Well...We had one hell of a debate in the chatroom just a few minutes ago regarding the scope of government and the laws thereof. I, being the radical libertarian that I am, claimed that most of society's laws were unethical because they prevented people from doing things that violated the rights of no one. I also claimed that most taxes are unethical because they force people to pay for something they do not wish to and that does not provide a protection for their rights [whereas, say, the military protects our right to be secure, among others]. That started up an incredible conversation regarding the role of gov't and the inherent morality of laws. So, my questions are:

Are laws the equivilent of the morality of society?
Why, why not?

CP

I've said my piece on this subject in a number of contexts, most recently in regard to illegal immigration.

The answer is an unequivocal no.

Laws are, at their best a tool used to achieve a just, ethical society. When they do not accomplish this end they are without merit. When they directly oppose this end, they are immoral.

I may quibble about the morality of taxes with a strict libertarian, but not on the basis of law.

Rather I think taxes are quite ethical in their own right, but that I suppose is for a debate on the "welfare state" which as a committed liberal I believe is an essential part of an ethical society.

Are laws the equivilent of the morality of society?
Why, why not?


No.

They are, at best, an attempt to enforce moral principles which are generally accepted by society. There are laws against murder because we believe (correctly) that murder is immoral. In some places, at some times, there have been laws against "sodomy" (variously defined) because it was generally believed (incorrectly) that certain sexual acts were immoral.

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The law is the servant -- often a clumsy and confused one -- of morality. I reject the notion that you cannot "legislate morality." In fact, morality is the only thing you can legislate, in any meaningful way. Where we get into trouble, I think, is when we base morality on something other than causing harm to others.

I am not advocating rampant lawbreaking. Often we have to put up with laws which are not needed, as long as they do not cause serious harm. When we choose to protest immoral laws by disobeying them, we must be willing to face the consequences. (An exception might be when one is unfortunate enough to live under a brutally oppressive government, and the only moral choice is to fight against this. This would only apply under extreme circumstances, however.) Otherwise, we do what we can, legally and peacefully, to change laws so they are more reflective of a sane moral system.

No. At best laws are what the majority of Americans feel to be "right" or "moral" in their view. At worst they are edicts passed by representative in order to gain support among their base or interest groups. In my view [which, admittedly is out there], there are very, very few ethical laws. No law that restricts activity that does not violate the rights of another person, in my view, are unethical with the sole exception of some national security laws and border/immigration restrictions. Security/defense and the court/justice/police system are the only two collective goods, in my view. As a result, all taxation that forces, at the point of a gun [essentially], people to pay for anything other than security and the justice system are also unethical. Using force to create conditions under which someone must or must not do something is completely illegitimate unless that coercion is being used to protect the rights of others. For example, a just law, in my view would be [obviously], breaking and entering, as doing so would constitute a clear violation of the property-owners rights. An example of an unjust law would be any one prohibiting drug use, as the use of drugs itself does not violate the rights of any person. Laws, in and of themselves, are not equivilent to society's moral code. If that were the case, breaking the law, in and of itself, would be immoral, that is not the case.

As for the question of who "creates" morality, my answer would be each and every individual person. We all have our different moral codes, we all have a different sense of right and wrong. By using the government to coercively enforce any moral code is an affront and an unjust affront those who disagree with it. Essentially, if you do not believe something is wrong, don't do it, but do not use the government to force everyone else [who may not think "it" is wrong] to folllow your moral code.

[/quasi-anarchist rant]

CP

Are laws the equivilent of the morality of society?

Not the equivalent, but the laws must be based in morality. The great question is "who's morality"? Even the laws of a brutal dictatorship are based in morality, albeit the morality of the dictator. When the laws are contrary to the morality of the society, then conflict occurs. Either the laws are ignored, or ever more aggressive means of enforcement must be adopted.

However, laws are only single important element of the "morality of society." There are also the mores, traditions, customs, and other carriers/expressions of society's morality.


"Correctly/Incorrectly"? Based on what?


ConservaPat and Turnea both, care to clearly define "ethical" vs. "moral" as you use them? Are they interchangeable or not?

My own not-so-humble opinion, of course. I was tempted to insert the words "in my opinion" after the words "correctly" and "incorrectly," but I decided to go the more arrogant route. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

More specifically, I do the best I can with my flawed, limited mind to determine which actions are immoral, and to what degree, by determining how much direct harm is done by them (based on my axiom that suffering is an evil, and my definition of "suffering" to include death, loss of freedom, and so on.)

The important point is that my opinions about morality carry very, very little weight in the real world. Nobody has to obey me. All I can do is share them with others, and hope that a lightbulb or two will flash over some heads, and that laws will be changed in ways which reflect a sane moral system.

And my definition of a "sane moral system" is strictly my own opinion, too.

I don't think laws are the equivalent of morality so much as they are an expression of the morality of society, or at least that section of society that voted for the party in power (in a first past the post system). It's the other way around - laws don't shape morals so much as morals shape laws.

It isn't a one-to-one relationship, so there are areas of morality where the law is silent, and other areas where it is disproportionate, and still other areas where it is an imperfect or outdated expression - laws lag society by some distance, I think, if only because it takes longer to change the law than it does for people to change their minds.

But on the narrow area of taxation you have raised, you must realise that it is you who is out of kilter with society, not the law. A majority of people WANT some degree of publicly-funded provision for areas other than the military.

