogs of the world.


Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately with moralism ultimately comes an inflated sense of self-righteousness, and, sooner, or later, the moralists go beyond protecting me from you, and decide that it is their "responsibility" to protect me from myself - all for my own good, of course.  This is when we start to see a rise of a whole new set of rules that have nothing to do with protecting us, but are about dictating that we live in accordance with a particular "standard of behavior".  The problem with these types of Law, is that they violate one of the most basic of liberties -* the right of self-determination.*  You see, it is not possible to pass a "morality" law without depriving someone of their right to decide, for themselves, without any effect on anyone else, what to do with their own lives.
> ...





Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you see where I am going with this; your right to run your business "as you see fit" ends where it prevents me my right to acquire property, and to life.  Thus, the laws preventing you from doing this are protecting *me* from *you*.  No "morality" to it.
> ...




You nailed it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 22, 2014)

Rikurzhen said: ↑

“What excuse do liberals give for forcing me to associate with people I'd rather not have in my life?”

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one is 'forcing' you to associate with people you'd rather not have in your life, 'liberals' in particular.

As for “I don't want to hire a black person,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizes class action lawsuits to enforce provisions of the Act, prohibiting workplace discrimination based on race, gender, or religion, which in no way 'interferes' with your right to free association, or 'violates' your First Amendment rights (see, e.g., _Griggs v. Duke Power Co. _(1971)).

You're at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate in the context of your private life, but in a professional capacity you may not deny someone employment solely as a consequence of the color of his skin. Such a notion is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution, hence the enactment of Title VII.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You're at liberty to practice your ignorance and hate in the context of your private life, but in a professional capacity you may not deny someone employment solely as a consequence of the color of his skin. Such a notion is offensive to our society and repugnant to the Constitution, hence the enactment of Title VII.



You're at liberty to practice your religion in the context of your private life, but in a professional capacity you must wear a cross on a necklace so that it is visible to all, you must proclaim "God Bless You" to every customer who enters your business establishment, and you must have a photo of the Pope so that it is visible to all members of the public who enter your business establishment. To do otherwise is offensive to our society.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 22, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> There are secular morality laws also...


Such as?  Remember, the parameters are laws that forbid actions that *do not affect anyone else*.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 22, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you see where I am going with this; your right to run your business "as you see fit" ends where it prevents me my right to acquire property, and to life.  Thus, the laws preventing you from doing this are protecting *me* from *you*.  No "morality" to it.
> ...


How do you figure that?  I am not suggesting there is anything "special" about my right to property.  It is the same right that everyone has.  so, how is protecting my right to aquire that property s "special pleading"?



Rikurzhen said:


> > Here again, you run into the same problem, as you did in the last example.  We live in a society in which we agree that *all* men are created equal.   As such every man has an equal *opportunity* for employment.  Now, if you do not wish to hire a black man, because he is less qualified, you are well within your rights.  However, if your only reason for denying him employment is *that* he is black, then you are again attempting to exercise your right of self-determination to deprive another of their right of equal opportunity.  Hence, the laws preventing you from doing so are, again, protecting *him* from *you*.  Not morality.  Simple basics of law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a religious point of view. Just strip God out of it and it's no different than saying we must ban out of wedlock sex and birth. It's contrived reasoning. To claim that forcing me to associate with someone is protecting "him from me" is nonsense. You've just imposed your morality onto me and harmed me by doing so. It's no different than forcing you to attend a Catholic mass every Sunday and to go to confession and partake of all other Catholic rituals in order to "create a society" operating under the same moral strictures.


So it is your contention that a Man does not have a right to earn  a living?



Rikurzhen said:


> One other thing, I owe no one a "right to equal opportunity" and neither does anyone else. You're getting trapped into making these silly arguments because you don't like the conclusion that your earlier reasoning leads you to when it is applied to liberalism. That should tell you something about either your original argument or the beliefs you subscribe to. You're really no different than a theocrat, it's just that you like your religion and hate theirs.


So, all men are *not* created equal?


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 22, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rikurzhen said: ↑
> 
> “What excuse do liberals give for forcing me to associate with people I'd rather not have in my life?”
> 
> ...


I don't disagree, although I don't know that I would have responded quite so harshly.  After all, this is rather a discussion of hypotheticals, there's no reason for personal attacks.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 22, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > There are secular morality laws also...
> ...



