[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by AX

Societal: dictates morals and current trends. The government has NO business here. ie Gay Marriage and Television censorship. Societal leaders should stand up and guide, without law, the society to moral and ethical standards.

Murder would fall under this category... There are societal forces government has an interest in.

Personal: Private issues that neither society or the government has ANY right to be in.

What of the German cannibal case where the guy ate another human being with consent while he was alive? That was a private issue, and a rather disturbing one. It did not fit any current laws they had. It is in essence a private issue, that unfortunately, there need to be laws in.

Private issues sometimes have public consequences.

Economic: Economic should have minimal government interference and should be lead by the private sector and businesses. The government's only interference here is to protect the market from greedy bastards creating monopolies and corporate spying, and certain other things, but a minimal role.

But unfortunately, everytime there is a minimal role, weasels will figure out how to weasel around and dupe investors, so if you say government oversite is needed, minimally, it will of course expand into what you see today.

I would love to see all taxes abolished except for a flat sales tax with some non-taxable items such as food. Rent, as a non-purchase would probably be left out as well. Meaning if you were just eking by...

1) Its easy to see. Taxes would cause outrage if they were in one place where they are today. You just get nibbled to death by ducks. Though, say, a national 33.3% sales tax would probably be a way to hit the poor less, (by leaving food as an essential out of this) and hit everyone alike. It would also abolish the need for the current tax filing bureaucracy as taxes would be paid on the fly.
2) It hits everybody the same proportional to their income and spending.
3) It would encourage saving and actual building of wealth.
4) Certain items which are not necessary for life or are luxuries could be taxed at a higher rate.

Property tax is awful. It often hits hardest seniors who bought a home at a low value and are on a low fixed income, when said home has appreciated. Really when you think about it, it is rather absurd to have to pay tax on an item every year that has been purchased in the past, no income is being made off it, its just sitting their. Lets say we started a similar tax on saving accounts. Its the same basic idea. But then it becomes obvious how messed up it is.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Murder would fall under this category... There are societal forces government has an interest in.

Protection of rights would fall squarely under "government" in AX's model. He neglected to mention a police force and a judiciary system, but no doubt if he had it would have fit in nicely into the government category. It's not the job of government to teach people that murder is a sin, it's only its job to prevent it from happening and prosecute offenders.

What of the German cannibal case where the guy ate another human being with consent while he was alive? That was a private issue, and a rather disturbing one. It did not fit any current laws they had. It is in essence a private issue, that unfortunately, there need to be laws in.

Why do we need such a law? Because you find it distasteful? That would be exactly the sort of example (although an extreme one) of government going too far. Whose rights are being violated?

Private issues sometimes have public consequences.

What were the "public consequences" of the case you mentioned? People read about it in the newspaper, said, "Eww, gross," and went on living their lives?

The whole purpose of the news is to terrify you. Never, for any reason, believe it.

Hey John. Long time no interact-online-via-message-board.

This is a very good point, and one I probably shouldn't have lost sight of.

Thanks, all, for the replies. You've helped me make some amount of sense out of all of this.

[Becky]

Saying canabalizm is okay, opens the doors to a wide variety of options for death. Where you draw the line becomes fuzzier. Who decides when someone is allowed to take their own life, and when they aren't? What of minors? Or the mentally handiecaped? Who has the decision for them? Does it become legal to eat your own children? There would have to be a total revamp of laws regarding who has the authority regarding peoples lives. If your wife is in a coma, and you plan to pull the plug anyways, are you allowed to eat her instead? What if you weren't orriginally going to pull the plug, but given the chance to eat her, you chose to do so?

What about those with mental disabilities? Who has the legal right to say they can die or not? Is it them? We've already determined they are not qualified to make such decisions. However, if it isn't them, then is the person who is legally responsable for them qualified to make that decision for them?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Danny

Protection of rights would fall squarely under "government" in AX's model. He neglected to mention a police force and a judiciary system, but no doubt if he had it would have fit in nicely into the government category. It's not the job of government to teach people that murder is a sin, it's only its job to prevent it from happening and prosecute offenders.

