the law and types of people

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Hello Ucissore,

I think that you should not put words in other people’s mouths. There are other reasons, ideological reasons that polarize our parties into distinct behaviors. Ideology, for both sides, can be abused to the point that people no longer consider, no longer judge, but rather prejudge based on their ideology. One thing that PK should remember is that Jim Crow laws were legislated by Democrats who dominated the political life of southern states back then as republicans and “tea party” does today. It is that kind of “practicality” that is manifest when you apply laws according to people rather than law according to principle.

There are reasons for all of these. responding to a caricature with your own caricature hardly does your position any justice. You obscure merits of the republican positions that should be exalted. You can, for example, sued whomever, for just about whatever. That has nothing to do with either party but with our legal system controlled by sharks…I mean “Lawyers”…who get paid regardless of whether the case has merits or not. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that you see no merit in passing laws that tell employers how much they must pay their employees, for example, or what kind of soda (if any), and light bulb to consume. Really? Unlike Adam Smith, I don’t believe in an invisible Hand guiding the permutations of markets or pay. Having a minimum prevents those at the fringes of employability from being utterly exploited. We the government intercede on behalf of those desperate enough that they would take a job even if does not provide a living wage because “employers” think that they know better. As far as light bulbs, not knowing the specifics, if the concern is with their sustainability, then again, we the government, and not corporations, should decide what hits the shelves if in doing so we help preserve an environment under threat by the very number of our species. Sodas…I think that that is a move that has to do with who foots the bill for our very expensive healthcare. If it is the private individual, then drink the whole liter of Coke, but if it is we, the government, should try to limit self-inflicted damage. It is inconsistent, that we say that we value life, that we disagree with suicide, but wholly embrace slow self-destruction. We can justify a war on drugs, but allow other drugs that are even more destructive, like beer, thru. But, like you I believe in small government and it should be social norms that change and therefore change our eating habits as well; however I can see the merit of the position that argues for more involvement.

Deregulation in the economic/financial sphere, not in the moral field, where they are pushing to get laws passed about abortion and marriage. Conservatives want to deregulate…but not everything. A witnessed statement to get a hand job? That redefines consent, not rape.

Your employer. Why? Because they can get sued if they fail to maintained a fair atmosphere.

22

I didn’t see it in your post but have you made a judgment on this? Is it people or principle? or sometimes people and sometimes principle depending on the circumstances?

.

23 
I'm not the one who brought up this "Conseratives are all about using the law to restrict and control people's behavior to conform to their own norms and liberals aren't" thing in the first place. I'm just pointing out that the dichotomy doesn't work.   You can point out all the super very good reasons lefties  have for regulating the hell out of everything if you want to, but it won't change my point in the slightest- namely that lefties [i]are regulating the hell out of everything[/i] and thus PK's dichotomy is full of crap.

Here’s the conversation so far:

PK: The Right is the side that wants to control everybody’s lives with the law, the Left is less concerned with that.

Me: Here’s all these examples of the Left trying to control everybody’s lives with the law. You’re full of shit.

Omar and PK: But we do it with the best of intentions!

  See how that's not a counterpoint?
24

"omar
O: I think that you should not put words in other people’s mouths. There are other reasons, ideological reasons that polarize our parties into distinct behaviors. Ideology, for both sides, can be abused to the point that people no longer consider, no longer judge, but rather prejudge based on their ideology. One thing that PK should remember is that Jim Crow laws were legislated by Democrats who dominated the political life of southern states back then as republicans and “tea party” does today. It is that kind of “practicality” that is manifest when you apply laws according to people rather than law according to principle.

K: These democrats of the old south, I would call them conservatives, not liberals. The entire political landscape
changed whereas what we call republicans today were really (in the south anyway)democrats. The republicans
of that day were what we would call liberals, very moderate in viewpoint. don’t accuse democrats of actions
that were really the work of conservatives, they just called themselves democrats because of the actions
of the republicans after the civil war. (which proves once again the south is still fighting the civil war)

