• Board 2 January 11 - 6:03 am

Hmmm. I thought that there would be numerous flame wars sprouted by this particular topic. Shows what I know.

But just to show that someone around here has an opinion on this (even if it is poorly reasoned and logically flawed), I hereby submit the following:

The wording of the 2nd amendment, as we read it above, is sufficiently vauge and/or out-of-date that it's safe to say that guns will never be outlawed completely. Is this a good thing? Well, I consider myself a gun-control advocate but I do recognize that guns can actually serve a purpose... as long as they're used for sports, like, say, hunting.

So how many people use handguns or semi-automatic machine guns for hunting? If it's the kind of hunting I'm thinking of, well, not many. So how to get rid of the superflouous guns? Well, simple! Ban the bullet!

The 2nd amendment says you can "bear" all the arms you want but says nothing about being able to use them (although I suppose that depends on your meaning of the word "bear"). So doesn't banning bullets make sense?

Okay, in a perfect world I'd have the time/inclination to make a well-worded argument about this, but my brain is in a state of post-work friedness so I'll stop here, for the moment.

A murder, rapist, or child molester cannot be made to register his address with the police when he moves into an area. A gun owner who has broken no laws can be made to.

Sparrow47,

You forgot their best purpose. Self-defense. At close range, my baseball bat is almost as good as a gun. Almost. If there are two assailants, I'm dead. If they increase the range, I'm dead. If the assailant is an Arnold look-a-like and can shrug off my blows, I'm dead. If my assailant is a Jackie Chan impersonator who avoids my blows, I'm dead. If I take the time to call 911 and wait for the police, I'm dead. If we both have guns it comes down to who fires first. If he has broken into my apartment, the element of surprise is mine.

When someone posts that removing guns from criminals will reduce gun crimes, let me ask:

1)why are guys who follow the law targeted by gun laws?
2)how many criminals do you think register their guns?
3)do you think knowing a black person is armed would give pause to the KKK that want to lynch him?
4)two women are walking across a dark parking lot. One has a gun. The other has been taking karate lessons. Which would a rapist attack?

Blue has a point. Why would criminals obey gun laws? The whole point is that they're CRIMINALS! They already ignore laws that they don't like.

A murder, rapist, or child molester cannot be made to register his address with the police when he moves into an area. This is not universally correct. Megan's Law and similar statutes require notification not just with police but with neighbors for convicted child molesters, and paroled criminals often get their names passed around the neighborhood.

Yeah, at the local annual fair held every Memorial Day weekend here is the commercial building where all kinds of businesses set up booths, and one was for Megan's Law, and you could go into the computer they had and search your neighborhood for registered criminals. I dunno if it's that simple cuz you'd probably have to show probable cause but they may have relaxed that at the fair. I think if you wanted to go to the Police Dept itself you probably would have to show probable cause.

4)two women are walking across a dark parking lot. One has a gun. The other has been taking karate lessons. Which would a rapist attack?

Um, the rapist knows she has a gun? How? Furthermore, if the woman who has been taking karate is "built," and the one with the gun is petite, I imagine he'd go after the one with the gun, because she looks like an easy target and he can't tell that she's carrying.

This is, of course, not mentioning that if there are two women together like that, a rapist is more than likely not going to go after either one of them. Also, I notice you don't mention if *he* has a gun or not; the rules would change somewhat then, wouldn't they?

This is not universally correct. Megan's Law and similar statutes require notification not just with police but with neighbors for convicted child molesters, and paroled criminals often get their names passed around the neighborhood.

Though I do seem to remember from government class that there's some court case or another that says they can't be forced to put a sign in their yard or bumper sticker on their car. Or maybe they can? Hell if I know, it's three in the morning.

I'll also say that every day in the paper, there's a section at the end of the classifieds listing the names, crimes, and new addresses of recently paroled criminals. I doubt they'd do that on their own, so I'm thinking there's a law about it.

Mark & Mark,

Sorry, I should have been more specific. In Massachusetts, they can not. I remember it being tried but was considered an invasion of privacy.

Matt,

The rape example assumes the rapist knows somehow and since it never mentions difference in body type it assumes they women are similar. Any other nits with the given example? (Should I be specific and mention it is not a police parking lot?) If the rapist is packing, it does not mean the armed woman is more likely to be raped. Would he shoot her first and rape her dead body? I didn't mention necrophelia. It means the woman who does karate is more likely to be chosen as he views the potential confrontation to be better than the 50-50 odds he'd get with the gun toting chick. (His odds with the gun toting chick are actually better since he'd have the element of surprise.)

Blue has a point. Why would criminals obey gun laws? The whole point is that they're CRIMINALS! They already ignore laws that they don't like.

He has a point, but it's not a good one. Should we repeal the law because crimes still occur? Not at all.

Gun control exists to prevent unbalanced individuals - or any civilians - from using lethal force against others. A criminal only becomes one AFTER he/she has committed a crime - is it not in everyone's interest to ensure that firearms remain out of reach of those with mental illness or even violent tempers?

This is a classic prisoner's dilemma. You can talk about how people are entitled to defend themselves with firearms all you want, but it does not change the reality that everyone is less safe when everyone has a gun. Consider the following scenario, where you are being attacked by some assailant on a dark street. You can either choose a knife or a gun, the more effective weapon. Your assailant has the same choice.

1. You have a gun; your attacker has a knife.
2. You both have knives.
3. You both have guns.
4. You have a knife; your attacker has a gun.

Obviously it's best if you have the gun, while your attacker only has a knife. However, your attacker will have the same thoughts about you. Thus you'll both have guns, and you'll both have a greater risk of being killed.

But if guns are not readily available through commercial means, it will be considerably harder for your potential assailant to obtain a gun, and while being attacked by someone with a knife remains dangerous, it is still safer than being attacked by someone with a gun.

So clearly I'm calling for the complete banning of firearms - and why not? The self defense argument doesn't hold - we're all a lot better off when individuals have less of a capacity to kill each other.

As for this being some sort of "attack" on personal freedom, well, it is in one respect. And that's a good thing, unless you think that personal safety is not something to be valued. Governments and authorities exist to enforce the law, without which, as Thomas Hobbes' wrote, our lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

He has a point, but it's not a good one. Should we repeal the law because crimes still occur? Not at all. Josh

I make exactly the same point any time a pro-gun or "pro-choice" advocate makes this argument.I try to do it compassionately, because I understand their feeling so strongly, but this is not an argument that can be sustainedwithout all Law collapsing. [I'm talking only about this particular argument. There are better arguments on both sides of both issues.

Obviously it's best if you have the gun, while your attacker only has a knife. However, your attacker will have the same thoughts about you. Thus you'll both have guns, and you'll both have a greater risk of being killed.

There are studies (mostly done by pro-gun think tanks) which indicate that crimes such as armed robbery are actually lower in areas of the country where more of the general population is armed. (Anti-gun think tanks are quick to point out that accidents and "crimes of passion" involving firearms are higher, but this wasn't your argument.)

So clearly I'm calling for the complete banning of firearms - and why not?

The genie is out of the bottle.Governments will not disarm their militaries, and when guns exist, the "wrong people" are going to manage to get ahold of them, then police forces will need to arm themselves (even London's Metropolitan Police have, reluctantly done so. (I know that this sounds a little like the argument above, but my point is the only way to even attempt to enforce a total ban on guns is to destroy all guns and forbid their manufacture)

As for this being some sort of "attack" on personal freedom, well, it is in one respect. And that's a good thing, unless you think that personal safety is not something to be valued.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety Benjamin Franklin

I won't pretend to know how "essential" the right to bear arms is, or how little or temporary the safety gained by gun laws, but it is something to think about.

JoshG, Blue Berry's point is a good one. Why would gangsters and armed robbers who ignore laws against drug dealing, armed robbery and murder suddenly take any notice of laws against guns? I've never heard anyone answer this properly.

I like your prisoner's dilemma example, but let me elaborate on it a little.