Teaching is a very weird term there. It is the job of government to prevent murder. Murder is illegal because we have a set of values that as a society we have legislated. Laws are in essence a moral judgment that certain actions are not acceptable because of the harm they do to others.

Why do we need such a law? Because you find it distasteful? That would be exactly the sort of example (although an extreme one) of government going too far. Whose rights are being violated?

When you allow a cannibal to roam free and to seek out victims you let him prey on the weak and mentally ill. A lot of people in the society have rights that could be violated here. Essentially, its an escalation to murder, and quite possibly the escalation into a serial killer. Not to mention the public health risks of diseases eating human brains can yield. Also, in a pragmatic nature, it creates a new category of defense for murder. "he asked me to..."

What were the "public consequences" of the case you mentioned? People read about it in the newspaper, said, "Eww, gross," and went on living their lives?

Protection of the mentally ill. Prevention of violence likely to escalate into the next Jeffery Dahlmer. A lot of the actions done in the privacy of ones home and in ones private life effect others. There are a host of examples I can think of, but most are equally as disturbing and are leaving the realm of allowable for CGR. Suffice it to say, things which damage others, and unleash potential for damage to a society. Here is a "clean" example. (In the SFW realm) Child abuse.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Teaching is a very weird term there. It is the job of government to prevent murder. Murder is illegal because we have a set of values that as a society we have legislated. Laws are in essence a moral judgment that certain actions are not acceptable because of the harm they do to others.

"Because of the harm they do to others" is the key factor there. Framing things in the way you have is what justifies the legislature in criminalizing acts that are victimless, or at the very least only self-victimizing. When you start legislating on the basis of "morality" and "values" you open Pandora's box and allow the government to play God through the legal system. On the other hand, when you frame it in the manner that our founders did - that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights - then the legislature and judiciary exists solely to protect those rights and you don't get muddled in questions of ethics and morality. I'm fully aware that the establishing of human rights is at its foundation a moral issue, but I think the distinction between "legislating morality" and "protecting rights" is functionally relevant, and more than just semantics.

When you allow a cannibal to roam free and to seek out victims you let him prey on the weak and mentally ill. A lot of people in the society have rights that could be violated here. Essentially, its an escalation to murder, and quite possibly the escalation into a serial killer.

This is a slippery slope. You have to handle things on a case by case basis, not just introduce a new law criminalizing cannibalism because of the "what ifs" involved. Is there evidence that the "victim" in this case was mentally ill? Under American law at least (from what I understand), that would affect his/her ability to consent to the act. But as always, the suspect should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. By inventing a new law under which to prosecute him, you've effectively assumed his guilt of "preying on the weak and mentally ill" without needing to consider the evidence.

Not to mention the public health risks of diseases eating human brains can yield.

This is a relevant question, but one that needs to be thoroughly investigated before a new law is warranted.

Also, in a pragmatic nature, it creates a new category of defense for murder. "he asked me to..."

This is another important question, but again, it's a question that needs to be asked and discussed and investigated, not just thrown out of the equation by the introduction of a new law. For what it's worth, I think that murder and assisted suicide are two very different things. I personally know someone right now who is serving a life sentence because he agreed to a "suicide pact" with his girlfriend, but after killing her decided he couldn't go through with killing himself. But instead of allowing him the opportunity to turn his life around, the justice system labeled him a murderer and stole the remainder of his life from him.

Protection of the mentally ill.

This can be accomplished through laws already on the books and by thorough investigation of individual cases.

Prevention of violence likely to escalate into the next Jeffery Dahlmer.

You can't preempt violence by making a criminal out of everyone with the potential to commit murder. We'd all be behind bars.