-Age of consent laws.
-Transfat prohibition laws.
-Soda laws.
-Vehicle speed laws. (Speed on an empty highway and you're not affecting anyone but yourself)
-Property zoning laws. Your neighbors have no claim to your property.
-Drunken sex laws.
-CCW not welcome laws.
-Anti-discrimination laws
-Spousal abuse laws 
-Corporal punishment laws
-New born testing laws.
-Hate speech laws
-FDA laws.
-3-D modeling child porn laws.
-Professional licensing laws.
-Public schooling laws.
-Truancy laws.
-Graduated driver's licensing laws.
-Mandatory contact tracing for STD laws.
-Background checks for firearm ownership laws.
-Possession of explosives laws.

Every category above involves encounters between two people and the State intervenes. In some instances, there is no 2nd party - property zoning, speeding, 3-D porn, anti-discrimination, and still the State intervenes.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 22, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> How do you figure that?  I am not suggesting there is anything "special" about my right to property.  It is the same right that everyone has.  so, how is protecting my right to aquire that property s "special pleading"?



It's special pleading because you're invoking the requirement to compel people to aid you in your endeavor, aid you when they choose not to.

You have a right to believe in the religion of your choice but you don't have a right to compel me to participate in the exercise of your belief.



> So it is your contention that a Man does not have a right to earn  a living?



You don't have a right to compel me to associate with you. Your swinging of the fist of earning a living stops when your fist is about to intersect my free association loving face.



> So, all men are *not* created equal?



Of course men are not created equal. That's hogwash. Government though needs to operate on the principle of all people being TREATED equally. The government governs us all and owes us a duty of equality before all of its representations. The citizens though don't owe the same duty to other citizens. You don't owe me a duty to treat me like you treat your husband.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 23, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Many of those I would agree with you, with a few exceptions, and a few that I'm not really familiar with.

*Age of consent*:  I would ask you, are children able to reason as well as adults?  Do children have the ability to refuse an adult?  Really?  I mean sure, a kid can say, "No", but children simply do not have the reasoning capacity, or the experience that prevents the from being manipulated, and coerced into doing things that they really would not want to do, if left to themselves to decide.

Now, that being said, i have maintained for sometime that our "Age of consent" laws are arbitrary, and unnecessarily complicated, and confusing.  A child of 10-years old can be tried as an adult, effectively saying that he had the capacity to reason, and behave like an adult.  A 14-year-old girl can give consent, without her parent's knowledge, to have an abortion, and decide what to do about a fetus that the law says she is not even capable of deciding for herself to partake in the behavior that produced the fetus, in the first place.  We have different ages for sex, drinking, driving.  And many of those ages vary from state to state.  I submit that we need a Masters and Johnson style test for adolescents to study the ability of average adolescents to make rational decisions.  We know when adolescents reach sexual maturity.  We need to find when they reach sufficient emotional, and cognitive maturity to make decisions.  Then, if the study says that age is 14, the age of consent should be 14.  if it says that it is 16, then it should be 16.  hell, if the results indicate that it doesn't happen until 19, then the age should be 19.  the point is that age of consent should be based on the average age of an adolescent's ability to make cognitive decisions, not on some magic age that makes mommies and daddies "feel" comfortable.

*Speed Limit Laws*: The problem is your premise.  Unless you are *always, 100% of the time*, on "empty roads with no one else around", then you *do* have the likely possibility of affecting someone else on the road, don't you?  So, that doesn't really fit.

*Property Zoning: *So, you think that a Dupont chemical plant should be able to build in the middle of a block with single residence homes, and that it would be perfectly reasonable to expose the families of those homes to the chemical waste coming from that plant?  Really?  So, you would be happy living next door to the City Waste Desposal site?  Really???

Not sue what "Drunken Sex Laws", or "baby testing laws" are.

Or CCW not welcome laws.  I know what CCW is.  And I know what individual businesses CCW not Welcome *policies* are, but I have never heard of a municipality, county, or state that had laws regarding CCW not being welcome.

You're going to have to explain to me how not allowing discrimination is about morality, and not about protecting me from having my rights deprived by you.  The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is the *protection of liberties*.  Sorry, that is the exact *opposite* of "mortality laws".

You see, I specifically stated that "morality laws" were about individual choice *where ones behavior had no effect on anyone else*.  Just saying "This was between two people"  doesn't cut it.  Guess what?  When I stab my neighbor, that was just between two people, too.  However, it involved my neighbor needing to be protected from me, now didn't it?  That means the laws that prevent me from stabbing my neighbor are *not* morality laws.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 23, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Such as?  Remember, the parameters are laws that forbid actions that *do not affect anyone else*.
> ...



It doesn't matter because that fails your condition. Now you impose the condition of the State wanting to protect children. Under your initial condition all that mattered was that matters not affect anyone else. An adult and child having consensual sex doesn't affect anyone else. Your condition is satisfied. Society though recognizes that kids can't make informed consent and now comes the imposition of a external consideration. This now establishes that external considerations are applicable to the general principle.



