Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply

Should the government (State/local) regulate debauchery, vices, Porn, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc.

Yes, if the majority of the people approve.
14
52%
No, never.
13
48%
 
Total votes: 27
User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by creator »

ChelC wrote:Brian, I agree with that post 100%.
I haven't read Bastiat yet, but have heard him quoted frequently. Are you saying I should rearrange my reading list? That was on the long one.
I also highly recommend Bastiat's "The Law". and it's short. You might at least find some time to listen to it - it's free here: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio- ... e-Law/6936

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by Rensai »

LDSConservative wrote:
ChelC wrote:Brian, I agree with that post 100%.
I haven't read Bastiat yet, but have heard him quoted frequently. Are you saying I should rearrange my reading list? That was on the long one.
I also highly recommend Bastiat's "The Law". and it's short. You might at least find some time to listen to it - it's free here: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio- ... e-Law/6936
A better link to get a copy of the law in mp3 format is here: http://freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html They've also got some other good stuff like George Washington's farewell speech. If you haven't heard that, get it as well.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by Rensai »

LDSConservative wrote: Only righteousness can exalt a nation, therefore only righteousness can be the solution to the problems of a wicked nation. Righteousness does not come as a result of civil laws, but of the will of the individual. God has given us Agency and allows us to choose these things for ourselves.
I agree with this. That is partly why I don't like the idea of civil debauchery laws. I could possibly support them in a limited fashion at the city government level, though even there I hesitate; But at least that way a person would always have some real options. However, as you said, you can't legislate righteousness.

Aside from that, another big problem I have with these types of laws are that when you break it down it seems to come down to group A, telling group B that their "rights" are more important than group B's "rights". Let me go back to the gambling example earlier in the thread. Two guys are gambling on their private property. If we allow debauchery laws, then we can make that illegal. But should we really have that right? I think that goes too far, but why stop there? Lets say they are on their property praying to a god we don't like. We could surely outlaw that since we have decided we have a "right" to be free from their "debauchery." I hope I am making my point. I just see that attitude as a big slippery slope. I think if a government takes this approach it will soon slip into tyranny.

Thoreau said it best when he said, "That Government is best which governs least." I believe that the goal of the Constitution was to set up the minimal amount of government required to protect individual rights; No more, no less.

Why do people feel the need to control others? I'm sure everyone's familiar with the famous Joseph Smith statement, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” If we follow Joseph's logic, we should work on teaching correct principles, but let people decide for themselves. These types of laws don't square with that as far as I can see. Who would we teach the gospel to if we've used civil law to force everyone we don't agree with to move away? Will such laws build righteousness or resentment and anger? I am surprised that on this forum of all places, people are advocating an infringement of someone's freedom. :(

Perhaps I am missing something. Because at least once the church has come out in support of a debauchery law. I admit I have a tough time understanding the stance the church took on prohibition. All I have been able to come up with is that it was an exception for some reason to the church's otherwise staunch support for freedom.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by ChelC »

Rensai wrote:
LDSConservative wrote: Only righteousness can exalt a nation, therefore only righteousness can be the solution to the problems of a wicked nation. Righteousness does not come as a result of civil laws, but of the will of the individual. God has given us Agency and allows us to choose these things for ourselves.
I agree with this. That is partly why I don't like the idea of civil debauchery laws. I could possibly support them in a limited fashion at the city government level, though even there I hesitate; But at least that way a person would always have some real options. However, as you said, you can't legislate righteousness.

Aside from that, another big problem I have with these types of laws are that when you break it down it seems to come down to group A, telling group B that their "rights" are more important than group B's "rights". Let me go back to the gambling example earlier in the thread. Two guys are gambling on their private property. If we allow debauchery laws, then we can make that illegal. But should we really have that right? I think that goes too far, but why stop there? Lets say they are on their property praying to a god we don't like. We could surely outlaw that since we have decided we have a "right" to be free from their "debauchery." I hope I am making my point. I just see that attitude as a big slippery slope. I think if a government takes this approach it will soon slip into tyranny.

Thoreau said it best when he said, "That Government is best which governs least." I believe that the goal of the Constitution was to set up the minimal amount of government required to protect individual rights; No more, no less.

Why do people feel the need to control others? I'm sure everyone's familiar with the famous Joseph Smith statement, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” If we follow Joseph's logic, we should work on teaching correct principles, but let people decide for themselves. These types of laws don't square with that as far as I can see. Who would we teach the gospel to if we've used civil law to force everyone we don't agree with to move away? Will such laws build righteousness or resentment and anger? I am surprised that on this forum of all places, people are advocating an infringement of someone's freedom. :(

Perhaps I am missing something. Because at least once the church has come out in support of a debauchery law. I admit I have a tough time understanding the stance the church took on prohibition. All I have been able to come up with is that it was an exception for some reason to the church's otherwise staunch support for freedom.
Maybe we both are. I've been thinking lately about the Amish in particular. They have the tradition of letting their young folks choose to follow the rules of the community, or to leave. There is no in between, though many of them still remain in contact and visit on another when a family member has opted to leave. I think they have the right to protect their community. Maybe one way that it is different from the situation we live in is that our communities are not full of people who've chosen our lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong, and I make no apologies for that. We can view this as group A violating group B out of some sort of superiority complex, but to do so is to view the situation with secular glasses. We do know the truth.