You have Mugger and Good Guy, and your solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to take a gun from Good Guy to reduce the chances of one of them being killed. But why should Mugger stop carrying a gun just because Good Guy does? If he was scared of the law he wouldn't be mugging people. All you will do is give an insuperable advantage to Mugger. He will win every time, and always get away with Good Guy's money. Your solution to gun violence is, it seems, surrender to evil.

Now let's look at it without gun control. Yes, both are more likely to die. But the sharp difference is that whereas Good Guy will only get into at best a few of these scuffles in his life, Mugger is earning a living this way. He will be involved in them multiple times every single week. Even if it was knife on knife, or fist on fist, he has a big advantage, because successful muggers always pick on women, the old, the vulnerable. But with gun on gun, he has a roughly 50% chance of coming out of the scuffle alive each time (roughly because of the element of surprise). When you are risking your life every time you need to earn a living, you soon begin to look at other career options, or you die. Suddenly, that job in McDonalds looks better. So gun on gun not only pretty much equalises things between Good Guy and Mugger, but it means Mugger is risking death every time he does wrong.

As for the complete banning on firearms, TomM is right to note that the police in Great Britain are having to arm themselves years after such a ban was imposed there. The reason? The highest rates of gun crime in history.

whereas Good Guy will only get into at best a few of these scuffles in his life

That should read: "at worst a few of ..."

Thanks, Dwimble. That's what I was trying to say in my post.

There are studies (mostly done by pro-gun think tanks) which indicate that crimes such as armed robbery are actually lower in areas of the country where more of the general population is armed. (Anti-gun think tanks are quick to point out that accidents and "crimes of passion" involving firearms are higher, but this wasn't your argument.)

Correlation is not causation - economic factors (average income, level of inequality) likely play a far greater role in determining the level of crime in an area.

The genie is out of the bottle.Governments will not disarm their militaries, and when guns exist, the "wrong people" are going to manage to get ahold of them, then police forces will need to arm themselves (even London's Metropolitan Police have, reluctantly done so. (I know that this sounds a little like the argument above, but my point is the only way to even attempt to enforce a total ban on guns is to destroy all guns and forbid their manufacture)

I am suggesting only a ban of gun ownership by civilians - police and military forces naturally must keep track of their firearms.

Don't have time to respond to the rest now.

So, Josh, you propose repealing the Second Amendment, then?

Correlation is not causation - economic factors (average income, level of inequality) likely play a far greater role in determining the level of crime in an area. Josh

Oh, I quite agree, although the areas in question are usually whole states, mitigating these other factors (but not eliminating them). That is why I don't trust studies put out by think tanks with connections to only one side of a contoversial question. In this case, however, think tanks on the other side, do not produce studies falsifying the claims, but rather point out a totally different trend.

Gun control exists to prevent unbalanced individuals - or any civilians -- Josh Gould

Are you implying that all civilians are unbalanced? Are you in the military, Josh, or are you unbalanced? Are you saying a law, which will be obeyed by the balanced ones, may also get the "unbalanced ones"?

Correlation is not causation -- Josh Gould

Yeah, the tobacco industry has told me this too.

I am suggesting only a ban of gun ownership by civilians - police and military forces naturally must keep track of their firearms. -- Josh Gould

I agree. They must. Accidents, however, do happen. Police get into the cocaine being held for evidence even when they "must" leave it alone. Marines guarding the US Embassy in Moscow do get involved with "Natasha" even when they know they "must" not. American sailors and soldiers "must" not ask or tell of their sexuality, but the issue does not go away. I think Josh Gould is right. If guns were banned the police and military "must" keep them out of the hands of unbalanced civilians because who knows what damage they could do.

If I may be a bit cheeky ...

Has anyone noticed though that whenever a report comes out saying something something totally wacky like 'rising church attendance matches rising suicide rates', liberals snap it up. But when a report shows something really, really obvious, like 'fear of the death penalty makes murder rate drop', suddenly, correlation doesn't mean causation.

'rising church attendance matches rising suicide rates'

What? The only group of liberals I can think of who do something like that are the anti-porn femanists, who use the same skewed numbers as the anti-porn christians.

JoshG, Blue Berry's point is a good one. Why would gangsters and armed robbers who ignore laws against drug dealing, armed robbery and murder suddenly take any notice of laws against guns? I've never heard anyone answer this properly.

Do you propose that we rescind laws against armed robbery and murder because such crimes still occur?

The objective of gun control is to limit the supply of firearms to civilians, such that it would become harder or even impossible for them to obtain guns through legal means. There is no reason to think that the supply of illegal guns would rapidly increase with tougher gun control. Which do you think is the more reliable way for someone to obtain a firearm? Through backroom dealings, ones not subject to any sort of contract law or regularity in supply? Or by purchasing it in a store?

As for Dwimble's counter-example:

Your solution to gun violence is, it seems, surrender to evil.

My example was only one form of gun violence. And what sort of fool would choose to risk his or her life by not cooperating with a mugger? Which is more important, your life or your wallet?

And even if widespread gun ownership has an effect on the likelihood of theft, all this means is that the bolder muggers and armed robbers would be more likely to shoot first. Contrary to what many believe, more and better weapons do not yield greater security. If I arm myself against perceived threats, then my potential attackers will do the same, a sort of "arms race" develops, and we all began a steady march to the bottom.

Are you implying that all civilians are unbalanced? Are you in the military, Josh, or are you unbalanced? Are you saying a law, which will be obeyed by the balanced ones, may also get the "unbalanced ones"?

Well, it should be fairly obvious that most of us at Nitcentral are a little unbalanced.

However, it only takes a small number of unbalanced individuals to cause trouble. Better gun control would work to prevent such people from acquiring more lethal weapons.

If I may be a bit cheeky ...

Has anyone noticed though that whenever a report comes out saying something something totally wacky like 'rising church attendance matches rising suicide rates', liberals snap it up. But when a report shows something really, really obvious, like 'fear of the death penalty makes murder rate drop', suddenly, correlation doesn't mean causation.

Ha. Ha.

Of course, I try to refrain from making generalized statements about my political opponents.

As for 'fear of the death penalty makes murder rate drop,' that's hardly obvious, especially given that the US murder rate is far higher than in comparable European countries that don't have the death penalty.

And I hardly see how people committing "crimes of passion" are thinking about the consequences of their actions.

There is no reason to think that the supply of illegal guns would rapidly increase with tougher gun control -- Josh Gould

Josh, ever watch old gangster movies? (I mean James Cagney, really old gangster movies.) Was it 1919 that we banned Tommy guns. What did John Dillinger and Baby face Nelson use? How about Machinegun Kelly or Bonnie and Clyde? Yes, in twenty years or so the Tommy gun was off the steet. In those twenty or so years they were criminalized only the criminals had Tommy guns. Since they were underground there was no red tape and they were as readily available as marijana. I don't know if the supply increased because I don't know how prevalent they were in 1919, but I do know they were so prevalent they got in the movies as commonplace gangster accessories.

Let's not get into the death penalty, but do you think a correlation of lung cancer rates among smokers versus non-smokers might mean cigarettes contribute to lung cancer? If it is one study, no. A billion studies, yes. Where do you draw the line? (Is eight studies enough, how about nine?)

Better gun control would work to prevent such people from acquiring more lethal weapons -- Josh Gould

I live in Massachusetts (The Peoples Republic of Massachesttes). It is practically impossible to buy a gun legally. I can get an illegal gun in five minutes. (I live in a drug dealing neighborhood and street vendors are a short walk from here.) No, I can't be sure of the quality of the gun, and I can't be sure that cocaine is not laced with rat poison. Despite laws against it, we have no impediment for "unbalanced" people doing either.