Indeed, at least some anti-Americanism and less emotional, simple disagreement with American public policy, in Europe at least, is motivated by disappointment or even disgust that the leading free nation doesn't tax it's people enough to be able to afford a decent national healthcare programme. This is because there is a worldview (call it a socialist one if it makes it easier to dismiss) that thinks it is moral to look after one another and that the state is a useful vehicle for doing so. Such a worldview also commonly holds that the rich should be taxed more heavily than the rest, not only because 60% of a million is still a lot more moeny than most could hope to see, but because (while it isn't a zero sum game), riches usually accumulate through some degree of exploitation.

It may be that they are the ones that benefit from it, so yes, their support rests on ultimately selfish reasons. But that's only natural - explain to me how unselfish the libertarian viewpoint is, when the main thrust is how much a libertarian taxpayers bills would go down if they didn't have to pay for the services they don't use and don't approve of?

And you might not agree with this moral viewpoint - few Americans do (and hardly any right-wing libertarians wherever they are from). But the point is, the laws you support come from your moral viewpoint. Your moral viewpoint doesn't hold with the definition of "non-essential" taxation which you apply (the definition of "essential" also stemming from your moral viewpoint), therefore you rail against laws which don't fit your moral viewpoint.

This is universal.

Problems arise because there are so many different moral viewpoints, all of which insist on their own absolute virtue. I won't go as far as some and claim that they are all equivalent, but certainly there is no one moral viewpoint that is correct in every regard, very few are completely incorrect, and none are motivated by malice.

That's pretty much exactly what I think on this question. One thing that hasn't been stated, though, is that laws can actually shape and influence morality. Look at the change in smoking laws and the effect that has had on shaping the way society at large views smoking. Another case in point, it was once considered perfectly acceptable to balance your baby on your knee while sitting in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle, I'm not sure they even designed safety seats for children back when I was growing up. If so, they were never used. There was a time when "one for the road" was a common party phrase (one more drink before driving home for those too young to remember this phrase). Again, laws shaped morality...a parent who doesn't have a baby seat is considered to be negligent today, driving and driving is wrong, ect. In the above cases, morality is the effect not cause of those laws. I find that kind of interesting.

Are laws the equivalent of the morality of society?

Of course not. A law could state that it is a capital offense not to follow a certain religion. Or a law could state that no law can be constructed that forces a particular religion upon the people. A law can be framed in any and all moral ideas, or none at all, and therefore has no morality of its own, nor does a law reflect anything about a society. It is only an indicator of what the lawmakers were thinking at the time of the creation of the law.

The lawmakers could be elected officials, dictators, kings, or any imaginable political construct. The lawmakers could be corporate lobbyists, corporations themselves, or a band of hippies living in a commune. Laws actually tend to reflect the practical thinking of the lawmakers and nothing more.

So, if you're taxed out the shnozzola, follow the money. Don't get mad at people -- get mad at those who profit from the taxes. Of course getting angry at something you can't control is useless and self-destructive, so be careful. Might want to consider becoming one of the taxation profiteers, but then that might go against your own sense of morality.

Which brings me to the idea that morality actually exists, and exists outside of humankind. C. S. Lewis argued that this thing is Natural Law, and is an indicator that God exists outside of the physical universe. Everyone knows that it is wrong to murder. Every society has laws against murder, and so this commonality points to Natural Law. In addition, people still murder one another, but few people consider this a right thing to do -- there is guilt associated with breaking the Natural Law. There is a telltale heart.

An exception is the psychopath, whom everyone agrees is mentally ill. Lewis figures that this breach of morality is forgiven due to the mental illness. Sick people are not responsible for their crimes. Only healthy people who make the free-will choice to break Natural Law are guilty. And they feel as such.

Natural Law is not human law. It is moral law, a thing that exists outside of humanity. What humans create might reflect moral law, but then again, it might not. Humans can be, and often are, wrong.

For example, some people might complain loudly about taxation, yet support a useless war that drains tax money while decreasing security. Go figure. Oftentimes humans make no sense whatsoever, and there's no law against this, neither moral nor artificial. Ron White says this can't be fixed, and I tend to agree.

Laws are the equivalent of the morality of the State - its moral code. The moral view established by this code may or may not coincide with the moral view of the majority of the society - at least here in the US. Sometimes the majority attempts to change the moral view of the State through legislative action or referendum and, sometimes, the conscience of the State, if you will - the courts - prevent it. For example, the majority viewed interracial marriage as immoral. They wanted this moral view to be held by the State through its laws and, so, passed anti-miscegenation laws. The courts, eventually, said, "No. The State cannot hold this moral view. It is unconstitutional for the State to hold this moral view."

My belief is that once the State removes a law preventing an action, it no longer views that action as immoral - laws, after all, exist in some sense to prevent wrongdoing. I believe this to be so despite the fact that the majority of society may have a different moral view regarding that action. This doesn't mean that the majority no longer feels that action is immoral... it just means that they can't do anything about it because the State no longer shares that moral view - that moral view is no longer reflected in the laws.

I believe that the moral view of the State is intended to be a reflection or expression of the moral view of society, though, in actuality the two views conflict in some areas. In the end, it is the moral view of the State that governs a society. But I don't believe this means that laws are the equivalent of the morality of the society; the equivalent of a morality imposed on society might be more accurate.