We will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties - never! We cannot do it. When the Lord comes to rule on earth, the wicked will not leave happily (wailing and gnashing of teeth) but they will be forced out. Isn't that party A (the Lord) asserting it's opinion of right over party B? NO! Because it isn't an opinion. You cannot serve two masters, and you can't have peace when you've not obeyed the laws on which peace is predicated.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by Rensai »

ChelC wrote: Maybe we both are. I've been thinking lately about the Amish in particular. They have the tradition of letting their young folks choose to follow the rules of the community, or to leave. There is no in between, though many of them still remain in contact and visit on another when a family member has opted to leave. I think they have the right to protect their community. Maybe one way that it is different from the situation we live in is that our communities are not full of people who've chosen our lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong, and I make no apologies for that. We can view this as group A violating group B out of some sort of superiority complex, but to do so is to view the situation with secular glasses. We do know the truth.
I'm no expert on the Amish, so I may be wrong but I think there are some important differences with them. First, I don't believe the young folks are property owners when they are given that choice. Rather, it is all owned by older men who agreed to follow those rules before they inherited the property. So in essence, it is a case where a private property owner is asking their child to covenant to obey the rules before they are allowed to inherit.

This is important because us libertarian leaning folks, fully support property rights. It is in that light I see the Amish. I would support them or anyone else in that because it is their property. I would defend their right to run things on their property how they see fit to the death. What I don't sanction is the government coming in and telling them what they are allowed to do on their property. If the Amish decided they wanted to open casino's on their property, I think that is their right because its their property. That is the type of situation I am speaking to when I say I am against any law that doesn't support my rights.
ChelC wrote: We will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties - never! We cannot do it. When the Lord comes to rule on earth, the wicked will not leave happily (wailing and gnashing of teeth) but they will be forced out. Isn't that party A (the Lord) asserting it's opinion of right over party B? NO! Because it isn't an opinion. You cannot serve two masters, and you can't have peace when you've not obeyed the laws on which peace is predicated.
When party A is the lord, we can make an exception on several grounds. :) First, the lord's government will not descent into tyranny like EVERY government by men has done. Its safe from that risk. Second, is not the entire earth and everything on it his property? Under my libertarian philosophy, he then has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. :wink:

When I spoke about group A and group B, I meant to apply that only to men. History shows, that without fail, every government on the earth has descended into tyranny eventually. Laws such as we've been discussing are a sure path to that because they necessarily impose the views of group A on group B, which is not a right we have and therefore, cannot give to our government either. By doing so, we support the move to tyranny. Another danger is that it swings both ways. In most cases that means it will go against the righteous because they seem to always be a minority historically. The logic that we can impose what we think is right on others, is exactly the same thinking of the socialists and communists that want to eliminate religion or force vaccines into us for our own good. Its not a perfect system, but if we limit government to protecting life, liberty and property, at least we can be safe from having our right to worship or teach our own children taken away from us.

obamohno
captain of 100
Posts: 475

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by obamohno »

Rensai wrote:
ChelC wrote: Maybe we both are. I've been thinking lately about the Amish in particular. They have the tradition of letting their young folks choose to follow the rules of the community, or to leave. There is no in between, though many of them still remain in contact and visit on another when a family member has opted to leave. I think they have the right to protect their community. Maybe one way that it is different from the situation we live in is that our communities are not full of people who've chosen our lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong, and I make no apologies for that. We can view this as group A violating group B out of some sort of superiority complex, but to do so is to view the situation with secular glasses. We do know the truth.
I'm no expert on the Amish, so I may be wrong but I think there are some important differences with them. First, I don't believe the young folks are property owners when they are given that choice. Rather, it is all owned by older men who agreed to follow those rules before they inherited the property. So in essence, it is a case where a private property owner is asking their child to covenant to obey the rules before they are allowed to inherit.

This is important because us libertarian leaning folks, fully support property rights. It is in that light I see the Amish. I would support them or anyone else in that because it is their property. I would defend their right to run things on their property how they see fit to the death. What I don't sanction is the government coming in and telling them what they are allowed to do on their property. If the Amish decided they wanted to open casino's on their property, I think that is their right because its their property. That is the type of situation I am speaking to when I say I am against any law that doesn't support my rights.
ChelC wrote: We will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties - never! We cannot do it. When the Lord comes to rule on earth, the wicked will not leave happily (wailing and gnashing of teeth) but they will be forced out. Isn't that party A (the Lord) asserting it's opinion of right over party B? NO! Because it isn't an opinion. You cannot serve two masters, and you can't have peace when you've not obeyed the laws on which peace is predicated.
When party A is the lord, we can make an exception on several grounds. :) First, the lord's government will not descent into tyranny like EVERY government by men has done. Its safe from that risk. Second, is not the entire earth and everything on it his property? Under my libertarian philosophy, he then has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. :wink:

When I spoke about group A and group B, I meant to apply that only to men. History shows, that without fail, every government on the earth has descended into tyranny eventually. Laws such as we've been discussing are a sure path to that because they necessarily impose the views of group A on group B, which is not a right we have and therefore, cannot give to our government either. By doing so, we support the move to tyranny. Another danger is that it swings both ways. In most cases that means it will go against the righteous because they seem to always be a minority historically. The logic that we can impose what we think is right on others, is exactly the same thinking of the socialists and communists that want to eliminate religion or force vaccines into us for our own good. Its not a perfect system, but if we limit government to protecting life, liberty and property, at least we can be safe from having our right to worship or teach our own children taken away from us.
Beautifully said.