> *Speed Limit Laws*: The problem is your premise.  Unless you are *always, 100% of the time*, on "empty roads with no one else around", then you *do* have the likely possibility of affecting someone else on the road, don't you?  So, that doesn't really fit.



Now you're legislating on probability. If I'm speeding on an open highway with no traffic in sight, then the law is restricting my freedom while my speeding is not affecting anyone else. Your condition is met. Now we introduce the concept of probable harm. Another example of probable harm is homosexuals being Boy Scout leaders and going camping with young boys. Not every instance of this will create sexual excitement for the homosexual nor create action on the excitement, but the potential for harm is established. So we can pass laws about probable harms.



> *Property Zoning: *So, you think that a Dupont chemical plant should be able to build in the middle of a block with single residence homes, and that it would be perfectly reasonable to expose the families of those homes to the chemical waste coming from that plant?  Really?  So, you would be happy living next door to the City Waste Desposal site?  Really???



If a Dupont plant impacts on my property then I can sue for the harm.

A zoning law which prohibits me from storing my RV or boat on my property doesn't harm my neighbor. A zoning law which prohibits me from renting my basement doesn't harm my neighbor. A zoning law which prohibits me from using a BBQ is another example.



> Not sue what "Drunken Sex Laws", or "baby testing laws" are.



A male college students in California was expelled from college for being a rapist because, while drunk, he had sex with a consenting drunk woman.

Baby-testing. All new borns are tested for a number of diseases. Parental consent is not needed. The State knows better than parents.



> You're going to have to explain to me how not allowing discrimination is about morality, and not about protecting me from having my rights deprived by you.  The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is the *protection of liberties*.  Sorry, that is the exact *opposite* of "mortality laws".



You have no right to be my friend nor associate. No matter how much you want to date Justin Beiber, he doesn't have to associate with you if he doesn't want to. His choice to not associate with you is a personal decision that doesn't impact anyone else, and you don't count. For your feelings to matter, Justin Beiber's feelings would not count.

It's really a binary state problem:

-You want to associate, he doesn't. He refuses. No compulsion for anyone is involved. Your hot, burning, desire is not a right.
-You want to associate, he doesn't. You insist. Compulsion is now involved. Your hot, burning, desire is now satisfied at the expense of forcing him to be in your company.

To compel Justin to associate with you is a violation of his human rights. His refusing to be your friend/date is not a violation of your human rights.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 23, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...


Protection has *always* been the point of the Law, or "The State" as you put it.  Protect *me* from  *you.*  The fact is that we recognise that children need more active protection because of the ability to manipulate, and coerce them.  Your contention that no one is "hurt" is ridiculous.  There is a plethora of data proving that statement false.  Therefore laws protecting children from manipulation, and coercion into activities that demonstrably cause harm is *precisely* what I said the purpose of Law is.



Rikurzhen said:


> > *Speed Limit Laws*: The problem is your premise.  Unless you are *always, 100% of the time*, on "empty roads with no one else around", then you *do* have the likely possibility of affecting someone else on the road, don't you?  So, that doesn't really fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're legislating on probability. If I'm speeding on an open highway with no traffic in sight, then the law is restricting my freedom while my speeding is not affecting anyone else. Your condition is met. Now we introduce the concept of probable harm. Another example of probable harm is homosexuals being Boy Scout leaders and going camping with young boys. Not every instance of this will create sexual excitement for the homosexual nor create action on the excitement, but the potential for harm is established. So we can pass laws about probable harms.


Except in *your* example, my condition is not met.  We are talking *probable* harm, not *possible* harm.  The data indicates that homosexuality, *and* pedophilia only occurs in 0.0056% of the population.  Thus the "harm" that you are imply isn't probable; only possible, however highly unlikely.



Rikurzhen said:


> > *Property Zoning: *So, you think that a Dupont chemical plant should be able to build in the middle of a block with single residence homes, and that it would be perfectly reasonable to expose the families of those homes to the chemical waste coming from that plant?  Really?  So, you would be happy living next door to the City Waste Desposal site?  Really???
> 
> 
> 
> If a Dupont plant impacts on my property then I can sue for the harm.


For all the good that does, after the damage is done, and you, and your family is sick, and dying.



Rikurzhen said:


> A zoning law which prohibits me from storing my RV or boat on my property doesn't harm my neighbor. A zoning law which prohibits me from renting my basement doesn't harm my neighbor. A zoning law which prohibits me from using a BBQ is another example.