Surrender to a mugger? In a state with "three strikes" laws if the mugger has two strikes murder and assault with deadly weapon are the same except one has one less witness. (These are not crimes of passion and thinking before hand often occurs even among the "unbalanced.") In those states surrendering to a mugger and praying to the law of unintended consequences that this is his first offence is not the best strategy for staying alive. (Assuming he only gets three muggings then you are dead 33% of the time.) Resisting by any means (except running away and giving him a clear shot at your back) be it the karate kick to his gun hand or a quick draw (very quick, he has the drop on you) can get you better than 33%. Of course that really depends on you, not the mugger. If you can't lift your legs over knee high then the kick is not a good idea. If you have your way and you have no gun, legally buying one is not a great idea either.

... 'rising church attendance matches rising suicide rates'... Dwimble

Is this an actual statement from some study or just a "cheeky" example?

If it is real, it is a perfect example of how a correlation is not a causation. When events (whether localized [eg Hurricane Andrew], global [eg terrorism], or a pattern of related local incidents with nationwide or global implications [eg school shootings]) are disturbing and grim, people tend to feel frightened and disheartened. In terms of the general population, both church attendence and suicide rates increase, as people realize that they can no longer cope. Some give in to despair, while others seek solace in God.

The objective of gun control is to limit the supply of firearms to civilians, such that it would become harder or even impossible for them to obtain guns through legal means. There is no reason to think that the supply of illegal guns would rapidly increase with tougher gun control. Which do you think is the more reliable way for someone to obtain a firearm? Through backroom dealings, ones not subject to any sort of contract law or regularity in supply? Or by purchasing it in a store? Josh

The same sort of things might have been said around the turn of the century about banning opiates, and after World Wor I about alcohol. Those examples show that as the legal supply "dries up" demand on the illegal supply increases, leading to an icrease in that illegal supply.

----------------

You may have noticed that over the last week or so, I've seemed to keep "switching sides." That is because I addressed the various arguments presented as to their strengths and weaknesses as arguments.

Josh's ultimate goal in his proposal is an admirable one, but I'm not sure whether the legislation he proposes is the best way to acheive (or even approach) tthat goal.

If it were just a matter of being difficult to enforce, I would have no problem with it. I believe that a government's (as also an individual's) ideals and standards should exceed its grasp -- otherwise how can it improve itself.

But there is some evidence that making the wrong decision will only make the situation worse. There is no clear-cut evidence that the proposed legislation is not the wrong decision. And there is the little matter of the second amendment as currently understood.

A friend of mine was vacationing in France. While on the subway, a lady walked past him as she went to exit and dropped some items she was carrying. Being the good fellow that he is, he stopped to help her pick the things up. She quickly gathered them from the floor and from him, then moved quickly to exit. Others on the subway blocked her path and wouldn't let her leave. Bob rose to her defense. Not speaking much French, he was couldn't understand why the small group would not let the woman leave. The group seemed upset, and tried to communicate something to Bob by pointing at him, then at the lady, then at his pocket. Finally, he got the idea and checked him pocket to find that his wallet was missing. As you have probably surmised by now, the woman he had helped had taken his wallet.

The lesson he learned is that when a criminal wants to take something from you, they turn your focus somewhere else.

The issue here is my freedom to bear arms. Why should I not be free to have as many arms as I care to bear? Whether it be knives, swords, guns, chainsaws, or grenades, who has the right to take this right and freedom away from me? If I were to use any of these arms in a criminal manner, then I should be punished accordingly. But being in possession of any of these, or any other type of arms, is no crime.

Let's put the focus back where it belongs.

The issue here is my freedom to bear arms. Why should I not be free to have as many arms as I care to bear? Whether it be knives, swords, guns, chainsaws, or grenades, who has the right to take this right and freedom away from me? If I were to use any of these arms in a criminal manner, then I should be punished accordingly. But being in possession of any of these, or any other type of arms, is no crime.

Playing devil’s advocate: How far does this go. How about tanks, fully armed F-16 fighter jet’s, nukes, biological/chemical weapons?

Brian Fitzgerald,

Which bothers you more; a guy who carries a nuke but does not set it off, or a guy who has legally acquired hands that can make fists and uses his legal fist to punch you for no reason?

As for me, a guy with a vial of small pox is not guilty of murder until he opens it. The possession is not the crime. If he has it but does not use it, so what?

If some person has heroin and a needle but does not inject he does not get high.

To answer you, yes, if he has tanks and never uses them so what? If he has F-16 fighter jets and never uses them so what? If he has nukes and never uses them so what? If he has biological/chemical weapons and never uses them so what?

Using them is morally wrong. Can you think of any (other) instance where mere possession is morally wrong? (I don't say "crime" because the answer too often is "yes". We all know morality and the law are two different things.)

Can you think of any (other) instance where mere possession is morally wrong?

Pornography - or less controversially, child porn. Your moral duty is to destroy it.

What makes a gun different from a tank or other weapons of mass destruction is that one is useful for defending the home - the other really only for killing many, many people. Oh yeah - and one is in the Constitution.

Oh yeah - and one is in the Constitution.

"A well-organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't see "gun" in there anywhere. If you're going to argue strictly from a Constitutional viewpoint, you have to accept that all armaments are allowed. (Now, there may be some case law to contradict me, but someone else with better research materials at hand will have to check on that.)

In on-line debates, I've used the Second Amendment to argue that strong crypto cannot be banned. I don't recall if it's still listed there, but strong crypto (more than 40 or 56 bits) was listed as export controlled under ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations), thereby making it an armament, and therefore domestic possession could not be banned under the Second Amendment.

Pornography - or less controversially, child porn. Your moral duty is to destroy it.

Child porn aside, what is "immoral" about pornography? And what is the definition of morality, anyway, beyond simply saying "what is right"? What purpose does it serve in any society? (If you can't answer these questions, I'd suggest you stop simply declaring things to be immoral.)

The lesson he learned is that when a criminal wants to take something from you, they turn your focus somewhere else.

How does this relate to guns?

The issue here is my freedom to bear arms. Why should I not be free to have as many arms as I care to bear? Whether it be knives, swords, guns, chainsaws, or grenades, who has the right to take this right and freedom away from me? If I were to use any of these arms in a criminal manner, then I should be punished accordingly. But being in possession of any of these, or any other type of arms, is no crime.

If such freedom poses a threat to public safety, the State has the right and duty to deny it to private individuals. This is the essence of living in a society - your freedom is limited to such issues that pose no real threat of harm to others (physical harm, that is). While most people may use firearms responsibly, it only takes a small minority to make everyone less safe. Since we cannot be sure of who comprises this minority (it is *never* just convicted criminals), only a complete ban will remove the threat.

Let's put the focus back where it belongs.

And where would that be?

To answer you, yes, if he has tanks and never uses them so what? If he has F-16 fighter jets and never uses them so what? If he has nukes and never uses them so what? If he has biological/chemical weapons and never uses them so what?

I assume you realise the flaw in your argument. Most people may not want to use such weapons, but some might - that's all it takes for a ban to be justified for private individuals.

Warning: Slippery Slope (and possible non-sequiter} argument follows:

Most people may not want to use such weapons, but some might - that's all it takes for a ban to be justified for private individuals

And some people might say things that cause people to be hurt. Let's ban speech while we're at it.

Mpatterson, good point. I'll have to give that some thought.

JoshG, pornography is immoral because it breaks the link between sex and love, turning the former into a solitary pleasure (masturbation, basically) with no purpose beyond the fulfillment of meaningless lusts. In a number of men, it can induce addictive habits. They cannot help but return to it. Later, it can often ruin a normal relationship with a real woman, who wants more from him than sex. For married men or men who will later be married, that they can associate sex with someone other than the person they love would also make them more prone to commit adultery. If you are interested, I can find you a link to a very good column the philosopher Roger Scruton wrote on the subject. It is a real eye-opener.

Dictionary.com gives the following definitions of morality:

1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3) Virtuous conduct.
4) A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

As to what purpose morality serves society, it ensures people recognise their moral duty to others, and to themselves, giving them a reason to obey the law beyond being caught, and sometimes a purpose to existence. Speaking of society alone, without morality, there could be no laws, or at least none you could justify. They would merely be arbitrary commands imposed by the powerful on the rest.