A lot of the actions done in the privacy of ones home and in ones private life effect others. There are a host of examples I can think of, but most are equally as disturbing and are leaving the realm of allowable for CGR. Suffice it to say, things which damage others, and unleash potential for damage to a society. Here is a "clean" example. (In the SFW realm) Child abuse.

Specific examples aren't necessary. Obviously rights can be violated in private as well as they can in public; the issue isn't that everything that occurs behind closed doors should be legal. The "privacy of one's own home" is nothing but a metaphor for victimless crimes. Obviously, if rights are being violated then the justice system should act, regardless of where the crime took place. I don't think anyone is debating that.

Saying canabalizm is okay, opens the doors to a wide variety of options for death. Where you draw the line becomes fuzzier. Who decides when someone is allowed to take their own life, and when they aren't? What of minors? Or the mentally handiecaped? Who has the decision for them? Does it become legal to eat your own children? There would have to be a total revamp of laws regarding who has the authority regarding peoples lives. If your wife is in a coma, and you plan to pull the plug anyways, are you allowed to eat her instead? What if you weren't orriginally going to pull the plug, but given the chance to eat her, you chose to do so?

What about those with mental disabilities? Who has the legal right to say they can die or not? Is it them? We've already determined they are not qualified to make such decisions. However, if it isn't them, then is the person who is legally responsable for them qualified to make that decision for them?

I'm honestly not entirely sure how consent laws work for mentally ill people. However, I will say that the cannibalism example is getting pretty ridiculous, haha. People aren't exactly eating each other left and right. Maybe we should switch to a more relevant example?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Becky

1. Eliminate Property tax, (putting in some kind of system to where poor/homeless families and individuals receive land, that they can then own.)

So the government owns all housing and issues land to people at will. I believe the communists tried it.

2. Start a farming initiative.
This would include hiring people to teach individuals how to farm their own land, and starting up new farms.

Right now we subsidize farmers heavily, often to not farm. If we lower food costs, and reduce consumption (below pre-ehtanol levels anyway) we either spend *more *subsidizing or loose farmers (making the wisdom of training more questionable)

3. Temporarily stop buying from over seas companies, or American company's that hire over seas.

Then they stop buying from us and we suddenly realize that our day-to-day life is dependant on any number of things we lack here in the US, whether because of a lack of resources or infrastructure.

The United States currently Imports the majority of our products. If we as a nation put a temporary ban on all products produced outside the U.S. we would be able to provide jobs for everyone, and boost our economy.

No, because 1) we loose sales and 2) we simply cannot manufacture everything here.

[JerryLove]

Not to mention the public health risks of diseases eating human brains can yield. Also, in a pragmatic nature, it creates a new category of defense for murder. "he asked me to..."

To be fair, any number of foods are dangerous in any number of ways. Vegitarians don't get mad-cow.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Danny

"Because of the harm they do to others" is the key factor there. Framing things in the way you have is what justifies the legislature in criminalizing acts that are victimless, or at the very least only self-victimizing. When you start legislating on the basis of "morality" and "values" you open Pandora's box and allow the government to play God through the legal system.

Yet without a deity for reference, your source of law must be in function a form of utilitarianism for society. As such, laws are based on values by consensus. The fact that we even value anyone else's rights is a form of utilitarianism and I would say that all laws will inevitably boil down to someone's legislated morality.

Why is killing someone wrong? Per you, violation of their rights. Why is that wrong? It is fundamentally a moral judgment that society has made.

Society has always barred certain activities that are in essence a slippery slope. You can preempt violence by banning activities which are shown to escalate to murder. Torturing of animals for example. Even if it is socially fine to eat them.

Since society legislates the common, secular morality of the masses through law, (nature of a democracy) law often does not have to have a logical basis. It just has to be in line with the constitution and be passed by the legislature. But every law is a reflection of people's morals. Society holds people's rights as sacred.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Yet without a deity for reference, your source of law must be in function a form of utilitarianism for society. As such, laws are based on values by consensus. The fact that we even value anyone else's rights is a form of utilitarianism and I would say that all laws will inevitably boil down to someone's legislated morality.