In addition to your point that this is the Lords property, we have been put in a situation where the Lord has declared our weaknesses can become our strengths , our trials can teach us how to succeed and our tribulations help us gain special experience and knowledge. That is the state he has permitted us to be in and every man is subject to, no laws can eliminate the above.

Man has a right to do unto himself as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't harm or take away anybody elses rights and he will learn and gain experience from that, how many men have fallen in their sins and vices to rise again and learn and become great. Did not Alma the Younger?

It is clear that a government consisting of "natural man" is an evil one. We aren't likely to have all righteous spiritual men in power till the Lord comes.

We have been instructed through divine guidance to not give any such government too much power and instead teach each other good principles and lead by example because there is only one way to exalt a nation and that is through the people choosing righteousness, no forcing it.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by ChelC »

Rensai wrote:
ChelC wrote: Maybe we both are. I've been thinking lately about the Amish in particular. They have the tradition of letting their young folks choose to follow the rules of the community, or to leave. There is no in between, though many of them still remain in contact and visit on another when a family member has opted to leave. I think they have the right to protect their community. Maybe one way that it is different from the situation we live in is that our communities are not full of people who've chosen our lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong, and I make no apologies for that. We can view this as group A violating group B out of some sort of superiority complex, but to do so is to view the situation with secular glasses. We do know the truth.
I'm no expert on the Amish, so I may be wrong but I think there are some important differences with them. First, I don't believe the young folks are property owners when they are given that choice. Rather, it is all owned by older men who agreed to follow those rules before they inherited the property. So in essence, it is a case where a private property owner is asking their child to covenant to obey the rules before they are allowed to inherit.

I agree with that, it's actually what I was alluding to when I stated that the bolded portion above, "communities" meaning property owners. This was the part I was talking about maybe being wrong on when I stated "maybe we both" are, which was a rebuttal to your statement that you might be missing something. I said this to illustrate what I might be missing, make sense?

This is important because us libertarian leaning folks, fully support property rights. It is in that light I see the Amish. I would support them or anyone else in that because it is their property. I would defend their right to run things on their property how they see fit to the death. What I don't sanction is the government coming in and telling them what they are allowed to do on their property. If the Amish decided they wanted to open casino's on their property, I think that is their right because its their property. That is the type of situation I am speaking to when I say I am against any law that doesn't support my rights.

Again - we have no right to do wrong. Laws shouldn't be able to touch what doesn't leave your home, but when it does it becomes a problem.
ChelC wrote: We will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties - never! We cannot do it. When the Lord comes to rule on earth, the wicked will not leave happily (wailing and gnashing of teeth) but they will be forced out. Isn't that party A (the Lord) asserting it's opinion of right over party B? NO! Because it isn't an opinion. You cannot serve two masters, and you can't have peace when you've not obeyed the laws on which peace is predicated.
When party A is the lord, we can make an exception on several grounds. :) First, the lord's government will not descent into tyranny like EVERY government by men has done. Its safe from that risk. Second, is not the entire earth and everything on it his property? Under my libertarian philosophy, he then has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. :wink:

It's his property now, and His laws apply to it now. Or do you only respect property rights while the home owner is present? :wink:

When I spoke about group A and group B, I meant to apply that only to men. History shows, that without fail, every government on the earth has descended into tyranny eventually. Laws such as we've been discussing are a sure path to that because they necessarily impose the views of group A on group B, (all criminal laws do so) which is not a right we have and therefore, cannot give to our government either. (Except when our rights are violated. Is the maintenance of virtue of a community and protection of it's children within the community a right, or not. I believe so. You seem to believe we only have the ability to protect ourselves from an assault on our virtue if 100% of property owners agree. That would be true if this right to virtue doesn't exist, but I believe it does.) By doing so, we support the move to tyranny. (Only if we are asserting something that goes against true and eternal laws) Another danger is that it swings both ways. (I agree it's a danger. I agree that legislating these things will never work well. That's what I meant when I stated that we will never be able to create peace except by obeying the laws on which the blessings of peace are predicated.) In most cases that means it will go against the righteous because they seem to always be a minority historically. The logic that we can impose what we think is right on others, is exactly the same thinking of the socialists and communists that want to eliminate religion or force vaccines into us for our own good. (I agree. And like I said I agree that it won't work, but voting my conscience is the only way I know to satisfy it. There is no perfect system in an imperfect world, so we either vote and appear to be hypocrites to the world, or we vote and know we are hypocrites in our own minds. I choose the former.) Its not a perfect system, but if we limit government to protecting life, liberty and property, at least we can be safe from having our right to worship or teach our own children taken away from us.
Our Constitution is inadequate for an unrighteous people. Neither your solution or mine will work until society repents.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by ChelC »

obamohno wrote:
Rensai wrote:
ChelC wrote: Maybe we both are. I've been thinking lately about the Amish in particular. They have the tradition of letting their young folks choose to follow the rules of the community, or to leave. There is no in between, though many of them still remain in contact and visit on another when a family member has opted to leave. I think they have the right to protect their community. Maybe one way that it is different from the situation we live in is that our communities are not full of people who've chosen our lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact that there is a right and a wrong, and I make no apologies for that. We can view this as group A violating group B out of some sort of superiority complex, but to do so is to view the situation with secular glasses. We do know the truth.
I'm no expert on the Amish, so I may be wrong but I think there are some important differences with them. First, I don't believe the young folks are property owners when they are given that choice. Rather, it is all owned by older men who agreed to follow those rules before they inherited the property. So in essence, it is a case where a private property owner is asking their child to covenant to obey the rules before they are allowed to inherit.