Like ScottN, I have real trouble with the idea that you can justify banning something because it may be misused by some.

My justification for banning tanks and so on would be different. Allowing men to buy guns does still mean that more men with guns, the police, can put them down. In other cases, you need tanks and so on of your own. Allowing men to establish their own private army would end the ability of the government, police and army, to enforce the law.

As for your rights going no further than any potential threat of harm, I couldn't disagree more. What about books like Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or even in some circles, the Koran and the Bible? They have all been potentially threatening in the sense that they have inspired some to do evil. What about pornography and its inspiration to rapists, if you would prefer something you defend? You can't base every law on what may be harmful. What is harmful, and what is wrong, matters more.

Das Kapital was just a work of political economy, history, and philosophy. It was by no means an "evil" book.

Even if that were true, you can't deny that if Marx had never put pen to paper many millions of innocent people would never have been murdered. Is the harm potential of Das Kapital or Mein Kampf really so much lower than in men who keep guns to protect their homes?

Even if that were true, you can't deny that if Marx had never put pen to paper many millions of innocent people would never have been murdered.

Because people died, nobody should be allowed to read the book again? Logic? Where did you go, logic? Supper's ready...

Is the harm potential of Das Kapital or Mein Kampf really so much lower than in men who keep guns to protect their homes?

Yes, in that the books are at *minimum* one level removed from whatever evil action takes place. A person most likely isn't going to take the book and kill someone with it. The consequences of choosing to use the ideas presented in a book of philosophy are much more indirect than those of choosing to use a gun on someone.

Even if that were true, you can't deny that if Marx had never put pen to paper many millions of innocent people would never have been murdered.

Let's not forget about the other books without which millions never would have been murdered. The Bible and other holy books. After all the name of God (by whatever name you call him) is one of the leading causes of death throughout history.

Brian and Matthew, I think you may be arguing past Dwimble. If you check the post where he first mentions Das Kapital, you will see that he included the Bible and the Quran, and that his point was that he was disagreeing with the idea that potential harm justified curtailing certain rights.

Y'know, I'm tired of people blaming anyone or anything but themselves for their own actions, which is I've created the all new Excuses, Excuses board!

I got the idea here from you guys, so it's all your fault! You have only yourselves to blame, people!

Warning: Slippery Slope (and possible non-sequiter} argument follows:

Most people may not want to use such weapons, but some might - that's all it takes for a ban to be justified for private individuals

And some people might say things that cause people to be hurt. Let's ban speech while we're at it.

I should clarify: While most people will never want to perform the act of killing someone else, some will.

And this is not a slippery slope argument. Simply put, without having specific knowledge of the mental and emotional state of everyone, we cannot know who would necessarily be predisposed to committing violent acts. Therefore, we cannot limit (to some extent) everyone's ability to kill or injure one another with firearms without a complete ban. (The key word is "limit," that is limiting the supply of more effective personal weapons. I don't buy the notion that a ban would cause some sort of increase in the illicit supply - we're talking about manufactured mechanical devices, not plants.)

As for "potential harm" to public safety, that is the correct way to put it. Limiting firearm ownership simply ensures that those who already have some sort of malicious intent have a diminished ability to use more effective weapons.

Dwimble,

Get your moralizing back on RM where it belongs. On RM I leave morality claims alone. On PM, the questions deal what shall be enforced on others. "Morality" really is non-universal. Your definition and mine of "pornography" will never agree. Your religion may consign me to Hell but your version of "God" and "morality" should not put me in prison. We can have any pornography vs. pencil debate on the appropriate board. Your example does not hold. If I have a phone number of my auto mechanic scrawled on the back of what all and sundry agree is a child pornography picture does possession of the picture make me evil? Selling it, making it, or however one uses it is the problem.

Josh G.,

The slippery slope now is, "And some people will say things that cause people to be hurt. Let's ban speech while we're at it." Try again.

If such freedom poses a threat to public safety, the State has the right and duty to deny it to private individuals. This is the essence of living in a society - your freedom is limited to such issues that pose no real threat of harm to others (physical harm, that is). While most people may use firearms responsibly, it only takes a small minority to make everyone less safe. Since we cannot be sure of who comprises this minority (it is *never* just convicted criminals), only a complete ban will remove the threat. --Josh G.

Are you talking about guns or Pop Tarts^TM? If we substitute Pop Tarts^TM the argument is still valid. (BTW, Dave Barry has proven that strawberry Pop Tarts^TM and Roller skate Barbie^TM can burst into flames -- breakfast is dangerous. Let's ban it.)

BTW, You are right. The complete banning of something will not increase any illicit supply. It is not a plant or something. It needs to be manufactured like Oxy Contin. Now if we ban guns and O.C. I will not be able to buy any from my friendly dope peddler.

Matthew Patterson,

Sorry, bad argument. Because it is vague does not mean it should be interpreted narrowly, but if you must... What are Arms that militia use in 1783? Muskets (the assault weapons of the time.) Do you really want to argue intentions of the framers?

The slippery slope now is, "And some people will say things that cause people to be hurt. Let's ban speech while we're at it." Try again.

If such people are physically hurt as a result of, say, someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, then that person should be prosecuted. However, this should only apply when a certain sort of speech directly causes others to be injured, such as the above example where people are thrown into a panic as a result of such speech.

What are Arms that militia use in 1783? Muskets (the assault weapons of the time.) Do you really want to argue intentions of the framers?

I believe they also had things like cannons, explosives, incendiary devices, ship-mounted guns... they still had heavy weapons, they just weren't our heavy weapons.

Back on point for a moment... what if gun control tried to work within the confines of the Second Amendment, rather than trying to overcome its vagueries or repeal it?

Conceding for argument's sake that the Amendment says "everybody who wants a gun can have one." That does not give anybody a license to kill or handle their weapon in such an irresponsible manner that their negligence results in injury or death.

So, I propose strict liability for gun owners.

Every gun sold must be registered to a particular owner and follow him where ever he goes. If that gun is used in the commission of a crime -- by anyone, or is used in such a manner that it results in somebody's intentional or accidental death -- than the person who purchased the gun is subject to a criminal penalty commensurate with the offense.

This way, criminals using their own guns are punished appropriately. Criminals using somebody else's guns are punished, as are the people (or the person) who let their own gun out of their possession, and, if a child shoots himself, or a friend, enemy, sibling, neighbor or teacher with such a gun, again, the gun owner is made to bear the ultimate responsibility.

Guns are deadly weapons. Gun ownership may be a right, but such a right should come with the ultimate responsibility.

TomM is right in his description of my message (though not my sex :P). Guns in the wrong hands are bad, but so are Marxist propaganda and Bibles. Defined so vaguely, potential harm has never been a serious basis for law.

Berry, your mechanic example doesn't make much sense. There is nothing to stop you copying the number to a different piece of paper and then destroying the child pornography. As for morality not being universal, you seem to be a little confused about what that means. A "universal" morality is one that applies to everyone, and at all times. If morality is not universal, then there is no right and wrong at all. What is evil in one country is good in another, and what is evil in one time is good in another. So racism, for example, was not wrong in the America of the 1950s, because it simply was the morals of a different culture. Indeed, if the majority of any society are always right, then anti-racist campaigners were immoral in that time, and Nazis were moral in 1940s Germany.

I don't know what you mean about putting you in prison or going to hell. Do you think those who possess child pornography shouldn't go to jail?

It is not a plant or something. It needs to be manufactured like Oxy Contin. Now if we ban guns and O.C. I will not be able to buy any from my friendly dope peddler.

Are yo serioius. Where do you think that people get guns like AK-47s. Those are and always have been illegal in the USA but people still have gotten them from friendly neighborhood criminals.

What about pornography and its inspiration to rapists, if you would prefer something you defend?

Blah, blah, blah. We've heard that Porn leads to Rape BS before and it's been disproven. Quit trying to be the new Peter. You're just not mean and heartless enough to pull it off.