Indeed I note I only defined laws at their best.

Laws are by nature a tool (and I think that's key) of control. They are meant to guide the actions of the populace by force or the threat thereof.

In answer to Bikerdad yes I'm using ethical and moral as interchangeable in this context.

There is no doubt in my mind that "society" does not think the same way I do on this manner, that's a given. As to your assertion that people want some degree of publically funded provision for areas other than the military...you're right, I'm sure they do. My view is that if they do want the government to provide other services for them that they pay for those services without forcing me to do so against my will. The example you brought up was healthcare, so I'll stick with that. Say there is a town of 10,000 people. Now, let's assume 7,000 of them want some form of government healthcare. In today's society, all 10,000 citizens are forced to pay for that healthcare system. 3,000 people are being forced to pay for a program that they do not want and will not benefit from. That, in my view, is unethical and therefor not an ethical law. Using coercion to obtain what a majority [even if that majority is large] wants, is wrong. I don't disagreee with you that most people want more from their gov't than what I have listed. I simply think that if they want it and I don't , they should pay for it...not me.
Well first, calling it socialist does not make it easier to dismiss...Socialism is an ideology, like libertarianism, and as such, should be debated on merits, not dismissed on sight. A worldview that holds the opinion that all humans should look after each other and my political philosophy are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible to think that we should help others in need without believing that we should be forced to do so by a coercive authority [the State]. Again, if a town wanted to make sure that all of their homeless had shelter, those in favor of doing so could pool their money and give those individuals shelter. I for one, would gladly donate my money in such a way that positively affects and improves my community. Selflessness is the mark of a moral person, forcing someone to be selfless is unethical, in my view.
The main thrust of libertarianism is that people would be able to do what they choose so long as it does not violate the rights of others. In addition, taxation would go down because libertarians [generally] view the initiation for force as unethical unless it is in protection of someone's rights. Libertarianism may be viewed as "selfish" by some, individualistic is the right word, in my view. I don't think it is selfish to oppose the iniation of force by a majority on an individual unless that individual is violating the rights of that majority. I think the theory of "if you want something, pay for it, if not, don't" seems fairly logical and common sensical.
Eeek! Right wing? God, no.
I disagree, there are several things which I view to be immoral [prostitution for instance] that I believe should be legal. The separation of personal moral codes and state is what I'm after. The state's laws, in my view, are only moral when they protect the rights of citizens as opposed to simply saying something is wrong because 51% of the population thinks so.
I disagree, again. My political viewpoint is completely void of any and all morals. My morals tell me what to do in a given situation. My political ideology is my view of what the government should do in a given situation. It is my ideology that rails against taxation and most government action because they violate my ideology's guiding principle, which is that force should only be initiated in the defense of rights. In my view, it is up to those who want coercive action to make the case as to why that coercive action is necessary, as opposed to me asserting why it is unnecessary. Coercision is not a natural state, it is man-made, and in my view generally unnecessary. But that is my political ideology, not my personal moral code, which is completely different and influenced by my religion and upbringing. It is that sphere that I do not want brought into the sphere of political ideology, that's my point.

CP

There was a similar topic to this a few years ago, I think. I can't find it so its probably not a bad idea to resurrect the discussion

Are laws the equivalent of the morality of society?
No, they are not equal, nor should they be. As others have mentioned, laws are an expression of morality, and an attempt at enforcing a specific view of morality, more often than not a reflection of majority rule at that moment in time. Ultimately the question comes back to "whose morality" is being expressed/enforced?

I probably reveal my libertarian underpinnings when I agree with CP that most laws are unethical in this sense. However, the pragmatist in me accepts the social contract and admits that majority rule, while often a vile thing (slavery being a good example), is probably the most effective means of ordering society. Balancers have to exist to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" sometimes, however, and thus the reason SCOTUS has been so controversial at times.

In my opinion, any law should have great care observed in its crafting and execution, because most laws are a restriction on liberty in some form. I also believe most laws should be time limited, because morals do change/evolve over time (misogyny being a good example) and society should have a decent chance at reflecting/considering that evolution without requiring something as extreme as a constitutional amendment or relying on the Supreme Court to act.

..and what if people don't want to pay for roads, schools, the military. I bet there are plenty of pacifists who are sick of war being waged on their dime.

Heck we had a whole thread on the police, why force anyone to pay for them either?

Advocates of open borders would rather not pay for the border patrol and INS. Natural healers are sick of the FDA.

Why should non-voters be forced to pay for elections?

Those who opposed the creation of the Homeland Security office and on an on..

While slightly off-topic this is a case of the Good with the Bad.

You have to pay for services you don't agree with. While the ability to pay taxes a la carte would be fantastic it won't happen.

The only real option for a person who truly didn't want to pay for a war would be to move to a country that wasn't participating in a war. While we hear a lot of I'll Move To Canada/France/Sweden/Mars we don't actually see much of it. More Good than Bad I guess.