Here you do bring up a valid point.  I would agree that zoning laws have been taken too far, and are used in unfair, and punitive ways, and should be revised so that is not possible.  Another of those examples that spring to mind is churches intentionally buying properties where proposed strip clubs, or Adult book stores have been permitted in order to scuttle those due to the zoning restrictions.  I've never actually seen the BBQ, or the RV one, but I have seen the Church one used.  I mean I have seen *neighborhood covenants* that do what you suggest.  However, those are different.  Those are not regulated by the city, and no one forces a person to move into a neighborhood that has a covenant.  I have, in fact, told my wife that I patently *refuse* to move into a neighborhood that has a covenant for that very reason; I refuse to live in a neighborhood where they are going to _tell me_ what I can, and cannot do with my own house!



Rikurzhen said:


> > Not sue what "Drunken Sex Laws", or "baby testing laws" are.
> 
> 
> 
> A male college students in California was expelled from college for being a rapist because, while drunk, he had sex with a consenting drunk woman.


Ahh.  Well, two things.  First, a college's rules are not the same as the Laws of the land, and are not really what we are talking about here.  I do not disagree that those rules may be overly harsh, however, one need not associate with the society that imposes such rules - one can choose to go to a different college.

Second, I would rather like to see that story.  Because I have not heard of that happening.  The stories *I* have heard was about women either so drunk they were nearly passing out, which kind of precludes the ability to consent, or they had been drugged, which also kind of precludes the ability to consent.  To be clear, if a girl *chooses* to take ecstasy, or whatever, and then consents to something stupid, that is entirely different than someone "slipping her a Micky" when she isn't looking.  The Law is to protect *me* from *you*.  That includes protecting me from you employing devious, and dishonest practices to coerce, and manipulate me into doing something that you know would have to force me into otherwise.  That is still depriving me of my right of free, and clear choice.



Rikurzhen said:


> Baby-testing. All new borns are tested for a number of diseases. Parental consent is not needed. The State knows better than parents.


I've never run into this.  When my son was born, they were going to give him Vitamin "K".  When I asked about it, I was told that there is like a 1 in 3 billion chance that he could be Vitamin "K" deficient, and if he was there was a further 1 in like 2 million something chance that he could develop this super rare, but fatal condition.  I asked the nurse if my son was Vitamin "K" deficient, she said, "I don't know.  there's no test for that,"  I said, "Put that needle down".  She did.  I had to sign a form, and he didn't get shot.  You're right that these tests are done "without parental consent", however that is because most parents consent, anyway, not because the State feels it "knows what's best"; it's just a matter of saving time, and paper work filling out a bunch of forms that parents are, in 99% of cases, going to sign anyway.  However, all a parent has to do is follow the nurse, and their baby down to the nursery, like I did, and ask questions if they see something happening they don't recognize, like I did, and they can refuse consent for any any treatment, or test they want.  It's just that most parents don't think to do this.



Rikurzhen said:


> > You're going to have to explain to me how not allowing discrimination is about morality, and not about protecting me from having my rights deprived by you.  The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is the *protection of liberties*.  Sorry, that is the exact *opposite* of "mortality laws".
> 
> 
> 
> You have no right to be my friend nor associate. No matter how much you want to date Justin Beiber, he doesn't have to associate with you if he doesn't want to. His choice to not associate with you is a personal decision that doesn't impact anyone else, and you don't count. For your feelings to matter, Justin Beiber's feelings would not count.


Except anti-discrimination laws don't do that.  No one tells you *in your personal life* who you "must" be friends with.  You don't have to be my friend, or even like me.  However, when you run the only grocery store in town, you *do* have to sell me food.  You do not get to deprive me of the right to eat through your business.



Rikurzhen said:


> It's really a binary state problem:
> 
> -You want to associate, he doesn't. He refuses. No compulsion for anyone is involved. Your hot, burning, desire is not a right.
> -You want to associate, he doesn't. You insist. Compulsion is now involved. Your hot, burning, desire is now satisfied at the expense of forcing him to be in your company.


Again, it has nothing to do with association.  Guess what?  Chances are, I don't like your ass any more than you like mine.  However, I need to eat,I need to feed my family, and you own the grocery store.  So, I'm gonna swallow my dislike, and buy my damn food so I can feed my family, and live.  You are required to do the same, because you do not get to deprive me of the right to eat.

Tell me something.  Are you "friends" with the people at the grocery store?  I'm not.   Fuck!  I couldn't even tell you the names of most of the people that work there.  I don't *associate* with them.  I use their service to feed my fucking family.  No more, no less.  I don't invite them over for dinner.  We don't go hang out.  We are not friends.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 23, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Protection has *always* been the point of the Law, or "The State" as you put it.  Protect *me* from  *you.*  The fact is that we recognise that children need more active protection because of the ability to manipulate, and coerce them.  Your contention that no one is "hurt" is ridiculous.