My apologies, Dude. Going over it again, this time with a wide awake mind, I realized that previously I'd misread its meaning, so it's been restored. MarkN

TomM is right in his description of my message (though not my sex Dwimble

Sorry, I must have missed getting the memo and my pink bubble-gum cigar. (Or I forgot reading where you revealed your gender.) Color me embarrassed.

M Patterson,

If you want a cannon, I'm not going to argue. In fact, If you carry a cannon and never use it, 5:15?

Brian Fitzgerald,

No, I was not serious. I was replying to Josh Gould (DS9 moderator). Despite the obvious he refuses to think that banning something causes a black market that will supply the demand.

Dwimble,

Maybe universal is not the word. Someone can look it up. I assume universal means "applying equally to everyone." Morality, as you are using it is not "universal" as I am using it.

You want proof? Look at the list of books banned for "moral" reasons. There will be some that you think are "ok." There are some that will get you a vehement argument. James Joyce's Ulysses need a court judgement to be imported to the United States. (That means that more than just Billy-Bob thought it was a dirty book, William-James did too!)

Immoral picture of child pornography? Are we talking about a picture of a painting a naked fat ladies cavorting with naked angel babies? Yes it does make sense. I wrote the number on the first blank piece of paper I could find in my city councilors house. I never turned it over. Possesion is not use, even that version of the example.

Berry-

You have on a couple of occassions stated that morality does not belong on RM, that it should play no role in political discussions.

I feel that it is nearly impossible to divorce politics from morality/ethics, although I tend to focus on individuual morality rather than some "universal" morality, in either your sense or Dwimble's. (However, Dwimble's definition seems to describe a zietgheist created from the individual moralities of the group.)

Ideally, we elect to office a man of "character" (which is an element of his morality/ethics) and expect him to vote his conscience. Since we also believe that his beliefs are similar to ours on most of the important matters, we expect that most of the time he will vote the way we would, and when he cannot in good conscience do so, it is because he has more detailed, or more specialized knowledge of the issues involved.

The fact that so few elected officials live up to this ideal, or that the voters all too often decry an official who votes his conscience over their wishes does not negate the role of character, since all of these reactions are a part of the involved person's character.

However, even using your definition of "universal" morality, there are two standards (ideals to shoot for, not necessarily enforcible restraints) that are agreed upon in all cultures and philosophies: the Golden Rule, and the basic hallmarks of an honorable man (person), a person of character.

You can find out about "person of character" here. You may have to dig a bit.

Tom M (Tom M),

First nits. I think it has been more than a couple of occasions and I think morality has no place in a discussion on PM not RM. (Morality and the differing versions of it are what RM is about.)

Now I will explain why morality is irrelevant to most governmental issues for the umpteenth time. I will try to make it different as trying the same thing with the expectation of different results is either a sign of insanity or Replicratism, I forget which.

You can justify a lot by saying something is immoral. If you feel that eating cheese on Thursdays is evil, OK. If you think people who eat cheese on Thursday are immoral and on the highway to Heck, OK. If you want a law saying guys with guns will prevent someone from eating cheese on Thursday, you are imposing your moral view on them.

If, on RM (not PM), someone asks an anti-cheeseist "why?" and the answer is because Lord High Gamara, the deity of dairy farms has decreed that cheese eating on Thursday is immoral that ends it.

If the discussion is on PM and we are talking about a law (like banning guns perhaps) and the justification that eating cheese on Thursday is immoral arises then the question, "Why are you imposing you anti-cheeseist belief on me?" is relevant.

If anyone is upset by the irreverent example, replace eating cheese on Thursdays with anything else (say drug use, prostitution, banning books the mention Pig's Pisles [sp?], banning guns, pornography [yes, we can debate definitions of "child" if anyone likes] and replace Lord High Gamara with whatever version of God you use. (Personally I prefer deity 7.3!)

As for individual character on politicians, so? If the President of the United States get a BJ but otherwise is ok (Note: Clinton was not otherwise ok.), so? The job is the job. His personal life is his personal life. I do not have to introduce a politician to my sister for him to do his or her job. If a person is a SAINT in his personal life and is running against a thief, a philanderer, a murderer, and a nut job I reserve the right to disagree with him or her on international trade policy.

Blue,

But if we want to promote a moral society, doesn't it make sense to elect leaders who fall in line with our moral sensibilities? To use a grossly overstated example, suppose the two leading candidates for the Presidency are: A) a master politician and debate expert with few shady buisness connections and a quite public fetish of sexually abusing children and then drinking their blood, and B) a slightly less impressive politician who frequently seems out of touch with the public, but who is also honest right down to the marrow, who are you going to choose?

Also, by forgiving the numerous indiscretions of any politician, the general public can now get the idea that "hey, if the President can do it, so can I," which will further degrade the nation's moral climate.

So while I agree that morality should be left out of politics when it comes to the passing of law, in choosing our leaders, morals area very important quality.

Of course, the argument then becomes, "whose morals?" Then it becomes a majority-rules issue- if the majority of the electorate doesn't consider a "nut job" something worth getting worked up about, then that obviously sets the national standard. Is this a good thing? Unfortunately, it seems the only way to judge this is through the keen eye of history.

But if we want to promote a moral society,...

Ah, but whose morals do we want to promote?

Side note to Berry:
[HUMOR]
Oh, and don't you dare go insulting Gamera! He could whup on Godzilla or Rodan any day!
[/HUMOR]

Uh, I think I brought up that question, actually. Not that I made any attempt to answer it, of course, but I brought it up. Yeah. So... uh... yeah.

Berry-

I have understood how you were thinking about a complete moral system based on one person's or one churc's religious beliefs to the exclusion of the contrary buthonest beliefs of others has no place in politics. (Although I'm not really sure it is possible to divorce oneself completely from those beliefs, it is possible to recognize those honest differences and to compromise, realizing that no one person or church can know that they have fully understood God's Will.) To a large extent I fully agree with you.

But when you make no allowances for any degree of morality, you make no allowance for any kind of order in society. Whether you call it basic morality, or enlightened self interest, or simply evidence of civilization, there is a basis for laws against murder and stealing, rules governing the formation and dissolution of corporate entities, including families, etc.

As for individual character on politicians, so? If the President of the United States get a BJ but otherwise is ok (Note: Clinton was not otherwise ok.), so? The job is the job. His personal life is his personal life. I do not have to introduce a politician to my sister for him to do his or her job. If a person is a SAINT in his personal life and is running against a thief, a philanderer, a murderer, and a nut job I reserve the right to disagree with him or her on international trade policy.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my discussion of character. If a person shows the basic [I guess I need to place even more emphasis on that word] hallmarks of character, and I believe he thinks the same way as I do on most issues, I can trust him to vote the way I would most of the time, and have a good reason on those occassions when he can't.

If you define a man of character as someone will not do anything that goes against his moral code, no one can meet that definition. A man of true character will try his best, though. But there are very few who meet even that "lower" standard, and most of them are not suited for politics.

The best we can hope for is someone who exhibits the basic hallmarks of character: someone who recognizes that murder, theft, mayhem, malicious mischief, etc. are wrong and who is basically honest, outgoing, and caring.

I agree that the job is the job and a man's personal life is his personal life, but that would not justify "hiring" a complete and utter hypocrite.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that your philosophy, as you have explained it, not only allows such hypocrites and even sociopaths to become our government, but if followed scrupulously, guarantees that they will.

But when you make no allowances for any degree of morality, you make no allowance for any kind of order in society. Whether you call it basic morality, or enlightened self interest, or simply evidence of civilization, there is a basis for laws against murder and stealing, rules governing the formation and dissolution of corporate entities, including families, etc.

Agreed - contrary to the contentions of Nietzche and Ayn Rand, morality and ethics are required for any society to function. You've touched on the actual role of morality in society - holding society together by preventing people from exercising their self interest (as they determine it) in ways that are destructive to the common good.