UCC: Meanwhile, people continue to get sued, and go out of business, for refusing to take wedding photos at a gay wedding. You know, speaking of ‘passing laws that fit the people’ vs. forcing people to fit the law’. In Canada, liberals would drag you in front of a human rights tribunal and investigate you for hate crimes if you said Islam is an inherently violent religion, or read parts of the Bible in public that they found offensive. Liberals are just itching to pass laws telling you how much soda you can drink, what kind of light bulb you can use, how much you are allowed to earn, how much you have to pay your employees, and every other goddamned thing.
[/quote]
OM: There are reasons for all of these. responding to a caricature with your own caricature hardly does your position any justice. You obscure merits of the republican positions that should be exalted. You can, for example, sued whomever, for just about whatever. That has nothing to do with either party but with our legal system controlled by sharks…I mean “Lawyers”…who get paid regardless of whether the case has merits or not. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that you see no merit in passing laws that tell employers how much they must pay their employees, for example, or what kind of soda (if any), and light bulb to consume. Really? Unlike Adam Smith, I don’t believe in an invisible Hand guiding the permutations of markets or pay. Having a minimum prevents those at the fringes of employability from being utterly exploited. We the government intercede on behalf of those desperate enough that they would take a job even if does not provide a living wage because “employers” think that they know better. As far as light bulbs, not knowing the specifics, if the concern is with their sustainability, then again, we the government, and not corporations, should decide what hits the shelves if in doing so we help preserve an environment under threat by the very number of our species. Sodas…I think that that is a move that has to do with who foots the bill for our very expensive healthcare. If it is the private individual, then drink the whole liter of Coke, but if it is we, the government, should try to limit self-inflicted damage. It is inconsistent, that we say that we value life, that we disagree with suicide, but wholly embrace slow self-destruction. We can justify a war on drugs, but allow other drugs that are even more destructive, like beer, thru. But, like you I believe in small government and it should be social norms that change and therefore change our eating habits as well; however I can see the merit of the position that argues for more involvement.

Kropotkin: I can’t add much then Omar did except to say, there really isn’t such a thing as “private” actions
because everything we do, everything we do impacts our friends, family, neighbors, our actions impacts
society and because of these actions which impact society at large, can be legislated. If I take a gun and
shoot people, I should be “legislated” to coin a phrase, but how is that different than taking garbage
and dumping it on the street? both change and impacts society. The only real difference is the damage to
people as oppose to the damage to our streets, both of which damages society. if someone drinks themselves
to death, that impacts society in both direct and indirect manners and needs to be address within a societally
context because it is a societally issue.

UCC: Liberals are less concerned with the law, Conservatives more concerned with it? Which of the two wants to regulate everything, and which of the two wants to deregulate? Which of the two wants more money in the control of the Government? Hell, even in terms of sexuality, which group is constantly coming up with new, preposterous definitions of rape such that in California, you basically need a signed and witnessed statement before you can get a handjob?"

O: Deregulation in the economic/financial sphere, not in the moral field, where they are pushing to get laws passed about abortion and marriage. Conservatives want to deregulate…but not everything. A witnessed statement to get a hand job? That redefines consent, not rape.

K: I live in California and your statement about a signed and witness statement is simply not true, with that
said, You have to understand what the limits are and where the lines are being drawn. You can practice your
religion in private to what ever criteria you need however when that practice of religion crosses into
the public sphere it becomes a matter for society. If for instance, for religious purposes feel it wrong
to see a physician, then no one is forcing you to see a physician, however when you don’t vaccinate
your children which puts other children and adults at risk, you have crossed into the public arena.
If you don’t want to see porn on TV, no one is forcing you to see porn, however if you demand
everyone has to obey your religion and cannot see porn on TV, you have passed into the public domain.
If your actions influence or changes others actions, you have crossed into the public domain and
are subject to public, societally actions.

UCC: Who gets your ass fired if you say something about a minority or about women that they don’t like?"

OM: Your employer. Why? Because they can get sued if they fail to maintained a fair atmosphere."

K: if your actions impacts another person, you are liable for your actions. If I call you names
my actions impact your life and is subject to a response of some nature. You have to understand
public and private, what is a public action and what is a private action. Masturbation is a private act
until it becomes public: witness by someone in public, then it becomes a public act. Private and public
actions. The whole idea behind regulation is this idea of private acts and public acts. That which is public
is subject to regulation, that which is private is not. Sex in the bedroom is private and not subject to
regulation, sex on the court steps is public and thus subject to regulation. Public and private.

Kropotkin

25

Hello Uccisore,

I didn’t get that from PK.
In the OP PK wrote:

My emphasis, of course.

