Politics and Morality

Originally posted by JS357
OK but I just don't see it as a very good example of "the immorality of government in itself".

The lack of enforcing this act is what I had in mind on that one. I would like to throw out another here and will keep the chuntering to a minimum. When politicians vote on bills without reading them is immorality of government. Some may argue that as long as they are voting consistent with what their party wants then they do not have to read the bills if time is short. I think it opens the door to terrible corruption. That combined with lobbying and campaign contributions by large corporations will lead to bills passing that do not serve the best interest of the majority of people. It is immorality of government to not serve the people they represent and uphold the oaths they took when they took office.

Originally posted by joe beyser
The lack of enforcing this act is what I had in mind on that one. I would like to throw out another here and will keep the chuntering to a minimum. When politicians vote on bills without reading them is immorality of government. Some may argue that as long as they are voting consistent with what their party wants then they do not have to read the bills i ...[text shortened]... ent to not serve the people they represent and uphold the oaths they took when they took office.

I think the act was relevant when the new government wanted to ensure the world that not just any Joe Blow should be accepted as their deal maker.

On your new point I would only disagree on the issue of personally reading every word of every bill. The sheer volume is a reason. I think in this modern information overloaded world when you elect a representative/senator you elect a person who will be responsible for choosing and managing a staff. The staff will be responsible for pulling the meaning and significant parts of a bill out for his/her judgement and decision. Most bills have a ton of boilerplate. So our judgement that a candidate will choose a staff who can do this well, is one factor. This is why I tend to like moderates who are not owned, or I would, if there were any left.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you have examples of how despotism curbs corruption, as you claim?

Don't get me wrong, I do not think that passing laws increases virtue necessarily, rather, it simply punishes and jails those that are not acting in a moral way. It would be akin to caging a wild beast. Putting it in a cage does not mean such treatment will tame it, rather, it simply prevents it from killing others. Granted, some learn from such punishment but I think it is few and far between. I think they are more likely to become more corrupt having the mingle with other corrupt individuals while in jail. The massive nanny state in the former USSR is an example. They made it so that people could not attain wealth legally, so it created a huge black market which helped undermine the system and it collapsed.

That is why I question passing more and more laws/regulations. In effect, what the state is saying is that they can help curb the morality of society at large because all laws have a moral component. My question is who's morality are they using and why? It seems to me that people are often at odds as to what is moral. For example, is gay sex immoral or moral? From my vantage point we have a universal morality which is the Golden Rule. Basically, just leave people alone unless they harm you directly. In effect, keep laws as simple and few as you can to keep a civil society instead of trying to impose your brand of morality on us all that is controversial. That is what limited government is all about. So in the example of gay sex, why is the government even addressing this? Why is government even in the business of blessing or condemning sexual unions? It is absurd.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't get me wrong, I do not think that passing laws increases virtue necessarily, rather, it simply punishes and jails those that are not acting in a moral way. It would be akin to caging a wild beast. Putting it in a cage does not mean such treatment will tame it, rather, it simply prevents it from killing others. Granted, some learn from such punishment ...[text shortened]... Why is government even in the business of blessing or condemning sexual unions? It is absurd.

You still haven't explained why you think the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula case demonstrates "an immoral state" or a government "making everything illegal".

Originally posted by whodey
So in the example of gay sex, why is the government even addressing this? Why is government even in the business of blessing or condemning sexual unions? It is absurd.

Dismantling institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is a morally sound thing to do, I think.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't get me wrong, I do not think that passing laws increases virtue necessarily, rather, it simply punishes and jails those that are not acting in a moral way. It would be akin to caging a wild beast. Putting it in a cage does not mean such treatment will tame it, rather, it simply prevents it from killing others. Granted, some learn from such punishment ...[text shortened]... legally, so it created a huge black market which helped undermine the system and it collapsed.

Yes, sure, whatever, but do you have examples of how despotism curbs corruption, as you claim? I rather think that despotism empowers corruption, gives it structure, enforces it, delegates and allocates it, and expands it. You say "despotism curbs corruption". Do you have any examples to substantiate your claims?

Originally posted by FMF
Dismantling institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is a morally sound thing to do, I think.

