Thanks Ron....good idea. I suggest the LPC starts to work on a state
proposition to make this happen.
Mike
Ron and Mike,
That *sounds* good, but I don't see how *any* law could meet such a standard. By its nature the law cannot be morally neutral -- for instance, laws against murder and theft which virtually everyone but anarchists see as desirable are based on a presumption that such actions are immoral. Even seemingly practical statutes such as building code requirements are ultimately based on a belief that it is moral for the state to tell property owners what they may and may not do with their property.
Although complaining about the religious right trying to bring issues of morality or religious beliefs -- the latter being simply tenets of organized systems of morality -- into the public policy sphere can be politically effective, if such complaints are made seriously they show an ignorance of the nature of the law, imho.
Personally I believe that the moral principle, or religious tenet, if you will -- I see little difference between them -- of minimizing the initiation of force should serve as the primary basis of the law.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
Starchild in part siad;" I don't see how any law could meet such a standard... By nature law can not be morally neutral "
This is exactly the idea. If an enacted law or one for consideration bumps head on into all the specifications and could not be enacted - GOOD! Right now there are too many laws on the books and no one knows what they are there for and what they are supposed to do and to whom. You could literally repeal every other law right now and no harm would be done.
Murder and theft are violations of common law and have been so since there were more than Adma and Eve on Earth and Cain and Abel had a real serious falling out and Eve supposedly stole the Fruit of Knowledge. You can act on common law and common sense you do not need a dictated one size fits all law. This can never happen successfully.
Look at how people are sentenced for committing murder. Some get death some get a few years some get lot of years. Yet they all committed the heinious crime of murder.
For the example of building codes requirements it is not a moral issue of the State to tell property owners how to have a safe building. What is happening is the State is presuming to have superior knowledge of what should be safe so people won't get hurt because of an improperly built building. Secondly, it is also to force building owners to hire trades people to build the building by code requirements so it is also a make work requirement for politically wired trades people.
The less laws considered for enactment the better.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron and Mike,
That *sounds* good, but I don't see how *any* law could meet such a
standard. By its nature the law cannot be morally neutral -- for
instance, laws against murder and theft which virtually everyone but
anarchists see as desirable are based on a presumption that such
actions are immoral. Even seemingly practical statutes such as building
code requirements are ultimately based on a belief that it is moral for
the state to tell property owners what they may and may not do with
their property.
Although complaining about the religious right trying to bring issues
of morality or religious beliefs -- the latter being simply tenets of
organized systems of morality -- into the public policy sphere can be
politically effective, if such complaints are made seriously they show
an ignorance of the nature of the law, imho.
Personally I believe that the moral principle, or religious tenet, if
you will -- I see little difference between them -- of minimizing the
initiation of force should serve as the primary basis of the law.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>