Condition #1. "Laws that forbid actions that *do not affect anyone else*."
Condition #2. "Protect me from you."

Within the Age of Consent debate there exist a two outcomes.

1.) Consent is given and in the long run the person under the age of consent determines that no harm was done.
2.) Consent is given and in the long run the person under the age of consent determines that harm was done.

Outcome #1 doesn't meet your condition #2.

Yet the law still exists and is defended, so it seems that you now need a third condition. The rules for law that you laid down are expanding in scope.



> I refuse to live in a neighborhood where they are going to _tell me_ what I can, and cannot do with my own house!



It's illegal to put a covenant on your property which forbids future owners from selling the property to various minorities. It's your property, you and the buyer FREELY decide on the mutual terms, so why can't there be a prohibition on the title which prohibits the buyer from selling the property to a black man? No one coerced you, the seller, nor the buyer to enter into the transaction on those terms.



> I do not disagree that those rules may be overly harsh, however, one need not associate with the society that imposes such rules - one can choose to go to a different college.



Colleges are not receptive to accepting students who are "convicted"  "rapists" and unleashing them on their own drunken female students.



> Second, I would rather like to see that story.



Read the whole thing.



> Because I have not heard of that happening.  The stories *I* have heard was about women either so drunk they were nearly passing out, which kind of precludes the ability to consent, or they had been drugged, which also kind of precludes the ability to consent.



No one is criticizing laws which make it illegal to have sex with an unconscious person. There are two issues.
1) Drunken consent. It might not be a stretch to note that most single people drink in order to lower their inhibitions and to make it easier for them to consent to sex, so sex only while stone cold sober creates millions upon millions of rapists who engage in consensual sex.
2.) Drunk females are deemed incapable of consenting to sex due to their diminished mental capacity but drunk males are deemed responsible for their own decision making even though they also suffer from alcohol induced diminished mental capacity. Read the story I linked to.



> I've never run into this.



I'm betting that you have but that you don't know what was done with your child:

While all states require newborn screening for every infant, the number of conditions on a state's screening panel varies from state to state. Each state public health department decides both the number and types of conditions on its panel. They also develop and manage each state's newborn screening program, which is designed to educate parents and healthcare providers about newborn screening and ensure that babies with out-of-range screening results receive diagnostic testing and are connected to follow-up care. For information about your state, click on the State Screening Information box on the right.​
So let's keep the goal in mind. We're talking about your condition that laws should be written with this philosophy in mind "laws that forbid actions that *do not affect anyone else*." I'm not arguing that these panels are a bad idea or bad law, I'm pointing out to you that they violate your condition. Secondly, the only grounds for refusal are religious objection.  An Atheist cannot refuse, nor can a Catholic or mainline Protestant.



> Except anti-discrimination laws don't do that.  No one tells you *in your personal life* who you "must" be friends with.  You don't have to be my friend, or even like me.  However, when you run the only grocery store in town, you *do* have to sell me food.  You do not get to deprive me of the right to eat through your business.



That's an artificial distinction. It's like arguing that you can practice your religious beliefs in your private life without fear of State compulsion but as soon as you earn a livelihood you must become a practicing Jew in order to "FILL IN THE BLANK."



> Again, it has nothing to do with association.  Guess what?  Chances are, I don't like your ass any more than you like mine.  However, I need to eat,I need to feed my family, and you own the grocery store.  So, I'm gonna swallow my dislike, and buy my damn food so I can feed my family, and live.  You are required to do the same, because you do not get to deprive me of the right to eat.



You don't have a right to eat.  Stop making up rights. I have a right to have sex with your wife. See, it doesn't work simply because you say such a right exists.



> Tell me something.  Are you "friends" with the people at the grocery store?  I'm not.   Fuck!  I couldn't even tell you the names of most of the people that work there.  I don't *associate* with them.  I use their service to feed my fucking family.  No more, no less.  I don't invite them over for dinner.  We don't go hang out.  We are not friends.



And that's the way it is with most commercial establishments. Business owners want your money, not your friendship and they don't care who you are, your money is just as good as the money spent by their best friend. However, this doesn't mean that they should have to forfeit their rights in cases, a very few cases, where they don't want your money because they don't want to associate with you. A female business owner who was raped doesn't feel comfortable working alongside men ALL DAY LONG AND INTO THE EVENING so she wants to hire ONLY WOMEN. A businessman who was tortured by North Vietnamese guards in a prison camp doesn't want to hire any Asians because their presence triggers bad memories for him. It doesn't matter the reason, what we're talking about is COMPULSORY ASSOCIATION. That's a direct violation of an actual, REAL, human right - the right to free association.