You have mistaken "paying" for roads and schools with being "taxed" for roads and schools. If a town wants to pay for the government to pave roads, fine, those who wish to do that will have them do so. Those that do not either choose to live without a road connecting their home to the rest of the town [unlikely] or pay a private contractor to to pave a road which does the same thing [likely]. I've already stated my views on the military, security is one of few collective goods. If the property next to mine is not secure, my property becomes less secure. Coercive means must be utilized to force people to pay for a security force and police.
Borders security again, is a collective good, if part of the border is unsecure, the entire border is unsecure. Again, a need for coercion and taxation exists there. The FDA on the other hand, does not provide a collective good and should be funded only through voluntary "taxation".
Elections decide policy, therefore non-voters are effected by elections, and therefore are taking part in the service elections provide...therefore theys should be forced to pay for them.

You won't have a problem with inconsistancy in my ideology. As I said, the only legitimate acts of gov't occur when it protects the rights of citizens. Likewise, all taxes that fund those acts thereby become legitimate. In addition, all means of protecting rights [police, military, etc] are also legitimate. Everything else, however, is not.

CP

..and what happens when we leave the drive way?

People already have roads connecting the to main thoroughfares, shall we dig the up?

What if one neighbor wants a road and another does not?

..not all roads lead directly to a single home, in fact very few do.


Why?

What does it matter if one person's opt out affects someone else? If the property-owner next to me doesn't pay taxes on his land, my kid's education is less secure.


Woe unto them that become ill in this land, bring on the snake oil!

...and that pretty much kills democracy too, lovely.

Why should I pay to defend someone else's rights? Let them hire their own security.

I hastily answered that question in between bites of a sausage, egg and cheese mcmuffin. I edited and changed the answer. Elections result in change in government, everyone is affected by change in government including non-voters. As a result, they have to pay for elections.
Are we talking about federal or state gov't here, Turnea? We should clear that up before I answer that question. Local governments, of course, would have to force taxation on the public to pay for roads. Privatization of local roads would lead to a free-rider problem. Federal roads, on the other hand, should not exist. If I was unclear [which was probably the case], I applogize.
I've already answered this question. Security cannot be divided up. Either we are secure, or we are not. If my neighbor's property is not secure, my property becomes less secure.
Only if the government forces him to pay for your kid's education. In my view, that shouldn't happen. Your neighbor should not be paying any kind of mandatory tax to ensure your child's education.
That's a theory...Can't be proven, can't be disproven...I subscribe to a different theory.
Because if you do not pay to defend someone else's rights, we would have anarchy, anarchy does not result in the maximization of freedom. Again, the only legitimate function of government is to secure the rights of citizens...Something a government-less society could not do.

CP

Aha!

..so now we come to it. The acknowledgment that their are other values at play that the assumed immoral nature of unwanted taxation.

That's Step One. Forward one frame!

..but if he isn't forced to do so and chooses not to my child's education is affected. Just as in the security situation, his decision impacts other's situations.


That's not true. I could hire security for my property. Heck I can erect an wall with razor wire and a pox on my neighbors house if he only has cash for a picket fence.

There was this guy Eisenhower who hand this great idea for this thing called the "interstate highway system." Really took off. We'd be a pretty lousy economic power without it in fact

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson "Sure we'd save a few lives, but millions would be late!"

Act Three:

We have history to look back to. How many people finished high school before public schooling?
How many suffered from quack medical treatment before the FDA? It may be a theory, but mine's a dang good one.

Nowhere, ever, I think, have I denied that.
No. It will simply make YOU responsible for YOUR child's education. If you cannot take responsibilty for that, then you should not have had children. When you eliminate the forcing of others to be responsible for something that is not theirs, you are left with a society of individuals that are not as interconnected. You have no right to use others' money to educate your child. If you disagree, from where do you derive your right to take money from others to pay for the education of a child not their own?
And if you're neighbor's house is completely insecure and is constantly surrounded by criminals, gangs, etc. does that make your house less safe? Of course it does.
This assumes that we could not have an "interstate highway system" without the Federal government. That is a false assumption.
How many people finished high school before public schooling? I don't know, I don't care. There is no right to education in this country. How many suffered quack medical treatment? I don't know, how many drugs that could have saved lives were delayed entry into the market by federal involvement?

CP

Do you think the potentiality of having a large completely ignorant and likely illiterate population would NOT have an effect on you, living in a democracy and all? I'd say it's in everyone's interest that the population that not only votes and exercises its influence this way, but creates and sustains the economy in which our very currency is backed receive an education. The paper money you say you don't wish to pay would be worth a heck of a lot less if our population held education levels on par with developing countries. Furthermore, how would you expect to generate and maintain the military and police force that you ARE willing to pay for, out of a likely vastly ignorant population you haven't been willing to educate in the first place? Will the military or police academy have to first teach them to read?

You are reaping benefits from living in an educated society, for that there is a cost. In the above you seem to believe that you should be able to enjoy those benefits with no cost to you, but it doesn't work that way...nor would I call that the "moral" way of doing things.

The "potentiality of having a large, completely ignorant and likely illiterate population", or actually having a completely ignorant and illiterate population, Mrs. P? There would be the potential for a completely ignorant and likely illiterate population with no government involvement...but keep this under your hat, there is a potential for a completely ignorant and illiterate population in our current, government-run system of education. There is no reason to believe that the removal of gov't from education would result in a completely ignorant and/or illiterate population, which isn't to say that that isn't close to what we have today.
Obviously having a smart "society" is preferable than an undeducated one, which is why we need to open education up to competition and improve it instead of subsidizing mediocrity/failure in the manner we are today. But I fear we're moving off topic.
The paper money I say that I don't wish to be forced to pay would be worth a heck of a lot more if it were backed by something of value...But again, I think we're straying.
This opinion relies on an enormous assumption. That assumption is that an education system separated from the state would be a catostrophic failure. I reject that premise.
No, I'm saying that everyone in this "society" should be responsible for their own education. It is sad to hear that you don't think of my ideology as "moral"...but I wonder, what exactly makes a "society" in which perfect strangers see their money taken from them so that another perfect stranger can get straight-C's at the local public high school more moral than one in which people are not forced to be "charitable"?