For example, it's certainly in your interest to steal as much food as you can from others, but it's in no one's interest to be the victim of theft. Thus it's wrong to steal, since you harm someone else in order to serve your own interests. But because some people don't get this simple moral lesson, you need an external incentive - the law - to remove the "free-rider" incentive to steal.

As to what purpose morality serves society, it ensures people recognise their moral duty to others, and to themselves, giving them a reason to obey the law beyond being caught, and sometimes a purpose to existence. Speaking of society alone, without morality, there could be no laws, or at least none you could justify. They would merely be arbitrary commands imposed by the powerful on the rest.

That's part of it. However, it is not the case that "without morality, there could be no laws, or at least none you could justify." Morality and the law are simply two sides of the same coin. Both serve to provide incentives to behave in ways that keep society functioning well. However, morality provides only an internal incentive in the form of a conscience and emotional constraints. The law provides a stronger external incentive for "good behaviour" since all people are not likely to be perfectly moral all of the time.

The law exists to enforce standards of behaviour that are socially advantageous, that make society "run better" and more "efficiently." At its most basic level, the goal of the law is to prevent the probable harm to individuals that would result in its absence.

Josh, you are right that you could justify a law based on it helping society to run better rather than it being right. But that just creates a different sort of problem. It still means you are saying that an orderly society is better than a disorderly one: that law is better than chaos. You still need a values argument to justify that belief. So either way, morality is the only justification for law.

You're right, but values are not the same as moral codes. My point was that morality and law have precisely the same purpose, but use different means to achieve their ends. It is not morality itself that justifies law, but the objective reasoning behind these moral codes.

I do indeed need a values argument to justify law/order over chaos. That is a value in itself: favouring a harmonious/orderly/efficient society over one characterized by disorder and chaos.

I don't think this is a particularly hard value to justify, so I'll quote Hobbes once again. Simply put, a society that maximizes happiness and values life is best, and that we should try to move as far as possible from the state where our lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Playing Devil's Advocate (and risking the wrath of Godwin...)

That is a value in itself: favouring a harmonious/orderly/efficient society over one characterized by disorder and chaos.

Soviet Russia and Communist China value(d) an orderly efficient society as compared to the disordered, chaotic American society. Order in society is not necessarily a good thing, in and of itself.

It is not morality itself that justifies law, but the objective reasoning behind these moral codes. Josh

To-may-to, to-mah-to. It doesn't matter whether you call it morality, ethics, values, enlightened self-interest, etc. There is a universally accepted base standard for the functioning of society, and one of the purposes of Law is to objectify acceptable behavior.

...a society that maximizes happiness and values life is best...

I hate to break it to you, but this is a moral judgment. ;-)

...we should try to move as far as possible...

And so is this

Like I said, it is probably impossible for a person to absolutely divorce his political views from his moral views. We should strive to be aware that others' views on many issues, especially controversial ones may be different and are usually arrived at honestly, but we can't shut down our own hearts.

Order in society is not necessarily a good thing, in and of itself. Scott

Actually it is. Where societies such as the ones you used for your example go wrong is 1) in making it the cheif virtue or the only virtue, and 2) by trying to acheive it through any means, no matter how brutal.

(Of course I know that when you wrote "in and of itself" you really meant to write "to the exclusion of the other virtues of a good society." So the above argument is more in the line of picking a nit, than disagreeing with you or misunderstanding you. I hope.)

On the contrary, Tom, I would argue that the chaos in our society is part of what makes it "great". People can do what they want, when they want; they can pursue whatever interests them. I don't believe it's a coincidence that things such as the Internet were developed in the US. The freewheeling nature of our society encouraged the creativity that allowed it.

Well ScottN, if you associate government control with "order", then that makes sense. But I think just as many people would think government causes as much chaos as it stifles. Freedom and chaos are not the same thing. Capitalism proves that.

It is not morality itself that justifies law, but the objective reasoning behind these moral codes.

Aren't the two inextricably linked? I don't see how one makes sense without the other. And as TomM says, prefering order to chaos is a moral judgment.

Sparrow47,

Are you claiming an increase in insider trading because Jr. got away with it? Perhaps an increase in the divorce rate because of Reagan? Maybe more people "lusted in theier hearts" because of Carter? Maybe an increase of Adultry because of the Clinton role model?

The question is whose morals. Where do we draw the line. more importantly who get the line drawing pencil. My answer is neither Pat Roberson, Osama Bin Laden, you, or me. I don't think anyone should have the pencil.

BTW if the choices are Jeffery Dahmer and Pat Robertson for president, I'll vote Libertarian. (Seriously, if you remove that choice I'd go with the lessor of two evils, Jeffery Dahmer.)


TomM,

I gotta run and can't make a full reply for a long while. Find someone on the planet who is pro-murder as defined as the killing of a human. Now find two exactly similiar definitions of "human". (Go to the abortion board for your first two, then ask some muslim groups if Americans are human.) At the risk of Godwin I'll even point out that if the government has that authoirity whole groups of people can be "un-humanized." Why are you giving the pencil to somebody who might give it to Hitler? (Yes, I'm overstating it, but the point stands.)

The question is whose morals. Where do we draw the line. more importantly who get the line drawing pencil. My answer is neither Pat Roberson, Osama Bin Laden, you, or me. I don't think anyone should have the pencil.

So you think murder should be legal? I assume not. In which case, you are defining "morals" to mean only controversial issues, and then going on to suggest that because people can disagree on such matters, none of them can be right, and the law should not be involved. All opinions really are not equally valid. People can be wrong.

Or to look at it another way, we have an education system to force education on our citizens. Whose education do we use? There is controversy there too. Should we stop teaching science just because a postmodernist says that its claims to objectivity are lies? Or should we agree that in a democracy, such issues ought to be worked out by debate and argument? Not giving anyone the pencil is essentially saying that what it means to be educated, or to behave ethically, are not open to rational discussion and political debate. Rather than answer the question, you give every possible answer equal validity. Or have I misinterpreted what you mean?

I gotta run and can't make a full reply for a long while. Find someone on the planet who is pro-murder as defined as the killing of a human. Now find two exactly similiar definitions of "human". (Go to the abortion board for your first two, then ask some muslim groups if Americans are human.) At the risk of Godwin I'll even point out that if the government has that authoirity whole groups of people can be "un-humanized." Why are you giving the pencil to somebody who might give it to Hitler? (Yes, I'm overstating it, but the point stands.) Berry

I might or might not agree that the point stands, if I could find a point in that paragraph. I'm at a total loss as to what it could be.[NOTE TO ROVING MODS: this is not a slam. I really don't understand what Berry is saying.]

The question is whose morals. Where do we draw the line. more importantly who get the line drawing pencil. My answer is neither Pat Roberson, Osama Bin Laden, you, or me. I don't think anyone should have the pencil.

So you think murder should be legal? I assume not. In which case, you are defining "morals" to mean only controversial issues... Dwimble

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Berry- I am not "pushing" anyone's morals. I am just trying to show you that some degree of morality is inevitable, that your theory, as you have stated it, is unworkable.

I don't think anyone should have the pencil.

Even this is a moral judgment, as is the declaration that "Morality has no part in politics" (not an exact quote, but you have agreed with the sentiment.)

So, (to use your own metaphor), even in refusing the pencil, you not only grab it with both hands, but use it to exclude everyone who does not agree with that statement.

Given a little thought, we all agree that the state has a role in making men moral through law. That means banning murder, theft, fraud and so on.

Equally, we can all agree that not every moral offence ought to be illegal. Adulterers and petty liars are behaving immorally, but they do not belong in jail.

Now in between comes everything from Libertinism (a branch of Libertarianism that denies the possibility of distinguishing right and wrong) to Social Conservatism, which would use many means to encourage marriage and the family. I don't fit into either bracket, but I come closer to the second category. It is better than kids grow up with two parents, and better still that they be married. It is preferable that men should earn more in work than they can get on welfare. Government has an role in encouraging this. I would support President Bush's plans to end discrimination against married couples in the tax system, and favor modest financial incentives for people to marry.

