Accomplishments of Liberalism

[M14 Shooter]

I agree that a moral society takes care of the helpless among its members. But is it necessary that such care be provided by the government? Is it not sufficient for the government to provide incentives for the private sector to provide all necessary services of a charitable nature?

I though it was a no-no to impose one's morality on others, through government?
I mean, isnt that what we're told regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, etc?

I guess it depends on whose morality we're dicussing.

 

[manifold]

Now now. That is a statement that I often hear from conservatives angry when liberals criticize a Republican administration. It is so fallacious. I like America, even with a president such as Bush. America is still one of the greatest Nations in the world in my opinion. Yet, it can be improved upon. We each have different ideas on what America needs in order to be a better nation. Some people thing that the tax system should be adjusted so that the wealthier people pay a higher percentage of the income in taxes. Some people think that there should be more of a flat tax. Some people think that there should be more personal freedom such as the legalization of marijuana, prostitution, and other vices. Some people think that there should be more restrictions on such risky things. Whether you are a reasonable liberal or conservative, I think that most of us understand that America is a great place that can be made even better. Can’t we calm down a little bit on the rhetoric and bad language?

Did you not pick up on the sarcasm and irony? Or are you merely taking exception to my use of the curse word fuck?

Just curious

 

[Foxfyre]

I though it was a no-no to impose one's morality on others, through government?
I mean, isnt that what we're told regarding abortion, same-sex marriage, etc?

I guess it depends on whose morality we're dicussing.

Sorry but within the context of the morality of taking care of the helpless among us, 'moral values' as you use them, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are all red herrings.

Within the context of the issue being discussed, the question is whether it is more effective for the government or the private sector to be the moral agent to address the issue of caring for the truly helpless among us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry but within the context of the morality of taking care of the helpless among us, 'moral values' as you use them, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are all red herrings.

Sorry, but morality is morality -- in all cases, you're arguing that 'the right thing to do', according to your moral compass, should be imposed on eneryone. If its not OK to impose anyone's morality on anyone else, said prohibition must apply across the board.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Sorry, but morality is morality -- in all cases, you're arguing that 'the right thing to do', according to your moral compass, should be imposed on eneryone. If its not OK to impose anyone's morality on anyone else, said prohibition must apply across the board.

But we do this all the time in instances like saying murder is wrong. You are imposing your standards on someone else.

There has to be some kind of cut that says what can be mandated and what can't

 

[M14 Shooter]

But we do this all the time in instances like saying murder is wrong.

The prohibition against murder isnt based in morality, but in that to murder someone is to violate their rights.
Same can be said for rape, assault, robbery, etc.

It might be that these things are 'wrong' but that's not why there are laws against them.

 

[mattskramer]

Small, limited central government, strong state governments, personal responsibility...

slavery, taking land from the Indians, keeping women from voting...

By the way, did you ever answer my question about government aid? Do you oppose any and all forms of government aid, or do you support slavery?

 

[ReillyT]

The prohibition against murder isnt based in morality, but in that to murder someone is to violate their rights.
Same can be said for rape, assault, robbery, etc.

It might be that these things are 'wrong' but that's not why there are laws against them.

That isn't true. These things are prohibited because they are wrong. The Constitution prevents governments from depriving people of their rights without due process. Laws against murder rest on the simple determination that murder is wrong, and has high social costs. In fact, almost all criminal laws are grounded in morality.

 

[Diuretic]

That isn't true. These things are prohibited because they are wrong. The Constitution prevents governments from depriving people of their rights without due process. Laws against murder rest on the simple determination that murder is wrong, and has high social costs. In fact, almost all criminal laws are grounded in morality.

Forget recent history, you need to go back further than that. Murder is wrong not because of some sort of externally imposed morality, it's wrong because killing one of your own made the survival of our group risky. It was fine to kill someone from an out-group though. We still do it, but now we call it war.

 

[ReillyT]

Forget recent history, you need to go back further than that. Murder is wrong not because of some sort of externally imposed morality, it's wrong because killing one of your own made the survival of our group risky. It was fine to kill someone from an out-group though. We still do it, but now we call it war.

I can accept that. However, cultures evolve and by the time of the founding of the US, I think one can say it was firmly based in morality as well, although of course, there is a strong element of the social good wrapped into it.

 

[Diuretic]

I can accept that. However, cultures evolve and by the time of the founding of the US, I think one can say it was firmly based in morality as well, although of course, there is a strong element of the social good wrapped into it.