CP

No. It will simply make YOU responsible for YOUR own property. If you cannot take responsibility for that, then you should not have purchased land. When you eliminate the forcing of others to be responsible for something that is not theirs, you are left with a society of individuals that are not as interconnected. You have no right to use others' money to protect your home. If you disagree, from where do you derive your right to take money from others to pay for the security of a property not their own?

hi CP

i'm a new poster here, but i'd like to throw my own 2 pfennig in the ring, as it were


from my perspective as an historical materialist, i belive that laws are primarily an expression of the values and mores of the RULING CLASS

laws which they enact naturally reflect THEIR bias and THEIR interests

this explains why certain forms of theft are punished much more severely than other forms, for instance the punishments meted out to so called "white collar" criminals are quite often less harsh than those meted out to the "common" "run of the mill" "blue collar" criminals - (e.g. - the "non violent" crimes of a michael milken who stole MILLIONS which even resulted in the SUICIDE of at least one elderly man bilked of his life-savings, who received only a slap on the wrist, vs. the crimes of non-violent drug offenders (per example) who often receive quite long sentences - i would argue that the recent "harsh" treatment of white collar criminals such as ken lay is mostly a REACTION by the ruling class' courts to the growing popular outrage at such behavior and the need of the oligarchy to sacrifice one of its own "for the greater good" of the rest

at any rate, we see different forms of "morality' depending on the economic structure of the State in question

in a (deformed) workers' state such as china, we see much more harsh penalties passed out for white collar crimes (quite often the most extreme penalty of DEATH is meted out) which would receive only a slap on the wrist in the CAPITALISTs' state of the USA


i mean, as an example of how the laws reflect the class interests of whichever economic/social class is "in the saddle"


so to sum up:


laws ARE a reflection of the "morality" of the RULING CLASS only and they're reflective of THAT particular class' economic and social interests.



regards,


Swing


[edit]

i should add, i suppose, that in the instance of our own bourgeois democratic-republican constitution, the constitution "law of the land" tho generally reflecting the interests of a propertied elite (originally restricted to white males), HAS allowed for the expansion of rights, albeiti at a snail's pace and incrementally, to other segments of society....but iin general the struggle between "conservatives" and "liberals" (as we in the 'states understand the terms) has been a struggle over the expansion/contraction of these rights....

i'm afraid i still havent managed to convey the entirety of my meaning here but this'll have to do for now


[/edit]

Clever, but a dodge of my question. Regardless of what security measures that one can use to protect his/her property, his/her security depends, to an extent, on the security of the surrounding area, this is simply a statement of fact. Let me ask you Turnea, when do you think it is justifiable to force someone to do something that they ordinarily would not do?
Hey, Capt., welcome to AD. I do think that you're partially right in that our government passes legislation that reflects their interests a good portion of the time, but I also think that your commentary is more of a criticism of the criminal justice system more so than the legislative/federal government, correct me if I'm wrong.
On edit: Very cool avatar, by the way...and that's coming from a very free-market capitalist.

CP

Not if the security is good enough, no it isn't.

When it leads to a more ethical society. When the value being protected is judged to be greater than the downside of using force to protect it.

CP,

Are you saying that the moral view of the individual should supercede the moral view of the State? I think that a society develops standards of morality, in general, and ethics, in particular, and attempts to have those views reflected in the moral view of the State. Now, the individual may view a particular law to be unethical for himself... and there are ways to bypass the majority in order to have this individual view reflected by the State despite the moral view of the majority. But, a country would be difficult to govern by simply adopting the stance of "I can do as I please so long as I don't infringe on the rights of others." How does one determine which rights supercede others without some standard code of ethics or morality? What you are proposing is not democracy - If I'm wrong, let me know - so, what is it?

That simply isn't true, the more dangerous the area surrounding property gets, the more dangerous it is for that property to remain in that surround area, right?
How do you define ethical and and who judges whether or not the downside is greater than the value or not?

Sadly, this will be my last post until around 10 tonight [work is far less fun than this], see you guys then.

On edit: I'm saying that the state's only responsibilty should be to protect the legal and natural rights of its citizens.
If a society develops standards of morality in general than the State does not need to enfore them by law. The society will naturally follow them. For example, if most people think prostitution is immoral, if suddenly tommorow, prostitution is legalized, society will not suddenly start hiring hookers left and right. That also lends credence to my opinion that laws, in and of themselves, are not moral entities.
We would have and do have a standard code, torts, contracts, etc. For example, murder, we can all agree, is a severe [the most severe] violation of rights imaginable, therefore the state should and does criminalize it and arrest murderers. We can judge what should be legal by determining whether anyone is harmed by a given action, where harm equals the violation of a legal/natural right.
I'm not proposing an alternate form of government, I'm proposing that the one we have be siginificantly less active than it is.

CP

The "potentiality of having a security breach, or actually having a security breach, CP?