I know that PK is showing a clear bias and prejudice, but at least in the examples he brings up about same-sex-marriages and abortion it is clear that there is a decisive opposition that stems from principle rather than what people find nowdays acceptable. The OP seemed to me more about describing a different approach to legislation rather than “they do X, we don’t.”
But here is my point: As you understand PK’s argument, it is: “Conservatives are all about using the law to restrict and control people’s behavior to conform to their own norms and liberals aren’t” thing in the first place." (my emphasis again). So let me ask you fella: Do you think that using the law to restrict and control people’s behavior to conform to a particular group’s norms appropriate? Is it legal? Is it moral? Is it something you want, something you would defend?
Probably not, or I hope not. If someone accuses my group of killing women and children for sport, my retort will not be: Well, so do yours, because that implies that I am morally bankrupt and simply want to make it clear that this practice extends beyond my group, so that EVERYBODY does it. Doesn’t make it right though.
Instead of this shady defense, why not go into why there needs to be principles in legislation? That laws cannot simply be the shadow of the present, but the light itself? Why not argue that the law should be according to reason, not according to personal preference? Or point out the slippery slope of making PK’s interpretation of liberal legislation a reality (Well, some states have a lot of polygamists. Maybe the law should reflect that “reality”.)

Ucci, should any party legislate laws against the rights of individuals to marry who they want to marry?
Are the two parties, in your opinion, legislating , regulating, the hell out of everything for the same reasons, or is there a difference that can be debated as correct or incorrect, right or wrong? I think that even if PK were to concede that liberals created many, many laws, even MORE laws than their counterparts, the question is “Why?” It goes to the heart of the matter which is what we thing should be the role of government.

One last thing:

“we”? You are mighty quick to slap a label on people. Now I’m a liberal? C’mon Ucci. That is not argument, but calumny. Again: Do you need to resort to that?

26

Hello Peter,

You can call them what you want, but the point is that the label does not contain all the definitions that were once given, or are now used, instead of others. If anything, you should learn from that fact and realize that every party has a bit of the other, like a Ying-Yang circle. This attitude that purifies either party of any element of the other, only strengthens the syndrome that has taken over our politics today.

Everything can be legislated, and precisely because of this, we need to make sure that they are not. Don’t conflate different issues. Guns should be regulated, just as driving should be regulated. This argument is not against the principles of conservatism. But from this to add on the regulation of what I drink, drive or buy, and who knows what else, without any second thoughts, that is when your rationality has left the building. The individual SHOULD NOT be treated as a child, or government treated as “Papa knows best”. I believe that a possible wrong to society CANNOT justify an actual wrong (prohibition by law) towards the individual. The environment is shared, but our dead bed is not shared by society. We die all alone.

If I don’t want to see a physician, and your govt won’t force me to see one, then why force me to carry insurance or else you penalize me?

27

Can you link me to those cases?

28 
  Yes, and that description is fundamentally incorrect.  The left has their own sets of taboos and outrages and things that offend them and they legislate accordingly everywhere they aren't opposed.  That's why I brought up Canada, and you may as well add the U.K.  Progressives make it illegal to say things they don't want to hear about gays, Islam, some race or another, and they do it regularly. From there, we can move to how they treat the law and people's freedoms when it comes to the environment, or labor, or many other issues.  It doesn't happen MUCH in the U.S. because our First Amendment is so absolutist, but it makes no sense to praise a faction for what they aren't allowed to get away with. 

 I think that's a silly, relativistic question. Is it legal to use the law? Why yes.  Is it moral to legislate according to your norms? Why yes, if your norms are moral. Now, your norms may include the idea that the law should leave people alone as much as possible, but [i]that too[/i] must me actively, aggressively written into the law if you want things to stay that way, as should be plain. 

  PK defined liberals by something they don't do. I gave examples of liberals doing that very thing, thus showing his comparison to be invalid. That's the beginning and end of it.  I don't give a shit if conservatives are better, worse, or exactly the same as liberals for the purposes of this thread. 

 How about YOU spend a few days pointing things like that out to PK, and let me know how you feel at the end of it. Assuming you haven't thrown your computer out a window, we can compare notes then. In the meantime, I'm going to content myself with decisively showing why the points he makes are invalid, and moving on.

Ah, so you ARE in favor of polygamy and incest then? I got the impression you weren’t from the above addendum. OH, but you’ve got your special reasons why that’s different, I suppose, and you can keep them as long as the left lets you. Anyway, to answer your question, as long as a marriage is a legal contract, then OBVIOUSLY the law will be dictating who can enter into it and under what circumstances. Obviously. Do I think it should be illegal for a same sex couple to go to a church or a synagogue or a ditch, say some words, buy each other rings, and give each other whatever titles they please under whatever religious auspices they imagine? Of course not. But the issue was never about that, it was about using the law to force acceptance of sexual deviancy, because the left despises traditional families, traditional values, and the State-defying resolve they can muster. Which makes PK’s comparison very humorous indeed.