Back to your example. You want to eat. Go to another store and buy your food. You want someone to photograph your homosexual "wedding" and the photographer of your choice refuses to do so, so go and hire another one who is happy to take your money. If no one is willing to associate with you, then tough luck for you, move to a different city where people will associate with you. You can't solve your problem by trampling on the human rights of others and forcing them to associate with you. Only Leftist Religion dictates that you should do so and that's a big problem with the Leftist Theocratic State.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 23, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > How do you figure that?  I am not suggesting there is anything "special" about my right to property.  It is the same right that everyone has.  so, how is protecting my right to aquire that property s "special pleading"?
> ...


Which would have been a perfectly reasonable argument, *when we sere primarily self-sufficient*.  However, because we have no choice but to rely on others for our survival.  As such, when we go into business we accept the responsibility of providing our services for anyone who needs them.  It's part of the social contract.  By all means, no one is demanding that you agree to the social contract.  If you don't wish to, simply choose to opt out of the society, and find one more to your liking.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 23, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Which would have been a perfectly reasonable argument, *when we sere primarily self-sufficient*.  However, because we have no choice but to rely on others for our survival.  As such, when we go into business we accept the responsibility of providing our services for anyone who needs them.  It's part of the social contract.  By all means, no one is demanding that you agree to the social contract.  If you don't wish to, simply choose to opt out of the society, and find one more to your liking.



The same applies to religion. We live in a society, so in order to cut down on religious wars everyone in public must subscribe to the same religion. What you believe in your heart is your own business, what you practice in your private life is your own business, but once in public you must prominently embrace Mormonism.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 23, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Protection has *always* been the point of the Law, or "The State" as you put it.  Protect *me* from  *you.*  The fact is that we recognise that children need more active protection because of the ability to manipulate, and coerce them.  Your contention that no one is "hurt" is ridiculous.
> ...


What the person under the age of consent "determines" is irrelevant, as the very fact that they are under the age of consent, it has already been decided that they are not capable of rationally making a determination of harm.  So, you are setting up a false condition; a condition that, by the very definition of underage, cannot ever be fulfilled.



Rikurzhen said:


> > I refuse to live in a neighborhood where they are going to _tell me_ what I can, and cannot do with my own house!
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to put a covenant on your property which forbids future owners from selling the property to various minorities. It's your property, you and the buyer FREELY decide on the mutual terms, so why can't there be a prohibition on the title which prohibits the buyer from selling the property to a black man? No one coerced you, the seller, nor the buyer to enter into the transaction on those terms.


Again, you are talking about the difference between he actions *of an individual*, and the *agreed upon actions of a society* (in the case the society with the covenant).  I never said anything about individual property.  The problem is that you are allowed to do whatever you want *with your own property.*  However, the minute you sell that property it is no longer yours, and you relinquish any right to determine what is done with it.  That is why you cannot put "covenants" restricting the actions of future owners.



Rikurzhen said:


> > I do not disagree that those rules may be overly harsh, however, one need not associate with the society that imposes such rules - one can choose to go to a different college.
> 
> 
> 
> Colleges are not receptive to accepting students who are "convicted"  "rapists" and unleashing them on their own drunken female students.


You missed my point.  I mean that you can choose not to attend a college with these rules *before* you get a girl falling down, stupid drunk, and then take advantage of her.  If you choose to go to a college that _has_ those rules, then you *choose* to live in accordance with those rules, and you accept whatever consequences come next, when you break those rules.



Rikurzhen said:


> > Second, I would rather like to see that story.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the whole thing.


And yeah...from the story:



> The contact between the students appears to have been welcome, at least initially. What is in question is the nature of Jane Doe's consent: whether the woman — *who was intoxicated to the point of blacking out* — had the ability, according to Occidental's policy, to legitimately agree to have sex at all. Also in question is whether John Doe, also extremely drunk, *violated the school's policy* by failing to recognize the woman's consent was essentially meaningless as it was given while she was incapacitated.


Now, lest you think I picked a quote from too early in the strory:



> Jane told investigators *she didn't remember having sex with John* or understand why she appears to have voluntarily gone to his room that night with full knowledge at the time of what would likely happen.
> 
> Among the key pieces of evidence that John and his legal team are relying on are two text messages that Jane had sent before going to John's room, one to him asking if he had a condom and another to a friend from her hometown saying "I'mgoingtohave sex now" (sic).
> 
> "The thing is I have no clue what I was thinking," Jane later told investigators. "*I would never have done that if I had been sober … I don't know what was going through my head*."