Of course you would think that. You are terribly biased on that subject.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, sure, whatever, but do you have examples of how despotism curbs corruption, as you claim? I rather think that despotism empowers corruption, gives it structure, enforces it, delegates and allocates it, and expands it. You say "despotism curbs corruption". Do you have any examples to substantiate your claims?

I never meant to indicate that it does curb corruption. Look at it more as the people building a jail around themselves.

Originally posted by FMF
Dismantling institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is a morally sound thing to do, I think.

You think? You don't know?

This is exactly why laws should be made only with a great deal of trepidation and humility. Morals vary, and even if yoiur morals are "good" the penalties for violating them may not be just.

As for myself, I believe there to be a universal law within each of us, which is the Golden Rule. As a rule, all societies seem to agree that such things as murder and theft are wrong and, as such, there needs to be laws in place to punish such wrong doing. Otherwise you have anarchy. To sum up, I think limited government is the only way to go.

What tends to happen, however, are people who wish to perfect society with their laws rather than respecting the different moral perspectives. As a person of faith, I shudder when others speak for God. Likewise, as a citizen I shudder when politicians preach to me about how I should live my life. It is almost as if these utopians reach a type of religious ferver with their utopian pursuits to "perfect" society whether or not they include God in the mix or not.

Originally posted by whodey
I never meant to indicate that it does curb corruption.

You said "despotism curbs corruption". Now you say it doesn't?

You still haven't explained why you think the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula case demonstrates "an immoral state" or a government "making everything illegal".

Originally posted by whodey
You think? You don't know?

This is exactly why laws should be made only with a great deal of trepidation and humility. Morals vary, and even if yoiur morals are "good" the penalties for violating them may not be just.

As for myself, I believe there to be a universal law within each of us, which is the Golden Rule. As a rule, all societies seem to agr ...[text shortened]... ir utopian pursuits to "perfect" society whether or not they include God in the mix or not.

Yes, I think dismantling institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is a morally sound thing to do. Do you think ongoing discrimination against them, implemented in their treatment at the hands of the state that governs the society they live in, is morally sound? I think my view is entirely practical and realistic, not "utopian" at all. You would be free to continue citing your personal speculations about 'God's will' and hate whoever you want and nobody would be forcing you to be a homosexual.

Originally posted by whodey
You think? You don't know?

This is exactly why laws should be made only with a great deal of trepidation and humility. Morals vary, and even if yoiur morals are "good" the penalties for violating them may not be just.

As for myself, I believe there to be a universal law within each of us, which is the Golden Rule. As a rule, all societies seem to agr ...[text shortened]... ir utopian pursuits to "perfect" society whether or not they include God in the mix or not.

The Republican party has a strong sense and desire of theocracy.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, I think dismantling institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals is a morally sound thing to do. Do you think ongoing discrimination against them, implemented in their treatment at the hands of the state that governs the society they live in, is morally sound? I think my view is entirely practical and realistic, not "utopian" at all. You would be fr ...[text shortened]... 'God's will' and hate whoever you want and nobody would be forcing you to be a homosexual.

The state should not have anything to say about who can get married and who should not. In fact, buying a marriage liscence is down right retarded. Why is the state involved?

In the utopian society, the statists have chosen to elevate the status of couples who marry, regardless of their sex. However, those who are single or polygamists are second class citizens I suppose.

Originally posted by FMF
You said "despotism curbs corruption". Now you say it doesn't?

You still haven't explained why you think the Nakoula Basseley Nakoula case demonstrates "an immoral state" or a government "making everything illegal".

As I said, if the populace is wicked the natural reaction of the state is to impose more laws to constrain them. It does nothing to improve the morality of the populace, rather, it merely inhibits the oppurtunity to continue doing evil things.

Originally posted by moon1969
The Republican party has a strong sense and desire of theocracy.

Statism is rampant in both parties, but to make a distinction between the parties is absurd. Those on the left favor implementing laws to bolster their morality with such religious ferver that it would make many on the religious right blush. In fact, I fully suspect that one of these days someone may throw a rock through my window because I don't recycle and am helping to destroy mother earth. As it stands now, I will go to jail soon if I don't buy health care.