This is important because us libertarian leaning folks, fully support property rights. It is in that light I see the Amish. I would support them or anyone else in that because it is their property. I would defend their right to run things on their property how they see fit to the death. What I don't sanction is the government coming in and telling them what they are allowed to do on their property. If the Amish decided they wanted to open casino's on their property, I think that is their right because its their property. That is the type of situation I am speaking to when I say I am against any law that doesn't support my rights.
ChelC wrote: We will never come to an agreement that satisfies both parties - never! We cannot do it. When the Lord comes to rule on earth, the wicked will not leave happily (wailing and gnashing of teeth) but they will be forced out. Isn't that party A (the Lord) asserting it's opinion of right over party B? NO! Because it isn't an opinion. You cannot serve two masters, and you can't have peace when you've not obeyed the laws on which peace is predicated.
When party A is the lord, we can make an exception on several grounds. :) First, the lord's government will not descent into tyranny like EVERY government by men has done. Its safe from that risk. Second, is not the entire earth and everything on it his property? Under my libertarian philosophy, he then has the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. :wink:

When I spoke about group A and group B, I meant to apply that only to men. History shows, that without fail, every government on the earth has descended into tyranny eventually. Laws such as we've been discussing are a sure path to that because they necessarily impose the views of group A on group B, which is not a right we have and therefore, cannot give to our government either. By doing so, we support the move to tyranny. Another danger is that it swings both ways. In most cases that means it will go against the righteous because they seem to always be a minority historically. The logic that we can impose what we think is right on others, is exactly the same thinking of the socialists and communists that want to eliminate religion or force vaccines into us for our own good. Its not a perfect system, but if we limit government to protecting life, liberty and property, at least we can be safe from having our right to worship or teach our own children taken away from us.
Beautifully said.

In addition to your point that this is the Lords property, we have been put in a situation where the Lord has declared our weaknesses can become our strengths , our trials can teach us how to succeed and our tribulations help us gain special experience and knowledge. That is the state he has permitted us to be in and every man is subject to, no laws can eliminate the above.

Man has a right to do unto himself as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't harm or take away anybody elses rights and he will learn and gain experience from that, how many men have fallen in their sins and vices to rise again and learn and become great. Did not Alma the Younger?

I agree with all of this.

It is clear that a government consisting of "natural man" is an evil one. We aren't likely to have all righteous spiritual men in power till the Lord comes.

We have been instructed through divine guidance to not give any such government too much power and instead teach each other good principles and lead by example because there is only one way to exalt a nation and that is through the people choosing righteousness, no forcing it.
Again, I agree. Here's the deal. Our Constitution will only work for a semi-righteous people. Once people fail to see from whence our rights are derived - we're sunk. All it will take is to amend our basic rights by the voice of the people. When the majority wants anything - good or evil, they will have it.

The Constitution is a boon to us. You and I know how great its principles are, but it's like clinging to ashes when the people abandon it - with one major exception. The Lord, who created the Constitution and blessed this land will fight our battles for us if we merit it. He will bless us for defending the right. His laws have no beginning or end. His laws apply now as they applied in the pre-existence and as they will apply after this mortal experience. All that is changed is that Satan reigns here temporarily. The rest is a distraction from the point. Are we going to buy his lies? Protecting virtue is vital. It doesn't trample any rights and it doesn't suppress agency. It safeguards communities from the influence of Satan, especially the youth who when lost to his seductions sometimes never find their way back.

The best course of action is to teach our children, but until they are strong enough to stand alone, we shield them. No one has a right to flaunt trash in front of my precious and weak children. God grants rights. He would grant no such right!

Criminal laws do not remove agency unless they violate basic rights. Let me illustrate the point. Heavenly Father has commanded us not to commit adultery. People still do. Man has created laws to ban adultery, but people still did it. Men created chastity belts for women (violating a woman's rights), but even with much of the physical act prevented, those women could still commit adultery in their hearts and with other parts of their bodies. My point is that the woman's agency to disobey remains in tact. Even when her rights are violated with the chastity belt, she still has a degree of agency, and agency is only suppressed when rights are violated.

Does a person have a right to do wrong? Rights and agency are very different, and until we agree on that this discussion will get us nowhere. If one has a right to engage in prostitution, then criminal laws violate his rights, and suppress his agency. If he simply has agency to disobey, criminal laws will not prevent him from it, just as eternal laws will not. It's an important distinction to make.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by Rensai »

Well ChelC, I think you've helped me figure out whats been bothering me about this whole thing. I'll explain below.
ChelC wrote: Again, I agree. Here's the deal. Our Constitution will only work for a semi-righteous people. Once people fail to see from whence our rights are derived - we're sunk. All it will take is to amend our basic rights by the voice of the people. When the majority wants anything - good or evil, they will have it.
I agree that the constitution will only work for a fairly righteous society. But, in that case, the majority would NOT get whatever they want, because the constitution is designed to prevent that. Its got some great safeguards for minority rights built in, if the people of this country would just respect it.
ChelC wrote: The Constitution is a boon to us. You and I know how great its principles are, but it's like clinging to ashes when the people abandon it - with one major exception. The Lord, who created the Constitution and blessed this land will fight our battles for us if we merit it. He will bless us for defending the right. His laws have no beginning or end. His laws apply now as they applied in the pre-existence and as they will apply after this mortal experience. All that is changed is that Satan reigns here temporarily. The rest is a distraction from the point. Are we going to buy his lies? Protecting virtue is vital. It doesn't trample any rights and it doesn't suppress agency. It safeguards communities from the influence of Satan, especially the youth who when lost to his seductions sometimes never find their way back.