29

Hello Uccisore
Your affirmative comes with a problematic qualifier. “If your norms are moral…”. Who decides that? Which brings us back to the problem. Let government stay out whenever we can afford to leave them out. That would be my policy based on a deep suspicion of power.
Now, you say that marriage, as far as it is a legal contract, should be regulated by laws. On that basis there is no legal standing from barring consenting adults from entering into a contract as a contract.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not a polygamist but that is a different matter. Gay marriage offers the same legal challenges as any other marriage when defined solely as a contract. Incest involves a minor who has to be protected by the state, and polygamy involves a contract outside of the accepted formula of two people being joined. If, however, we consider marriage legislation only as a contract, then the delay on any legalization would rest on legal details rather than absolute principles held by a majority.

30

In what society? In one that isn’t ruined by multiculturalism, the answer is ‘the people’. In one that is, the answer is “the individual”, which is no answer at all of course, so the real answer becomes ‘the law’. Of course you can see the problem with the law deciding what norms are moral enough to determine the law, but…that’s the price you pay when you go from a melting pot to a scrapyard.
As it turns out, you can’t have a society in which there is a tiny number of laws and people are left to their own devices, AND ALSO those people have basically no morals or customs or ettiquette in common and thus no idea what to expect from each other or what it’s ok to be offended by. You just don’t get a place that’s worth living in then. The great libertarians of the past, our founders, are misleading in one important sense- as they talked about individualism and the law leaving us alone and self-governance, they were doing it from the safe position of virtually everyone around them being a Prostestant, and thus, ‘self governance’ meant everybody being relied on to act like a protestant. What does it mean now?

I agree with that, but the problem is that that won’t happen on it’s own. You would think that the conclusion there would be “All we need to do is stop passing new laws to control people then”. But if all the people who feel as you and I do stop passing laws and go home, then the only legislators will be people who don’t feel as you and I do, and things won’t go our way- everything will be regulated to death by folks who want to use the state to fix all problems. So you need laws about what laws can be passed, and laws limiting laws, and so on. Also, because of social justice, many laws have an anti-discrimination counterpoint. Letting people do certain things may be discriminatory, then the law can either step in to stop the discrimination or not. Or, letting people do certain things may be moot because other private citizens will still prevent them through discrimination- and then you have to decide if “The law says you can do this, but if your fellow countrymen won’t let you that’s your problem” is a just stance.

Ah yes. So when the polygamists are waving picket signs and going on talk shows saying WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME WHO I’M ALLOWED TO LOVE and shoving possibly imaginary examples of anti-polygamy violence in our faces, you’ll say “Polygamy involves a contract outside of the accepted formula of two people being joined,”, and they’ll just go home?
The problem is you’re giving me reasonable arguments, and they don’t matter because 1.) They aren’t being seriously challenged yet, and 2.) When they are challenged, it won’t be by reasonable people. You can say what you like about contracts and such, the bare bones of the issue is that the same horrendous anti-morality that infested people’s brains to justify gay marriage justifies polygamous marriage, incest, and a host of other things just as nicely, and in that they are the same- the only sense that counts.
And what’'s the connection between incest and minors? If we’re speaking frankly, homosexuality involves a minor just as much or more than incest does, I’d bet a testicle on it. If you raise that argument, the incest folks will just call you a bigot who isn’t smart enough to tell incest from pedophilia, and incest will be accepted. The fact that you’re right has nothing to do with it.
So that’s where morality gets involved. Marriage is a legal contract, and so by definition will be governed by laws. But that’s not ALL it is- people will try to restrict it or expand it based on their moral understandings.

31

Ciao Ucci,

Multiculturalism, or globalization is here to stay. I do not believe that it has left us where laws decide which laws are good, at least here in America. It it was so, then nominations to the Supreme Court would not have such political and legislative weight.
What unifies the people these days, what imparts trends and opinions? The media. The “People” no longer exist because there is less control here in the states about what “the People”, really “the children”, can be exposed to. The printing press was huge, but a dwarf compared to the internet and television. We have a lot in common but the media has let us know that there is a lot of difference between the “people”.
The Fathers had no such cozy situation of religious homogeneity. People came here to escape religious persecution, but that did not mean that they agreed about what everyone should believe and there are reports about some persecution by Puritans on those that did not worship or conducted themselves correctly (www2.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/a … ligion.htm). The Founding Fathers, I think, did not want to see the State entering a battle that in the end should be left to the individual. This is not a Protestant sentiment, this is a sentiment that stems from being persecuted by the State on the basis of one’s belief. There was no common ettiquette, no common morals, and perhaps, because of this, the Founders felt that it was even more important to leave the State out of it if it was going to be a representative state of the people. In a way they succeeded. Our government is representative of none and thus, in our pluralistic society, it is representative of all.
Religious institutions that insured a common worldview ended with the Catholic Church. Luther and company had no metaphysical basis to their authority and were thus left waging a war with no peace in sight. The Protestants have one thing in common and this goes back to the Founders: They keep on protesting.