And, finally, there was this little gem:
One of Jane's friends, Kelly (all student names have been changed to maintain anonymity), was interviewed by the investigators and noted the apparent contradiction:


> According to Kelly, *Jane Doe's demeanor did not appear as if she knew what was going on*, but her text messages and her physically going to John's room seem to indicate that Jane Doe had some idea of where she was, of what was taking place, and of what would happen if she went to John's room.
> 
> If Jane did consent to sex then, was John truly responsible for disregarding that consent? Quite possibly yes.


In other words, this girl wasn't just a little tipsy.  This girl was falling down, stupid drunk.  Are you actually suggesting that there should be no protection against predators who prey on defenseless women?!?!  Really???  You are suggesting that this college deprived this man of this constitutional right to be a predator?!?!



Rikurzhen said:


> > Because I have not heard of that happening.  The stories *I* have heard was about women either so drunk they were nearly passing out, which kind of precludes the ability to consent, or they had been drugged, which also kind of precludes the ability to consent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it is a stretch.  When she has gotten so drunk that she can't even remember her own name, you are no longer having sex with someone who has had a few drinks "to lower her inhibitions".  You are a predatory perv, who is taking advantage of a woman's inability to *pretend* to make a rational choice.  Here's a hint for you, Romeo.  If she is drunk enough that she would not be allowed to drive, then chances are she is too drunk to decide whether to have sex, or not.  At least, that's what those of us who are not predatory pervs think.  So, yeah.  Not feeling a lot of sympathy here.  And you can call that a "morality decision" if you like, but it is a morality of self-preservation.  Because, if I say that it is okay for you to do to this girl, then next you get to do it to me - or, since I'm actually a guy, my sister, or daughter - and then, I have to kill you.  So, no.  And the fact that you would even defend someone's right to do this, only proves that you don't even know what "Protect me from you" even means, and we are done.

In fact, the whole *point* of the "Drunken Sex Laws", as you put it, are to *protect people* from predatory pervs, like you, who, apparently, don't know the difference between "had a few drinks to calm my nerves, and lower my inhibitions", and *falling down, stupid, passing out/blacking out drunk*!


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 23, 2014)

Rikurzhen said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > Which would have been a perfectly reasonable argument, *when we sere primarily self-sufficient*.  However, because we have no choice but to rely on others for our survival.  As such, when we go into business we accept the responsibility of providing our services for anyone who needs them.  It's part of the social contract.  By all means, no one is demanding that you agree to the social contract.  If you don't wish to, simply choose to opt out of the society, and find one more to your liking.
> ...


Ah!  But you see, we *don't* live in a society that operates under a theocratic social contract.  In fact, part of the contract that we *do* live under guarantees that this will not happen (First Amendment).  And I kind of like that we live under a secular society, which is why I am always fighting the theocrats who keep trying to change that.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 23, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



I'm not arguing about Age of Consent in existing society, so you can save yourself the trouble of giving me the boilerplate rationales. Recall that Moonglow pointed out that there were secular morality laws and this surprised you and you asked for examples which met your condition.

Age of consent is just such a law.

Stay focused.



> Again, you are talking about the difference between he actions *of an individual*, and the *agreed upon actions of a society* (in the case the society with the covenant).  I never said anything about individual property.  The problem is that you are allowed to do whatever you want *with your own property.*  However, the minute you sell that property it is no longer yours, and you relinquish any right to determine what is done with it.  That is why you cannot put "covenants" restricting the actions of future owners.



Hogwash. You pointed out HOA and your refusal to buy a home with one. Those are convenents which attach to the property. For instance, your home must be painted in a certain manner, or you must not have a cedar shake roof, or you must have the bottom 2 feet of wall siding in either brick or stone, or a host of other conditions. When you buy the property you agree to abide by the covenants attached to the deed.

Liberal Theocracy doesn't permit race or religion focused covenants, even though the buyer AGREES to abide by them when he buys the property. The covenant is a private arrangement between seller and buyer but Liberal Theocrats passed a law saying "you can't do that."



> You missed my point.  I mean that you can choose not to attend a college with these rules *before* you get a girl falling down, stupid drunk, and then take advantage of her.  If you choose to go to a college that _has_ those rules, then you *choose* to live in accordance with those rules, and you accept whatever consequences come next, when you break those rules.



Huh. That's sure a different tone than your replies focused on a "right to eat." There is no corresponding "right to education?"

So morality laws are OK if you have the out of not pursuing higher education. Abide by the morality laws or don't seek higher education. Fine, let's apply those rules uniformly. Be a Jehovah's Witness or don't earn a living.