Representative democracy.

Work equal money. Money equal happy.

Later, man.

Damn it, okay, one more post, then I leave for work.

Again, clever, but a dodge. I see you are trying to equivocate my argument against coerced "free" education to my argument in favor of coerced common security. The difference is the simple nature of each service. The purpose of education is to, well, educate a child, make him/her smart so that he may get a job. The purpose of security is to prevent a person from having his/her rights violated. Security is interconnected because if my neighbor is not safe, I become less safe. Education is NOT interconnected [or would not be in my utopia] because my neighbor having an uneducated child does not make my child less educated [in fact, it gives him a comparative advantage]. The comparison doesn't work, Turnea.

Okay, see ya later for real this time.

CP

So what if the majority seeks security for the entire neighborhood and is willing to pay for it, but some of their neighbors do not seek security and are unwilling to assist in paying for security for the entire neighborhood. Does the majority rule? Or is the individual who sought security, but lives next to a person who doesn't have it because they didn't want it, just out of luck?

I'll try to phrase this another way. You aren't asking people only to fund their own children's educations, you are asking them to live in a society comprised of a large number of ignorant citizens. If Billy Bob next door decides not to educate his 10 children for whatever reason from not having the money to wanting to buy beer with it instead...I and my children, as well as the rest of us are all affected. Public education is a bargain compared to the alternative. You don't believe that the ratio of all professions would decline if there was no access to public education? You (we all) benefit from having knowledgable people. Everything would be affected, from crime rates to the entire economy. Asking everyone else to live in a society of morons because you don't want to bare a small cost (as a beneficiary) is not moral (from my perspective).

perhaps i pulled out a bad analogy

let me give a better one, in order to illustrate the true meaning of what i'm trying to convey


in our country's past, when the Franchise (votingi rights) was quite restricted still to only a minority of the populace which was, for the most part either a rural landed american version of the 'squierarchies' or an urban bourgeoisie or business class which were able to meet the necessary requisites of wealth, and so, in reflection of the interests of the urban bourgeois and the rural agriculturalists (the large plantation owners who had to hire free labor in the northern states at least - the southern states are a different study of 'morality' and "law", don't you think?), associations of laborers (labor unions) were actually FORBIDDEN by laws and by the courts (and yes, i suppose the system of "legislation" and "jurisprudence" are inextricably linked anyway, so it's probably impossible to seperate the two....) (and this under the rule of a constitution which supposedly guarantees man the right of association!)



so of course we have the "morality" of the propertied classes in conflict with the "morality" of the unpropertied (and un-enfranchised)....i would submit that at least to a certain extent, the laws which are extant in this country are in actuality a reflection of the CONFLICTS between the "morality" of aposite classes


(and cp - my avatar is taken from a comix series titled "red son" which was an "alternate universe" superman character who landed in stalin's soviet union.....)


regards,

Swing

I'm inclined to agree with bikerdad that the laws are based on somebody's morality, even if it is a dictator. It's hard to imagine a law that is not morally based. We arrest people for theft and murder which surely puts us in the realm of morality. Taxes are loosely based on the morality of supporting the common good. Forced conscription is based on the morality of collective defense or more precisely sacrificing for the greater good. That doesn't mean that these underpinnings aren't often employed in a bogus way(Jingo arrogance masquerading as patriotic defense for example) but even a dishonest bow to morality is still a recognition that the rules require a moral justification to carry a long term saleable force. Even something like colonialism is commonly couched in terms of carrying out a charitable missionary function to bring the recipients of your efforts out of the darkness into a greater enlightenment. The conquistador always wants his priest near by.

As for the notion of class rule I would substitute the notion of interest group rule as being more the case in our society. If you can round up enough people and get them acting together in a politically effective way around a particular issue you can often control that issue and make inplementing laws you like. Of course that interest is sold as being morally righteous and being for the greater collective good. No one ever publically comes out and says this is only for our advantage, to hell with everybody else. This is not to say that big money folks don't enjoy greater influence but a lot of people contributing time and $10 out of their pocket can exert a lot of influence. That's my picture of how the NRA operates and of course they are invested in a 2nd Amendment frenzy based on their notion of the fundamental right of individual self-defense, certainly a morally based idea.

Again, this is categorically untrue. If I can hire security from Blackwater I have nothing to fear if some guy breaks into my neighbor's house and robs him blind.

Won't happen to me, I've got cash to pay for justice.

Are laws the equivilent of the morality of society?
Why, why not?

I note a lot of people said no and I think I understand why, but judging the question with as critical an eye as I can muster, I'd have to say, yes. Every one seems to be talking about individuals here, and society's are everything but. This question does not ask whether or not laws are morals, it asks are laws the equivilent of a society's morality.

I'd say yes, that is exactly what they are. The principles by which a society is governed. The equivilent of morality.