The best course of action is to teach our children, but until they are strong enough to stand alone, we shield them. No one has a right to flaunt trash in front of my precious and weak children. God grants rights. He would grant no such right!
I can't really argue against any of this from an LDS perspective. I'd love to be able to protect my children from all the crap in the world, but I am afraid with the state the world is in, that is not possible. Most of the people in this country won't recognize any of your argument here as valid. They will see you taking their right to gamble or whatever other vice you want to outlaw and they will use that as justification to come after our real, critical rights. Go read some comments from non-LDS people about prop 8 if you haven't. Most of the country is very angry and wants to come after the church's tax exempt status or even outlaw the church entirely! They are upset because they believe we are attacking their rights.

That is the basis, I think, that makes me want to keep things simple and stick to protecting life, liberty, and property as the founders said. With the current mood of the country, I think a libertarian philosophy at least has a chance of success at protecting our rights. I don't see how anything else will work given that most Americans would say they have a right to their debauchery.
ChelC wrote: Criminal laws do not remove agency unless they violate basic rights. Let me illustrate the point. Heavenly Father has commanded us not to commit adultery. People still do. Man has created laws to ban adultery, but people still did it. Men created chastity belts for women (violating a woman's rights), but even with much of the physical act prevented, those women could still commit adultery in their hearts and with other parts of their bodies. My point is that the woman's agency to disobey remains in tact. Even when her rights are violated with the chastity belt, she still has a degree of agency, and agency is only suppressed when rights are violated.

Does a person have a right to do wrong? Rights and agency are very different, and until we agree on that this discussion will get us nowhere. If one has a right to engage in prostitution, then criminal laws violate his rights, and suppress his agency. If he simply has agency to disobey, criminal laws will not prevent him from it, just as eternal laws will not. It's an important distinction to make.
This is basically the heart of it. If the majority of the country doesn't recognize prostitution as wrong (And that is fast becoming acceptable), then they will perceive such a law as an attack on their rights. Given that you acknowledged that the majority will get what they want the way things stand now, doesn't it keep our rights safer if we don't try to outlaw their debauchery and take away their "rights."

I think that explains the problem I've had with this thread. On the one hand, I would love to see a righteous society where debauchery is outlawed and non-existent or at least limited to being out of sight on private property. But the way the world stands, I just see any attempt to do that right now as more likely to unite people against US. I've studied the history of this country enough to know that our rights are not safe from the majority if we give them an excuse. That is why I think the fight for freedom will work better from a libertarian stance right now. Its not perfect, but given that society overall is wicked, I think its the best shot. The world can understand the live and let live libertarian concept, but the concepts of our rights coming from God, etc will only meet with derision and scorn these days. I think we'll have to wait until Zion is established before we can seriously discuss implementing God's laws.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by ChelC »

Rensai wrote:Well ChelC, I think you've helped me figure out whats been bothering me about this whole thing. I'll explain below.
ChelC wrote: Again, I agree. Here's the deal. Our Constitution will only work for a semi-righteous people. Once people fail to see from whence our rights are derived - we're sunk. All it will take is to amend our basic rights by the voice of the people. When the majority wants anything - good or evil, they will have it.
I agree that the constitution will only work for a fairly righteous society. But, in that case, the majority would NOT get whatever they want, because the constitution is designed to prevent that. Its got some great safeguards for minority rights built in, if the people of this country would just respect it.
I agree.
ChelC wrote: The Constitution is a boon to us. You and I know how great its principles are, but it's like clinging to ashes when the people abandon it - with one major exception. The Lord, who created the Constitution and blessed this land will fight our battles for us if we merit it. He will bless us for defending the right. His laws have no beginning or end. His laws apply now as they applied in the pre-existence and as they will apply after this mortal experience. All that is changed is that Satan reigns here temporarily. The rest is a distraction from the point. Are we going to buy his lies? Protecting virtue is vital. It doesn't trample any rights and it doesn't suppress agency. It safeguards communities from the influence of Satan, especially the youth who when lost to his seductions sometimes never find their way back.

The best course of action is to teach our children, but until they are strong enough to stand alone, we shield them. No one has a right to flaunt trash in front of my precious and weak children. God grants rights. He would grant no such right!
I can't really argue against any of this from an LDS perspective. I'd love to be able to protect my children from all the crap in the world, but I am afraid with the state the world is in, that is not possible. Most of the people in this country won't recognize any of your argument here as valid. They will see you taking their right to gamble or whatever other vice you want to outlaw and they will use that as justification to come after our real, critical rights. Go read some comments from non-LDS people about prop 8 if you haven't. Most of the country is very angry and wants to come after the church's tax exempt status or even outlaw the church entirely! They are upset because they believe we are attacking their rights.
I agree.