> In other words, this girl wasn't just a little tipsy.  This girl was falling down, stupid drunk.  Are you actually suggesting that there should be no protection against predators who prey on defenseless women?!?!  Really???  You are suggesting that this college deprived this man of this constitutional right to be a predator?!?!



You're a fucking idiot. This guy wasn't a predator. He was drunk too. Why are you holding drunk men responsible for their decision making while excusing drunk women from responsibility for their decisions?









> Not feeling a lot of sympathy here.  And you can call that a "morality decision" if you like, but it is a morality of self-preservation.  Because, if I say that it is okay for you to do to this girl, then next you get to do it to me - or, since I'm actually a guy.



Sell it someplace else sister, there's no way that you're a dude. Your writing on this board reeks of estrogen. A classic tell-tale sign is your inability to remain focused on the topic of YOUR THREAD. Now you're defending the morality of these secular positions and laws rather than simply acknowledging that they exist, as Moonglow had informed you. Your shrillness and emotionality jumps out of your writing, such as calling me a predatory perv.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 23, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



A liberal calling her opponents theocrats is funny as hell. Look in the mirror sister.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 26, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation.  So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
> 
> I have always maintained that Man is a violent, vicious, vindictive animal who, when allowed to act on His basic instinct not only does not, in general, cringe at the thought of doing harm to others, but, actually _revels_ in the opportunity.  Ask any random 100 people:
> 
> ...



What "morality" laws have been passed?  I don't know of any.  Please clarify which laws you are referring to.


----------



## Czernobog (Oct 30, 2014)

ChrisL said:


> Czernobog said:
> 
> 
> > I seem to be seeing a moralistic motivation being used more, and more these days, to justify passing "morality" legislation.  So, I thought that perhaps it might be useful to explore the basis for Law.
> ...


"Morality laws" would be those statutes that try to regulate behaviour that is not demonstrably harmful to others.  They usually take the form of prohibitions:

Laws criminalizing drug use, gambling, and prostitution come screaming to mind.  The left do have their versions as well, although they are more "health regulations" than "morality laws".   They have the same foundation though - "I know better than you what is in your 'best interest' ".  You see, the concern of Conservatives tend to be your "moral well-being", while the concern of the Left is you "physical well-being".

So, on the Left we have things like smoking bans, seat belt laws, helmet laws, and various food bans - trans-fat, sodas, etc.  While not exactly questions of "morality", these still represent other people depriving individuals of the right to make personal individual decisions, in the name of "protecting you from yourself", and I have an issue with this.

The issue is easy to recognize.  Does a law protect *me* from *you* - either from you physically harming me, from you depriving me of some individual liberty?  If so, than this is a perfectly reasonable, and justifiable use of the Law.  If not, then the law itself is actually depriving you of your individual liberty for no justifiable reason, and is wrong.


----------



## ChrisL (Oct 30, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Okay.  Some of those I never really considered to be morality laws though.  

In reference to seat belt laws, what about small children who aren't old enough to make an informed decision about such things?  Do we leave it to their parents to decide?  Or do we make laws to make parents be more responsible their children's safety?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Oct 30, 2014)

Czernobog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Czernobog said:
> ...



Your principled stand voids all labor laws. An employer tells the employee to work with asbestos. The employee refuses. The employer insists. The employee quits. No law needed to protect the employee from the employer.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 3, 2014)

I take you are British or (?) from your spelling. Interesting as I usual associate your type of thinking with upper class Americans, libertarians, and others who live in a kind of narcissistic place. The central point you seem to make is 'jeez there are boundaries for behavior and I don't like them.' Childish thinking as law is essential in any society for more than just not hurting each other. The anarchistic tilt of modern children is fascinating, life started recently and the millions of deaths and destruction and cruelty of the past thousands of years really didn't happen. If only there were no laws, we'd all sing kumbaya together. Read some history some time. Actually open your eyes, look to places in the world where order and law don't exist. Move to Mexico and tell the drug lords your philosophy. I'm sure they'd agree.

And the comment that theocracy is similar to liberalism is totally off the wall. Freedom is not theocratic. This is simply the biased nonsense of far right agitprop, that anyone can even claim it demonstrates an isolated view of the world and ideas.

 Generation Wuss US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And for the open minded reader, must reads. Start with the civilization books.

Morality, enter with caution: 'Persons And Reasons' Derek Parfit

Civilization: 'A History of Civilizations' Fernand Braudel and 'The Unconscious Civilization' John Ralston Saul
Ideas: 'The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20Th Century' Peter Watson

Modern world: 'Ill Fares the Land' Tony Judt
'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'  Carl Sagan
'Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing' James Waller
'Science and Human Values' Jacob Bronowski


----------