There is a “law” about what laws can be passed-- it’s called the Constitution. I don’t what legislation to legislate itself, lawmakers passing laws about what laws lawmakers can pass. The lawmaker is too invested to act as an impartial judge, which is why we delegate stuff like this to the SC. We have such a beefy justice system because of out melting-pot society. I do not want government and law to go away, but that law follows principle of first “do no harm”. I’ll use two examples:
Universal health care: I am against this being a federal mandate. If Connecticut finds a way to make it work for their residents, then that is fine. It leaves those in Connecticut who disagree with the law several options, including moving the fuck out of Connecticut. A mandate that forces everyone and leaves no recourse to disagreement and which can immediately “penalize” you without any representation is, and you agree, unconstitutional.
The other example is gay-marriage. Lets leave religion out of it. Should a guy be allowed to marry his close cousin? What about his cat. I don’t think that the federal government should decide on this. Put it on the next electoral ballot for a state. If the state votes in favor, then under that state it is recognized as legal and federal recognition should follow. This grass roots approach, I believe, will one day settle the “war on drugs”, at least on the marijuana front. And this as a principle could guy law in general. A do no harm approach means being reactive rather than proactive. Allowing proactive legislation to occur only at state level means that the damage of such legislation is voluntarily accepted by remaining within the state-lines and secondly the damage remains contained to that state. If on the contrary the proactive legislation is successful, then it serves as a model that can be freely accepted and imitated until the point when federal action is only an alignment with the general sentiment of the nation.
There are exceptions even to this rule. Civil rights is one of these. Pro gay-marriage people often invoke MLKJr when in fact MLKJr would have been quick to read them the Bible about their sin. However, and to MLKJr probably disgust, they have an argument to be heard as far as being denied a basic right that the State guarantees. So long as you don’t hurt anyone else, you are free to do as you please. But it is an argument to be heard and not simply adopted as law because there is in fact others that could be hurt. They choose the gay lifestyle, but what about their children? This is vaguely similar to the abortion debate. The State cannot treat gay-marriage as a simple contract because the children that could come into that legal contract are not represented nor protected.

What is the one sense that counts? I don’t think that marriage can be taken as a simple contract. The unstated assumption here would be that a gay lifestyle is generally questioned or disapproved. I know…at the very least it should be left to the states to decide the legality of the union. Viewed in the larger union, rearing a child in a gay home is tantamount to child abuse. In the context of California…

Agghh! Sorry. I made a mistake. I’ll have a proper night of rest if I ever have to defend the position in a court of law, hopefully eliminating the chance of getting them confused.

Marriage is more than a legal contract. Again the fact that it has been reduced to a legal contract reflects the lack of moral standing it has as an institution. In Italy, 60 years ago, you had no need for laws to protect the wife and the children. You could separate from the wife, but never divorce her in the eyes of God. What has been lost? The “eyes of God”. So today we make do with the death of God. But the eyes of the people remain. In Sicily people still value virginity. Even 40 years ago, bloody sheets were hung from the balcony of a pair of newlyweds. Take the daughter of the mailman and return her in the morning and you have soiled her image and you have also become a common union. Even if not legal, it is a contract before the eyes of everyone in the community.
It is a legal contract when strip of everything else. It will be governed only by law because it has been stripped of everything else. But since it is more, should it be restricted by law? Well, I agree that it is much more, but by the principle of first do no harm, it should be the community, the lowest legal body, maybe the state, that decides on the question.
One problem is that as we have liberal and conservative states, you may have interactions across state lines that put a “recognized-by-law” of one against the “unlawful” of another. But if it is the choice of the couple to move from X state to Y state, why should the federal government get involved and force Y to accept the laws of X? But that should be an argument that has to be heard by a court of law, and unless clear harm is involved, federal law should defer to lower state laws and abstain from proactive legislation without due representation.