Society's have no common morality in the way the individuals who make up society do. Morality is entirely an individual perspective, thus for a society being described as a single entity, laws make for morality. I can't see how whether or not the laws actually correspond to the majority perspective of what is and what is not moral, makes any difference to the question being asked.


edited for formatting

but the State tells us "THOU SHALT NOT KILL", and if we transgress, the State reserves for itself the "right" to KILL us.

i fail to see the "morality" of this sort of "do as i say, not as i do" approach to jurisprudence



(and dingo - "class" is roughly equivalent to "interest group" - as an example - ONE particular "class" or "interest group" is going to naturally support the notion of un-restricted and un-taxed earnings on "capital gains"....and their choice to either support or oppose such legislation would certainly be driven by their own economic relations to the question in particular, yes? so one would be able to predict, on the nature of the quesetion (taxing of capital gains) the liklihood of this or that particular individual to fall within this or that particular group or "class" (like, the INVESTING class is generally gonna benefit and thus SUPPORT such legislation, while the classes which do NOT have a stake in this particular issue may choose to be indifferent or to oppose it, depending on their own sense of class-consciousness (ie, "identification with a particular interest group" if you prefer)


no?)


regards,


Swing

Sorry Captain Swing but there is no 'the state', there are many states and, like people with the individual morals, they do not all share the same persepctive towards execution. My country certainly does not kill people, no matter how many laws they've broken. Essentially the laws of the USA have the equivelent of a morality that says murder is illegal, or else (and Denmark does not).

has your particular State sworn off the use of weapons and force to settle international disputes?


if not, then it still has reserved for itself the "right" to kill, when it serves its interests (or more particularly, the interests of its ruling class)


but, your point is still well-taken. i was speaking in particular of the State known as the United States of America.

(as the title of this h'yere place is "america's debate" i had, assumed (incorrectly it would seem) an "ethnocentric" view )


denmark probably has the equivalent of a morality/law that says murder is illegal "or else" you go to jail

that is quite a different matter from the morality/law that says murder is illegal and if you kill, we'll kill YOU

if murder - ie, the pre-meditated taking of a human life is a "wrong" or a "negative value" in the instance of an individual, how can it be a "right" OR "positive value" for a corporate entity?

CS, 'interest group' implies a multipolar condition whereas 'class' in terms of past usage, particularly in Marxist circles, implies a bipolar condition - exploiters vs. the exploited. I find in Occam terms 'interest group' is simpler and more descriptively accurate and more analytically useful. For instance describe the gun control issue in terms of ruling class vs. working class analysis. The same problem would apply to much of fundamentalist religious thinking. You have to paint a few legs on the snake to manage a bi-polar fit. However if you describe them in "interest group" terms, both the interest and it's professed moral underpinning are usually readily available and can be rendored understandable without turning yourself into a pretzel.

Are you including the State as an aspect of the society? I made a distinction between the two. The State governs the society. If this is true, then the State which creates the laws may have a different moral view (as an entity) than the society that it governs (as an entity).

I am not asking anyone to live in an ignorant society, Mrs. P. That is only the case if privatization of education would so lead to such a society, I don't believe it would. As for Billy Bob and his 10 uneducated kids, those 10 uneducated children will have to find a niche and a job, there isn't much else to say, and I'm not clear on what you're getting at with that example. It is unrealistic to believe that there would be many people in this country who would choose not to educate their children.
I don't know if they would, I haven't seen any evidence to support the notion that there would be. Hypothetically, Mrs. P, what do you see happening that would violate the rights of others if someone chose not to educate their children? What actual violation of rights is done to me if my neighbor's children are uneducated?
And once again, I do not see how, and you have not proven that such a society would be the result of privatized education.
So, Turnea, if your neighbor is robbed, would you not take new measures to secure your home? You use this example of Blackwater, but the point remains, it is impossible to make one's home completely and utterly safe both from crime and other dangers if that home is not in a safe area. That just seems like common sense to me. Let me ask you, is Fort Knox more secure in Kentucky then it would be in Camden, NJ?

Bringing education back into the mix for a second: if my neighbor chooses not to educate his children, my children do not become less educated, if my neighbor does not secure his home, my property becomes less secure. Education is not interconnected, security is.

CP

I don't think it is possible for me to be more clear on this matter, I don't have the writing ability, but I'll try one more time. It could be argued that YOU and I and EVERYONE is more effected by scores of ignorant, uneducated children who grow into adults than their respective parents are. After all, the parents only have to put up with them for 18 years (by your overall argument, I'm not sure how the government could coerce them into doing so though....) but we are then stuck with a voting population that is ignorant (does that not effect you), possesses few marketable job skills (likely some very unsavory marketable ones though), and is prone to crime. Look at how many people have risen to the top from nothing, and then consider where they would have otherwise been without access to adequate educations (Powell, Rice, ad naseum ect).



There isn't any way to prove a non-existence, but you can look at countries without a publicly funded education system of any kind and observe how they function (hint, there are no first world countries in that list). Historically, you can also observe the type of society we had before the masses had access to education and only the affluent did. There is a reason why humanitarian organizations bring schools to indigent areas as one of their first actions...education shapes the future of a society.

Asking for proof of how rights are effected by a change in society of that magnitude is like asking how your life is effected by graffiti and trash. "Hey! it's just paint on my walls, car, public parks...." Hookers shooting heroin at the bus stop next to my house doesn't effect me, it isn't on my property. Here is a question....just why do you think private property laws exist in the first place? What is their purpose outside of your body? Why are you effected by your surroundings anyway? Possessions aren't your body, they are just unrelated "stuff" with only indirect consequence to you. Just like ignorant loitering masses.