That is the basis, I think, that makes me want to keep things simple and stick to protecting life, liberty, and property as the founders said. With the current mood of the country, I think a libertarian philosophy at least has a chance of success at protecting our rights. I don't see how anything else will work given that most Americans would say they have a right to their debauchery.
A chance, yes, but don't expect anyone to respect your actual rights when they interfere with their make believe ones. What the country needs is repentance. When we allow the least common factor to create our laws we are only as good as our worst lawful activities. The course we are on is dangerous. There are people who believe that practicing your power to procreate is harmful to society because it harms the environment. We are on a destructive path.
ChelC wrote: Criminal laws do not remove agency unless they violate basic rights. Let me illustrate the point. Heavenly Father has commanded us not to commit adultery. People still do. Man has created laws to ban adultery, but people still did it. Men created chastity belts for women (violating a woman's rights), but even with much of the physical act prevented, those women could still commit adultery in their hearts and with other parts of their bodies. My point is that the woman's agency to disobey remains in tact. Even when her rights are violated with the chastity belt, she still has a degree of agency, and agency is only suppressed when rights are violated.

Does a person have a right to do wrong? Rights and agency are very different, and until we agree on that this discussion will get us nowhere. If one has a right to engage in prostitution, then criminal laws violate his rights, and suppress his agency. If he simply has agency to disobey, criminal laws will not prevent him from it, just as eternal laws will not. It's an important distinction to make.
This is basically the heart of it. If the majority of the country doesn't recognize prostitution as wrong (And that is fast becoming acceptable), then they will perceive such a law as an attack on their rights. Given that you acknowledged that the majority will get what they want the way things stand now, doesn't it keep our rights safer if we don't try to outlaw their debauchery and take away their "rights."
Yes, it does, for a time. However when we suppress the whole of what we believe our rights to be, especially from whence our rights our derived and the nature of the God who granted them, the whole thing crumbles in time.

I think that explains the problem I've had with this thread. On the one hand, I would love to see a righteous society where debauchery is outlawed and non-existent or at least limited to being out of sight on private property. But the way the world stands, I just see any attempt to do that right now as more likely to unite people against US. I've studied the history of this country enough to know that our rights are not safe from the majority if we give them an excuse. That is why I think the fight for freedom will work better from a libertarian stance right now. Its not perfect, but given that society overall is wicked, I think its the best shot. The world can understand the live and let live libertarian concept, but the concepts of our rights coming from God, etc will only meet with derision and scorn these days. I think we'll have to wait until Zion is established before we can seriously discuss implementing God's laws.
I agree for the most part. Society can better understand libertarian points of view, but they also see some of your real rights trampling their pretend ones. The whole idea of rights cannot hold if the very definition of a right is changed to include doing whatever you want to do. The Constitution cannot stand if we deny the Creator.

I realize I'm an idealist. I realize that we cannot transform government without repentance, time and divine intervention. I don't believe that when society is evil that any form of government will work. Socialism works better for an evil people than libertarianism. The point of this discussion for me is not what will work well, it's what is right. We are all fooling ourselves if we think we can outsmart evil by creating a form of government suitable for both - we cannot. If we are unworthy of peace, it will elude us forever. If we do not repent we will not have the Lord's blessing of protection and we do our fellow man no service to make believe that he can live in his sins without consequence.

I guess the bottom line for me is this. When people are mostly good they require a law which will protect them from the minority to maintain order. When people are largely evil only the most basic of human rights can be agreed upon, and the maintenance of order comes from governments who meddle. Socialism works better than any other form of government for those societies. When evil pervades, order disappears. Slavery affords a semblance of order, and without slavery and dominance, a constant state of war continues. What we need most desperately is repentance.

So I guess when it comes to debauchery, I believe in regulating it under societal conditions similar to those of America about 200 years ago, with diminishing returns on the effort up through present. The rightness of the principle is unchanged. What has changed is the ability to convince the majority. Is regulation of debauchery the correct course? I think so. Will it do much for us today? Nope.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by Rose Garden »

I have to amend my answer. I don't think the federal government should regulate those things, but I think the individual cities and states should be able to.

obamohno
captain of 100
Posts: 475

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alcohol

Post by obamohno »

roserum wrote:I have to amend my answer. I don't think the federal government should regulate those things, but I think the individual cities and states should be able to.
I have come to a conclusion that it's Statism that is the problem.

If righteousness will exalt a nation you don't need the state.

In the end, I rather be free than empower an entity the legal capability to initiate force against me when I act on my peaceful beliefs.



Voluntary exchange of income and services and non aggression I am sure we all agree would make us free.

I don't see how the above could be accomplished when putting a select group of people in power over a many and having a government, the very existence of a government is initiation by the use of force and it have proven not to work. When you enter into a relationship and then this relationship is abused and they take advantage of you , over and over and over again, any person would say, GET OUT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, not go back to the beginning and try to get it right this time and hope they don't become abusive again.

In the end, if we all practice non aggression and support the voluntary exchange of income and property rights then eventually there would be no need for a government , so this is what we should strive for since we know it is the end goal.

Cheers.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by creator »

Reviving one of the most interesting and longest running threads on this forum. (Started in 2006 with several revivals in 07, 08, and 09)...

This question regarding whether government should have the power to regulate vices/debaucheries is one that comes up a lot. I run into a lot especially in discussions with libertarians.