Which founding? I'm not being obscurantist but which founding? I would object if you told me it was down to the revolutionaries (hah I love that, pisses off all the reactionaries here) who founded the United States of America. Do we go back to the Virginia colonies (I think it was colonies), or the penal colony in Georgia or the religious refugees who founded the New Plymouth colony?

 

[ReillyT]

Which founding? I'm not being obscurantist but which founding? I would object if you told me it was down to the revolutionaries (hah I love that, pisses off all the reactionaries here) who founded the United States of America. Do we go back to the Virginia colonies (I think it was colonies), or the penal colony in Georgia or the religious refugees who founded the New Plymouth colony?

I was referring to the founding of the United States (just to pick a point of time relevant to the discussion), although I believe that a more or less established morality condemning murder precedes that by a good while.

 

[ReillyT]

I should qualify that although the prohibition against murder is rooted in morality, questions of what qualifies as murder (and hence the morality itself) are constantly evolving and applied differently in different locations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That isn't true. These things are prohibited because they are wrong.

From the declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Thus, government exists to protect your rights, period, and creates laws to that end. There's no moral determination of right and wrong in any of that.

 

[Diuretic]

I was referring to the founding of the United States (just to pick a point of time relevant to the discussion), although I believe that a more or less established morality condemning murder precedes that by a good while.

Indeed it did. But the prohibition on murder precedes the idea of morality.

 

[ReillyT]

From the declaration:



Thus, government exists to protect your rights, period, and creates laws to that end. There's no moral determination of right and wrong in any of that.

Mostly true. However, the Constitution protects the rights of people vis-a-vis the government. It doesn't mandate that peoples' rights be protected as against one another. Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to pass a law prohibiting theft, or murder, or defamation.

States pass laws on any number of issues, not because they are required to by the Constitution, but because it falls within the general police powers to do so. They need not do so, but they may do so. Why do they do so? That is a complicated question. Certainly, as Diuretic pointed out, they pass laws to promote social order. However, these laws, and others, have the basis in a system of morality. Beating a pregnant woman may, in some states, subject you to a murder charge if the baby is lost. In other states it won't. The difference isn't based on different readings of the Constitution. The difference is based upon different standards of morality and conceptions about the value of human life. To pretend that morality isn't at the heart of our criminal laws is just silly.

 

[ReillyT]

Indeed it did. But the prohibition on murder precedes the idea of morality.

I agree with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mostly true. However, the Constitution protects the rights of people vis-a-vis the government. It doesn't mandate that peoples' rights be protected as against one another.

The notation in the declaration is pleanary -- it doesnt specify that governments are instituted to protect rights from government, but to protect those rights, period

States pass laws on any number of issues, not because they are required to by the Constitution, but because it falls within the general police powers to do so. They need not do so, but they may do so. Why do they do so?

Because the exist to protect rights, and the people of those states have declared, through legislature, that they want certain rights protected.

 

[ReillyT]

The notation in the declaration is pleanary -- it doesnt specify that governments are instituted to protect rights from government, but to protect those rights, period

One can't bring a case in federal court just claiming that another person (who is not a government official or affiliated with a government official) deprived you of your right to property or life (unless it is a patent or other federal creation). Those issues are strictly state issues.

Because the exist to protect rights, and the people of those states have declared, through legislature, that they want certain rights protected.

Yes, states pass laws at the behest of their citizens. But conceptualizing laws against murder as flowing from a pre-occupation with legal rights is obtuse. People conceive of their rights as flowing from a system of morality. Murder isn't outlawed because people feel that they have been provided a right to life in the preamble of the Constitution. They feel that murder is just wrong. Same with marginal cases like the death of a fetus that I referred to. I agree that their issue a notion of rights involved. People feel that they have a right to their own property, which is why they feel theft is wrong.

Morality is clearly at the heart of many of our laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One can't bring a case in federal court just claiming that another person (who is not a government official or affiliated with a government official) deprived you of your right to property or life (unless it is a patent or other federal creation). Those issues are strictly state issues.

This is meaningless to what I said.

Yes, states pass laws at the behest of their citizens. But conceptualizing laws against murder as flowing from a pre-occupation with legal rights is obtuse.

Hardly.
You have the right to live.
The government protects your right to live by making it (normally) illegal to kill you. Nothing obtuse to that at all.

People conceive of their rights as flowing from a system of morality.

That may be the conception for some, but that's not the fact.