I'm very, very curious what would happen to orphaned children in your utopian world. Would we reestablish work houses so they could earn their own keep? Maybe they could pick up garbage, then eventually move up to threading needles, or something. And the people who come to the hospital and cannot pay for their own medical care (though we don't even do this to actual enemies in a war zone, but nevermind) and die in the streets....who would arrange for the disposal of corpses? Would we all wait until the person who could stand the stench the least finally pays to have it removed?


***Edited to add: It's a foregone conclusion that what I said is true. Here is a challenge. Go and live for six months in indigent area housing as a child caretaker, then get back to me. It will change your opinion, I guarantee you. See just what type of childcare is afforded to people who work at the chicken-lickin'...they'll leave their kids with anyone, or they simply let them run around unaccompanied.

In the area I once lived in Las Vegas, you'd find five year old brothers in charge of their two and three year old siblings while mommy was away. I saw babies in soiled diapers alone playing at the parks for hours (no child welfare agencies in your utopia, I'd imagine...no 'forced charity!' and out of sight out of mind, and all that...). The bushes were strewn with used condoms and broken glass. Somehow, I don't think those folks would be able to afford any kind of education for their children, and if they did it would be the lowest kind. Unregulated abusive facilities....

No.
...and I'll bet that when mugging goes up in Elizabethtown Fort Knox doesn't increase security.

Security from crime is not interconnected.

You've said this several time and no, you cannot be more clear, the problem, Mrs. P, is that this is an assumption. You continue to say that of course others would be affected by a private educational system because we are all affected by a stupid population and a stupid electorate. Problem is that you have not and cannot demonstrate that that is the result of a privatized education system.
I'd be willing to bet that those countries have several other historical and social problems not related to education, don't you think? It is impossible to prove causation between a lack of public education and an ignorant, illiterate population.
I have ownership of my possessions, I paid a price or otherwise came to own them, there was a voluntary exchange through which they came to be mine. There was no voluntary exchange that resulted in me [or anyone else] paying for the education of another child. Mrs. P, let's see how far we can take this. If we are all so inexorably bound, don't you think there should be some sort of penalty for not maintaining a certain academic standard? After all, what better way to prevent an ignorant mass of borderline-illiterates than to punish those who use our money to go to school which they then blow off by not studying hard, etc.?
I'm very curious as to why you believe that people would not voluntarily pay for homes for orphaned children. I'm more curious as to why you believe that scholarships for such children would not be established by private groups [Hint: they already are today]. But what I'm most curious about is why you continuously paint my ideology as heartless and uncaring when its entire premise is based on the removal of force and coercion except in instances when rights need to be protected. Mrs. P, simply because I believe the government shouldn't force us to do something does not mean that I don't believe that it would right for us to do it. Likewise, just because the government doesn't force us to do something does not mean that we would not do so, freely.

On edit: I wonder, in your example, how much money that family was paying in federal, state and local taxes that they could not have kept for themselves. A question, Mrs. P, do you think the government is the only thing force that makes people donate to charities? If so, I'd like to know why.

On Edit: LINK
On average, the tuition of an elementary school is $3,267, of a secondary school, $6,053 and at a K-12, $6,779. Let's stop pretending that the burden to pay for education is so great. Keep in mind also that it is likely [actually pretty much a sure thing] that those prices would go down as a result of being part of a free market. In addition, because of all the taxes that would not exist in my utopia, people would be able to keep more of what they earned to finance such a thing as education. So again, I can do without the dystopic views of hungry children eating each other in a back-ally next to the whorehouse, per favor.

CP

You don't pay taxes yet, do you CP? The people I was referring to don't make enough to pay anything, they are below the minimum. Charity is certainly a nice thing, and I do not believe that the public at large owes everyone a "nice" lifestyle. I do believe that it is in our best interest for the population to receive an education.

Yes, I do. I simply did not know that those people weren't paying taxes, hence the question. Do they have jobs, if so, subtract payroll taxes. I make minimum wage, I'm taxed, so I have a hard time believing that anyone else with a job is not also taxed. Again, you say it is in our best interest for an educated populace...And I agree, privatization of education would be a great way to accomplish such a thing and would not be an undue financial burden [see the link].

CP

Sorry that reality offends your sensibilities. In the stats you've given above, and indigent family with three kids would pay 10,000 a year for elementary school, then 18,000, then over twenty thousand. No, no one made them have kids but that isn't the children's fault and it is our problem if they come to age and become a direct (or in your world indirect, but very real) burden. No indigent family could possible afford the above. How many hours would you have to work your minimum wage job to come up with that, after food and housing?

Edited to answer entspeak below:

CP started this topic explaining that it pertains tangentially to the role of gov't and the inherent morality of laws. I thought this applied overall in that respect, but I'll refrain from further thoughts. I'm in the middle of a move and shouldn't be typing away anyway....

I'm confused.

Have we stopped discussing whether or not the laws are the equivalent of the morality of society? This appears now to be a discussion about the morals of the individual vs. the morals of the majority. Perhaps, I'm missing something, but I don't quite understand how this pertains to the question for debate.

Define "indigent". In addition, and as I said, there is no reason to believe that those prices would not lower as a result of free market competition. Furthermore, those prices were averages, meaning there are schools cheaper, and more expensive. It is unfair to take a poor family in an example and have them pay what a middle class family would ordinarily pay. Also, and this relates to this indigent families example, you have not answered my question [or at least I don't think you have], do you believe the government is the only thing that forces people to give money to others?

CP