I just spent a bunch of time re-reading about the first 5 pages of this discussion (and I encourage everyone to do the same). I really appreciate what SwissMrs&Pitchfire contributed to the discussion, especially these quotes:
I have no right to do wrong, and you have no right to do wrong, although we have our agency and the privilege of doing right or wrong as we may choose in and of ourselves;
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1922, Afternoon Session, p.73 - 74
Man is an independent being in his agency, to do right or wrong, and has the liberty of doing as he pleases; but I qualify this by saying that he has not the right to do wrong or to infringe upon the rights of another individual.
Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.101
I have heard men say that they have a right to do wrong. In one sense, a man has such a right; and in another sense, he has no such right. We possess, in reality, very little; and that little the Lord has given us, and that is the power of choice.
Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.115
and that when the time should come for us to exercise our full rights as American citizens, we might be able to administer the laws and govern in such a way that all should be protected, that every man of every creed, of every nation, and of every people, should enjoy his rights in our midst as perfectly as if he were in full faith with the majority of the people. Not the right to do wrong, not the right to practise iniquity, not the right to trample upon his neighbour, to intrude upon his rights, but the right to do that which may seem good in his own eyes, so long as he should not thereby interfere with the rights of others;
Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 20:, p.337 - 338
But, while you are passing thus gaily along,
Remember, dear boys, you've no right to do wrong.
Improvement Era 1902
Sterling W. Sill, The Wealth of Wisdom , p.108
We can all know that we ought to honor our parents and that we ought to obey God rather than man. No one has a right to do wrong. We are not free to conduct ourselves as we please. What we do is the business of every other person in the world. We distort our own intelligence and deceive ourselves when we sin against our own conscience. Many of our most serious sins are not written in the statute books. For example, just think what great errors we make when we sin against reason, against intuition, and against instinct. And one of our greatest sins is when we sin against knowledge.
Also the idea that virtue is a right. There is no right to do wrong... likewise you could say there is a right to do good (God-given rights are basically the right to do that which is good)... Vice being the opposite of virtue - there is no right to do vice, but there is a right to virtue... Therefore virtue is a right.

Which means... If virtue is a right and the public vices (public not private) of others infringe on the individuals right to virtue...

Then state/local government, by the voice of the people, through their representatives, can enact laws legislating, regulating or outlawing vices, thus protecting the individuals right to virtue. (Keep in mind this is about public vices, not private. Also keep in mind that in the punishing of such crimes there is still a due process of law.)

"There is no right to do wrong" ... this shouldn't be taken to mean that you make laws outlawing all sin, all evil, but only that which infringes on an individuals rights, which happens when your sin or evil is inflicted on another person, whether that is inflicting violence on another or subjecting them to your vices, thus depriving them of their right to virtue.

p51-mustang
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1634
Location: Harrisville, Utah

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by p51-mustang »

Maybe this has already been said but I think private vice can be allowed so long as it doest infringe on others rights. But at the point you try to promote vice publicly you are restrained by law. For example; you could make your own alcohol, but you could not advertise or sell the alcohol. This would retain teh right of agency while still protecting society. This is why prop 8 is a good law since it forbids the promotion of gay marriage which is what allowing gay marraige would do - Promote a gay lifestyle and something harmful to society.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by creator »

p51-mustang wrote:Maybe this has already been said but I think private vice can be allowed so long as it doest infringe on others rights. But at the point you try to promote vice publicly you are restrained by law.
Yes, I highly recommend you read through at least the first 5 pages of the discussion.

Much of the discussion revolves around whether or not public vices should be outlawed. I think it could also be argued that engaging in certain vices in the privacy of your home infringe on the rights of others, and are destructive to society, which in turn makes them 'public vices'... however, that has to be balanced out with regard for other rights. Obviously it wouldn't be right for the government to put a camera in everyone's home to make sure they are behaving. Laws should be defensive, not offensive in nature, punishing people after the fact, with the punishment not being excessive, and also requiring due process before any punishment is enforced.

I suppose the best way to determine the standard for such laws is through the words of the scriptures and the prophets.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by creator »

"we must have freedom; there must be freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and above all, freedom of conscience, ever remembering that freedom means real liberty in righteousness, and not license to do wrong." (Elder James E. Talmage)

"What Is Liberty?

"We have been talking, and we do talk very much, about this wonderful, this glorious, this most choice principle of liberty, for which we are willing to sacrifice all that we possess in a worldly sense, and that we are also willing to add in that sacrifice our own lives to defend it. What is it? What is this liberty for which we are willing to fight, for which we are willing to sacrifice life and all that we possess in the world? Let me tell you. It is simply the liberty of all mankind to worship God in righteousness; that is what it is; for all mankind to have the liberty to do right, the liberty to do good, the liberty to pursue happiness, in honor, in virtue and in uprightness. But it cannot for one moment descend in any degree to license or to infringement upon the rights of others. No man has any liberty to impose upon his brother, to rob or to steal, to lie or to bear false witness, or to injure or wrong his fellowmen. When we are talking of this great and glorious principle of liberty it is that we may be free to worship God and to love him with all our hearts and minds and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to protect the principles of virtue and honor throughout all the world. That is the liberty that we are looking for and that we are willing to fight for.

"We are not trying to defend the liberty of mankind to be drunken, to be debauchees, to advocate crime, to interfere with the rights of others. This is not liberty. The law of nations, as well as the law of God, prohibits it, and it cannot exist except it exist contrary to the laws of righteousness and contrary to the principles of liberty that we are willing to fight for and that we are striving for."

