moral tyranny

[wallaby]

should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?

 

[HollandScotts]

Absolutely it should be opposed. It isn't the job of the government to force people to live by one set of morals.

 

[jayem]

To prevent a tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. It says that laws, even if supported by a majority of the people, can go only so far, but no farther. Of course the Constitution can be amended, but it's a long, difficult, and uncertain process. As it should be.

 

[LittleNipper]

should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?

The Federal government should not be the determiner of what is abuse, morality, honor, or a good education. The determiner should be in the hands of the people who show concern and vote.

 

[Axioma]

Wouldn't that simply invite abusers to vote that what they are doing is not abuse, but that the victim likes it and was asking for it anyway?

 

[Autumnleaf]

should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?

You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.

 

[LittleNipper]

Wouldn't that simply invite abusers to vote that what they are doing is not abuse, but that the victim likes it and was asking for it anyway?

Everyone has an opportunity to vote ---- even the "victims." Where abusers are in the majority, everyone suffers.

 

[LittleNipper]

You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.

Finally! Someone sees the handwritting on the wall. This is why we do not want the government to define everything in its (governmental) own terms.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Seems to me the harm principle applies. One supports legislation whose purpose is to prevent damage, and opposes legislation whose purpose is merely to prevent affront. Of course, this principle is a moral one, so in the meta- scheme of things, both action and inaction are for moral purposes, which unfortunately confuses the answer to a straight question, I think.

As for the role of the majority, then I think a healthy disrespect for the conventional is always safest.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[wallaby]

You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.

while i dont think that is a universal truth, i am an anarchist and believe all forms of institutionalized government are inherently oppressive.

 

[QuakerOats]

To prevent a tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. It says that laws, even if supported by a majority of the people, can go only so far, but no farther. Of course the Constitution can be amended, but it's a long, difficult, and uncertain process. As it should be.

+1

 

[Arkanin]

Here's how I like to put this: If nobody's being forced to participate in an activity, it should be legal. For me it boils down to both ethics and pragmatism. Ethically, I believe it's wrong to tell other people what to do with themselves if they aren't participating with anyone who doesn't want to be involved. Practically, the government doesn't have the money or ability to enforce the laws that illegalize these kinds of crimes. They also impose enormous costs on society, and our failed prison system creates criminals more consistently than it rehabilitates them. I tend to oppose prostitution, the drug war, etc. on this basis. Worse yet, the more the law imposes on people's rights, the more precedent it has to impose itself further.

I left this forum about three years ago and just came back, but hey, look at that, there's that little libertarian icon still standing next to my name, I'm glad she made it through the transition.