If you make this sort of argument, you never actually hear someone tackle it directly. They never say "illegitimacy is not a bad thing" or "adultery is not immoral" exactly. What they always say is that somehow what you believe isn't rational. They don't try to form a rational argument against marriage: they just say that reason has no place in morality. How convenient for them! Whenever they need to worry about losing an argument, they just deny that rational argument is possible. Well, I don't accept that. If someone thinks I am wrong, then they should tell me why. In a rational society, if someone can't form a reasoned argument against something, then their views don't carry much weight with me.

Not having the time to respond to everything that has been posted since the last time I was here, I will put in my opinion again.

Yes, I include F-16s, tanks, etc. Maybe I like to fly at Mach 1.2. Maybe I like making tracks on my uncle's farm. Maybe I'll at least be able to put up a decent fight when the Canadian army comes marching across the border. Maybe I'll be able to put up a decent fight when politicians, corrupted by the power they weild, make a law banning my freedom of religion after they have banned my freedom to bear arms and send the army on to my fully owned, private property to stop me from holding a worship service.

Now answer my question -- who has the right to take away my freedom to bear arms? Whose right is it? MY right. Who gave me that right? I hold these truths to be self evident (a nice, Jeffersonian way of saying that you have to be an idiot not to realize it) that all men all created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So, once again, who has the right to take away my freedom to bear arms?

And while I'm asking questions, what was the name of the Founding Father who said that the government established by the Constitution is meant for a morally upright people and is totally unfit for any other?

And I leave with a favorite quotation of mine from Thomas Jefferson:

"...Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever..."

Now I'm confused, Scott.

Do you think that order in Society is good or bad?

If you think it is bad, why qualify the statement with the phrase "in and of itself"?

If you think it is good, but only in moderation, the same is true for all good things, so what you are saying is that this good thing (order in society) must be in balance with all the other good things, and if it is not it becomes a bad thing. Which is what I meant when I reinterpreted your "in and of itself."

And while there is chaos in our society, because mere mortals cannot acheive a perfect society, it is not chaos, per se, but our experiment in freedom which also gives rise to our particular flavor of chaos, that is the source of the greatness you mentioned.

Gelzyme-

The way I understand your point, you're trying to draw from the Declaration of Independence to support your point that you and you alone can choose to bear arms or not. Problem is, the Declaration has no real legal bearing other than to say that the USA is no longer a part of merry olde England (although if I'm wrong I certainly expect to hear about it). It is the Constitution that deals with the actual laws of the land, and according to the Constitution, if I can get enough support to push an amendment through Congress that repeals the second amendment, and then if I can convince enough of the voting public to ratify it, then I have the right to take away your freedom to bear arms. Am I going to do it? Well, probably not. But I do have that freedom.

And if I'm wrong about your point there or about the Declaration of Independence, well... rats.

The question is whose morals. Where do we draw the line. more importantly who get the line drawing pencil. My answer is neither Pat Roberson, Osama Bin Laden, you, or me. I don't think anyone should have the pencil.

Agreed. After all, someone's version of morality insists that it's OK to gang-rape a girl to shame her family. Not for anything she did, but because of something her brother did.

ScottN, I am confused. You agree with Blue Berry, but go on to imply that we need the government to ensure immoral things are stopped. Isn't that the precise opposite of Blue Berry's point?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I *DON'T* want people to use their "morals" in defining laws, because who knows what we will get. We could get those guys.

A response for Sparrow47:

My use of the Declaration of Independence was to point out that that people are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights. Essentially, I am using the Declaration as a Philosophical reference, not as a legal document. In that, I also answer my own question as to who can take my rights away from me. Government can never take my rights away from me, as "governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those rights? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered, there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.

Let us first consider the origin of those freedoms we have come to know as human rights. Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. Reason, necessity, tradition, and religious convictions all lead me to accept the divine origin of these rights. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government.

I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But this does not mean that we should divorce government from any formal recognition of God. To do so strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny. If Americans should ever come to believe that their rights and freedoms are instituted among men by politicians and bureaucrats, then they will no longer carry the proud inheritance of their forefathers, but will grovel before their masters seeking favors and dispensations, a throwback to the feudal system of the Dark Ages.

Since God created man with certain inalienable rights, and man, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that man is superior to the creature which he created. Man is superior to government and should remain master over it, not the other way around. Even the nonbeliever can appreciate the logic of this relationship.

A government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. The government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. Its only source of authority and power is from the people who created it.

Keep in mind that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they themselves have. They cannot give that which they do not possess.

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement by another.

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent defending themselves, their property, and their liberty. For man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft. When he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only that which they had a right to do for themselves -- nothing more.

But suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A," they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.

The proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man can delegate a power that be does not possess. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

It also includes those powers necessarily incidental to the protective function.

We should recognize that government is no plaything. It is an instrument of force; and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail, or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose that law.

The Constitution of the United States, an inspired document in my opinion, is a solemn agreement between the citizens of this nation that every officer of government is under a sacred duty to obey.

The Constitution provides that the great bulk of the legitimate activities of government are to be carried out at the state or local level. This is the only way in which the principle of self-government can be made effective.

The smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. The smaller the governmental unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to correct it, to keep it solvent, and to keep our freedom.

Remember that the people of the states of this republic created the federal government. The federal government did not create the states.

A category of government activity that not only requires the closest scrutiny but that also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom is the activity not within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities that coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise it in my behalf. If I do not have that right, I cannot delegate it.

If we permit government to manufacture its own authority and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Who is to say "this far, but no farther"? What clear principle will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and farther into our daily lives? Grover Cleveland said that "though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

Once government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth through taxation and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it becomes a means for legalized plunder. It becomes a lever of unlimited power that is the sought-after prize of unscrupulous individuals and pressure groups, each seeking to control the machine to fatten his own pockets or to benefit his favorite charity, all with the other fellow's money, of course. Each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in its favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage. Agriculture gets a price support. Some consumers demand price controls. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom. With each group out to get its share of the spoils, such governments historically have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function, then forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism.

Criminy! I didn't mean to go on for this long. I have to be somewhere in 15 minutes!

Agreed. Now what sort of ethical/moral code should be reflected in the law?

Berry (and also, though to a much lesser extent, Scott) --

I've been re-reading your posts, especially your responses to Dwimble and me. The impression I'm getting, especially from Berry, is that you have a pre-concieved idea of the kind of person who uses "moral" and "Law," or "moral" and "government" in the same sentence, and the agenda that person is pushing.

Your responses are the ones that you would make to such an argument, but they are non-responsive in terms of the discussion Dwimble and I are raising.

We have (or at least I have, I'll let Dwimble speak for herself)agreed with you that that type of agenda is anathema to our system of freedoms and to the separation of Church and State. I do not want a theocracy any more than you do. On some issues, it is possible (maybe not too likely, but possible) that I am even more libertarian than you.

My point is much more philosophical than religious, and it is simply that your position, as you've prposed it, 1) does not describe the real world, 2) attempts something that even in the ideal is probably impossible, and 3) is founded on the very principle that you are trying to deny.

Dwimble,

Murder, as defined, as killing a human being is wrong. Everyone will agree with that. Now define "human being". See the problem? (Or see my previous post?)

Yes, sometimes people can be wrong. Should you decide when they are? Maybe Osama can. Maybe I can. Maybe ScottN should be the judge (he seems rational. [Note for ScottN: the word "seems" is the joke.])

TomM,

OK, I thought I was clear. I guess I was as clear as my tap water. "Murder" has a definition that hinges on how we define "human". For examples of different and reasoned examples of that definition go to the abortion board, for starters. Unreasoned ones may require more looking.

Way off topic:
Dwimble,
Education? My dear, you are talking to a Libertarian. All schools should be private and teach whatever the parents want them to teach. Why not? It works well with everything else. Should a restaurant be able to bring you a salad because it is better for you than the steak you ordered? (Before someone says some children will be expelled from every school I favor a small public school system as a school of last resort.)