( Pres. Joseph F. Smith - C.R. April 1918 )

User avatar
durangout
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2835
Location: Bugged out man, WAY out

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by durangout »

Since they know so much about all of those, who better to regulate it :P

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by Hyrcanus »

BrianM wrote:
p51-mustang wrote:Maybe this has already been said but I think private vice can be allowed so long as it doest infringe on others rights. But at the point you try to promote vice publicly you are restrained by law.
Yes, I highly recommend you read through at least the first 5 pages of the discussion.

Much of the discussion revolves around whether or not public vices should be outlawed. I think it could also be argued that engaging in certain vices in the privacy of your home infringe on the rights of others, and are destructive to society, which in turn makes them 'public vices'... however, that has to be balanced out with regard for other rights. Obviously it wouldn't be right for the government to put a camera in everyone's home to make sure they are behaving. Laws should be defensive, not offensive in nature, punishing people after the fact, with the punishment not being excessive, and also requiring due process before any punishment is enforced.

I suppose the best way to determine the standard for such laws is through the words of the scriptures and the prophets.
Much like others earlier in the thread, my concern is that if we hand a non-church government the power to regulate an individual life so heavily, what happens when the majority opinion turns and we find ourselves at the wrong end of the government's power? We're talking of course about a secular government that intentionally distinguishes itself from the moral authority of the Church. This whole proposition changes when the Lord's organization takes over the government.

I hate the things that some of my fellow citizens choose to do with the freedoms they are/should be granted. But in order to protect my right to continue to live a life free of tyranny, I want the government to leave them to the consequences of their decisions.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by creator »

Hyrcanus wrote:Much like others earlier in the thread, my concern is that if we hand a non-church government the power to regulate an individual life so heavily, what happens when the majority opinion turns and we find ourselves at the wrong end of the government's power? We're talking of course about a secular government that intentionally distinguishes itself from the moral authority of the Church. This whole proposition changes when the Lord's organization takes over the government.

I hate the things that some of my fellow citizens choose to do with the freedoms they are/should be granted. But in order to protect my right to continue to live a life free of tyranny, I want the government to leave them to the consequences of their decisions.
There are definitely many valid concerns regarding secular government, and especially societies in which the majority are god-less and wicked...

This discussion is more about the principles, regarding whether or not it would be just and righteous dominion for a community to outlaw vices. The prophets have clearly spoken on this matter, in regards to secular, man-run government, and have said that man's laws should punish vices... but also that this shouldn't be looked to as the solution to the problem... most importantly it is the preaching and living of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that will make for a good society, but still, so long as their are even a few wicked who would want to corrupt that society, man is alright to enact laws that would proscribe a punishment to this wickedness.

I definitely would never want to come to such a conclusion on my own. The least amount of laws the better, but I have to side with the Lord and his prophets when they have clearly spoken.

Also such laws (punishing vices) are not to be equated with tyranny... tyranny would be laws that punish you for doing that which is good and right, and in punishing you when you have not violated someone else's rights.

User avatar
Hyrcanus
captain of 100
Posts: 716

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by Hyrcanus »

BrianM wrote:Also such laws (punishing vices) are not to be equated with tyranny... tyranny would be laws that punish you for doing that which is good and right, and in punishing you when you have not violated someone else's rights.
I'm not saying that the punishing of vices itself is tyranny, only that the same authority we assign the government to punish those vices can be used for tyrannical means. As an example of this I'd hearken back to the despicable persecution of the Church over Celestial Marriage. Much of the argument and rhetoric revolved around what the government saw as horrible immorality. Clearly the Lord doesn't see it that way, but what was usually used to prohibit real vices like adultery, sodomy, etc, was turned on a people following the Lord's explicit will.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by creator »

Hyrcanus wrote:I'm not saying that the punishing of vices itself is tyranny, only that the same authority we assign the government to punish those vices can be used for tyrannical means. As an example of this I'd hearken back to the despicable persecution of the Church over Celestial Marriage. Much of the argument and rhetoric revolved around what the government saw as horrible immorality. Clearly the Lord doesn't see it that way, but what was usually used to prohibit real vices like adultery, sodomy, etc, was turned on a people following the Lord's explicit will.
You're right. And all the good laws in the world will not make a wicked person righteous. Religious (preaching the Gospel) and civic duties (standing up for freedom) definitely go hand in hand... as has been said, it only works with a moral and religious people.

"Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Should the government regulate debauchery Porn drugs alc

Post by ithink »

BrianM wrote:
Hyrcanus wrote:I'm not saying that the punishing of vices itself is tyranny, only that the same authority we assign the government to punish those vices can be used for tyrannical means. As an example of this I'd hearken back to the despicable persecution of the Church over Celestial Marriage. Much of the argument and rhetoric revolved around what the government saw as horrible immorality. Clearly the Lord doesn't see it that way, but what was usually used to prohibit real vices like adultery, sodomy, etc, was turned on a people following the Lord's explicit will.
You're right. And all the good laws in the world will not make a wicked person righteous. Religious (preaching the Gospel) and civic duties (standing up for freedom) definitely go hand in hand... as has been said, it only works with a moral and religious people.

"Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet."
The only valid laws are those that protect equal rights. Any law that punishes any "debauchery" save that which has a negative effect on any other person or persons, is not a legitimate, constitutional law. God himself will not intervene in the debauchery of the planet until such a time as the level is so great nobody really has a fair chance anymore, especially children. He is more concerned that liberty is preserved than in legislating obedience through temporal punishment. Anyone who attempts to legislate obedience or who teaches legislation of obedience is down the path of you know who.

Post Reply