TomM,

Yes, the rule that there should be no rules is a rule. Your point? I can live with no one having the pencil whether that in itself is a moral judgment. (If you insist it is, well, OK.)

Dwimble,

we all agree that the state has a role in making men moral through law. -- Dwimble

Yup, they say that in Iran. Actually, you accidentally insult me. Either I'm not a part of "we" or I haven't thought it through. I"ve got to decide if I'm a human or just mentally deficient. You word much more nicely but he who shall be unnamed called me a moron much more openly.

BTW, Dwimble, I just read the Libertine/Libertarian crack. If you want to throw stones please give me you address so I can throw them too. (What party do you align with mostly.)? Oh, BTW, I don't know where you get your information, but I don't think Libertines are big on personal responsibility.

Gotta run.

I'll get back to you TomM you raise some interesting points.

Dwimble,

When you twist the knife in my back use your wrists more.

I *DON'T* want people to use their "morals" in defining laws, because who knows what we will get. We could get those guys.

If morality has no place in lawmaking, then your "anti-choice" position on gang-rape is untenable.

Blue Berry, I think it is fair to say that you and ScottN both appear confused over what TomM and I have said, as well as what you yourselves think to a degree. I know I am confused about some of your posts, too. But I do see an insuperable contradiction in your saying in one breath "morality has no place in law" and in the next "murder/gang-rape should be illegal for being immoral".

What you and Scott don't realise is that contrary to unthinking cliches about "imposing morality", the whole purpose of the law is to impose morality. You can't just define anything outside the realm of July 2002 US Law as a moral issue, and everything inside as a non-moral issue. Why, Blue Berry, is murder wrong? What gives you the right to impose that moral view on others? Why, Scott, do you want to remove the "man's right to choose" in cases of gang-rape? (Hey this pro-choice doctrine is good. ) If you do answer these questions, it will be a moral answer. I am not trying to twist knives in anyone's back. I am just showing that all laws are based on morality.

As for Libertinism, I wasn't trying to suggest they were an important section of your party, but strangely you seem to be taking exactly their position yourself: that morality is a matter of mystical emotion, rather than reason, and all views on it are equally valid. Let me ask you both these two questions:

1) Jim sincerely believes that the Earth is flat. Knowing he will die at 75, he sets sail on a 50 year voyage in the same direction at the age of 25. Will he ever fall off the edge of the Earth?

2) Is it moral for Bert to kill a random child if Bert genuinely believes that killing a random child is morally right?

The questions probably seem silly, but they have a serious point. If you answer "No" to both, as I hope, then you blow out of the water any notion that opinions are equally valid. In both cases, you assert that there is an objective reality and reason that is higher than opinion, and which determines the truth of differing views.

Just to be clear again: what I said above was not an attack on anyone. I do genuinely believe that ScottN and Blue Berry's responses would not be the way they are if they had fully understood the point I am making. It isn't an attack on their character: it seems be a result of me being too willing to miss out basic maxims in my reasoning, rather than explaining myself. That is why I went right back to basic assumptions in the post above.

Didn't take it as an insult Dwimble.

OK, I thought I was clear. I guess I was as clear as my tap water. [] "Murder" has a definition that hinges on how we define "human". For examples of different and reasoned examples of that definition go to the abortion board, for starters. Unreasoned ones may require more looking Berry

During the re-reading I mentioned in my last post, I considered the possibility that you were trying to make a point about "even murder" being an issue in which some aspects of the morality involved are controversial, (and if that's not your point, I still don't get it), but since you addressed that paragraph to me, and it did not relate to my post, to which you where presumably replying, I was understandably confused.

Another problem with your idea that "no one should hold the pencil" is the simple fact that the pencil exists. It has always existed (at least as long as there have been human societies), and by its very existence, someone is going to hold it.

It may be possible to play a game of "hot potato" with it for a little while (where everyone who "gets" it holds it just long enough to re-affirm that no one, including himself should hold on to it, but eventually someone will drop it (and there are a lot of people waiting to seize the opportunity when they do) or he will hold onto it a little too long and succumb to its siren call

Yes, the pencil is very much like the One Ring, both empowering and corrupting any who hold it, but there is no Mt Doom in which to destroy it. In the real world we must deal with its existence.

ARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!! DOUBLE POSTS!!!!!

Don't worry anymore, Scott. It's been removed. MarkN

Oh in case anyone noticed, I'm responding about two hundred posts back. Sorry, I'll catch up.

Dwimble,

The gang rape example ScottN used shows the error of your position. His point is who will make those laws? You, Me, or the Gang rapists?

Why do I feel like I'm posting to a wall.

TomM,

The problem is not that Scott and I are blind. The problem is with your eyes. (Or if I may play pop-psychologist, your refusal to see.) The point is clear. I used to think I was at fault for not saying it muddying the waters with frivolous examples or "". Now you claim ScottN is confusing you too. ScottN's post tend to be short and to the point. The point of "There are many versions of morality to base our perfect laws on. I'd prefer no one impose one." is very clear. The question "Whose morality?" has never been addressed (except by Dwimble deciding I'm not human.)

Another problem with your idea that "no one should hold the pencil" is the simple fact that the pencil exists. It has always existed (at least as long as there have been human societies), and by its very existence, someone is going to hold it. -- TomM


If someone is has to hold it I vote for the person who uses it least. (I do get vote, don't I?)

OK, the one ring from Tolkien. Giving it to Tom Bombadil, Radgast the brown, etc. won't work in the long run. Got it. Is it better or worse if no one, (including Sauron and the ring wraiths) has it? Yes, if it is just there a ring wraith will scoop it up. Don't change the scenario. Before he does is it a good world where no one has it? I don't care about what might happen. Don't change the scenario. The choices are no one holding the ring or, say, Gandalf holding the ring.

I know you are thinking about it. (Heck, I am.) Don't change the scenario.

Dwimble,

I'm never insulted. Hurt, annoyed, and angered, but never insulted. I find humor in your excluding me from humanity (or deciding I'm not rational). I cannot assume it was intentional since I sort of drew out the implications myself. It still is funny though.

As for the Libertarian = Libertine crack, I'm still waiting on your political affiliation so I can give as good as I get. (Can you? I'm serious. Other than this you've espoused no positions that I care to attack and since I tend to play rough I better ask if you can take a good counter attack first. [Note for roving moderators: if she can use the Libertarian = Libertine bit unchallenged by you I think I deserve as much leeway as you gave her.] [Note for Dwimble: I don't count anything said on RM as having taken a position on anything I care about.]
BTW, Dwimble, some other words that I think share the same root as Libertarian are Liberty, Libation, and Library. Does that help you any?

The point of "There are many versions of morality to base our perfect laws on. I'd prefer no one impose one." is very clear. Berry

I have never denied that point, and when that is the substance of your reply, it usually is clear, but it always fails to connect whatever question that I asked in the post to which it is the reply.

Besides, I am not talking about "perfect laws" whatever they may be, I am talking about the fact that society is made up of humans. Humans are are not perfect. Neither are humans androids, Borg, or even Vulcans. (Heck, even Vulcans aren't "Vulcans" anymore.)

If someone is has to hold it I vote for the person who uses it least. (I do get [a] vote, don't I? [] )

I don't care about what might happen.

Yes, giving the Ring to Tom Bombadil probably is the best solution we can hope for with no way to destroy it. But the White Council and/or the Council of Elrond must, in that situation, still monitor it because he will leave it lying around.

But Tom Bombadil does not exist in the real world, either, and with anyone else there is the danger of corruption as well as the danger of carelessness.

It is not something that might happen; it is something that will happen, and sooner rather than later unless we keep constant vigilance.

The question "Whose morality?" has never been addressed

I haven't addressed it because it is the wrong question. It implies that you are campaigning to try to keep the pencil out of government to in order to keep it from falling into "the wrong hands" (and your various examples just reinforce that implication.) My contention is that there are no "right hands," or even "not too bad hands."

This thread is now closed. Please go to Part 2.