By that logic, when a car dealer and I determine what price I will pay for a car, it boils down to morality.

To me, laws are "what will I give up in order to gain". One could argue that not gaiming the system (I'm white, so making blacks slaves gains me while costing nothing) is a moral choice, and there might indeed be a moral element to "laws should appply to everyone"; but the actual laws themselves are more a matter of that initial axiom.

"I'll give up the right to do stuff to other people in order to gain protection from them doing it to me". That my freedom is more valueable to me than my liberty to affect others isn't a moral decision, but a pragmatic one.

Why is killing someone wrong? Per you, violation of their rights. Why is that wrong? It is fundamentally a moral judgment that society has made.

You moved right past the end of the argument and into an equivocating definition of "wrong".

"It's wrong because it's illegal" doesn't neccessairly flow into "why is acting illegally wrong".

What you really meant, I presume is "why choose to make that illegal instead of something else?" There seem to be a few conclusions ("first causes") someone could argue... and "morality" isn't one of them.

Why?

Because "what makes acting immorally wrong" is just as valid a question as "what makes behaving illegally wrong"... the only way to really answer it is by hinging the definition of "wrong" on "illegal" or "immoral", and in either case your answer is circular.

So "why do we choose to establish 'rights' and protect them?". Because we see advantage. Because our biological urges and cognitive functions combine to make that solution to our percieved desires/problems. Because we choose to.

Society has always barred certain activities that are in essence a slippery slope. You can preempt violence by banning activities which are shown to escalate to murder. Torturing of animals for example. Even if it is socially fine to eat them.

What has society always barred?

Since society legislates the common, secular morality of the masses through law, (nature of a democracy) law often does not have to have a logical basis. It just has to be in line with the constitution and be passed by the legislature. But every law is a reflection of people's morals. Society holds people's rights as sacred.

I disagree. It can be a reflecion of their fears, their desires, or their sheer ignorance. Certainly we don't legislate huting seasons because hunting in the summer is "immoral". We don't set a speed limit at 60 because 70 is immoral either.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So the government owns all housing and issues land to people at will. I believe the communists tried it.

Right now we subsidize farmers heavily, often to not farm. If we lower food costs, and reduce consumption (below pre-ehtanol levels anyway) we either spend *more *subsidizing or loose farmers (making the wisdom of training more questionable)

Then they stop buying from us and we suddenly realize that our day-to-day life is dependant on any number of things we lack here in the US, whether because of a lack of resources or infrastructure.

No, because 1) we loose sales and 2) we simply cannot manufacture everything here.

for a time maybe, just to satisfy people who are afraid that eliminating property tax will raise the price of property higher then individuals can afford. The GOAL in my view is to actually take the owning of property AWAY from the government. I mean, currently we DON'T own our property. I would like to see property tax eliminated so that property is properly owned by individuals. Any side idea of how to do that legistically without causing too many issues is something to be debated. You can't throw out the whole idea of eliminating property tax just because I don't have all the side issues figured out

As for subsidies.. I say we do away with subsidies all together. By eliminating property tax, there is less need for subsidies.

What do we NEED that we cannot provide here? (I said NEED, not want, not feel comfortable with, NEED.)

[Art]

Originally Posted by Becky

What do we NEED that we cannot provide here? (I said NEED, not want, not feel comfortable with, NEED.)

Honestly, that is irrelevant. Taking away what people want causes rebellion. The people simply would not allow it.

[Thrash]

Unless you were the Qin dynasty...

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Becky

for a time maybe, just to satisfy people who are afraid that eliminating property tax will raise the price of property higher then individuals can afford. The GOAL in my view is to actually take the owning of property AWAY from the government. I mean, currently we DON'T own our property. I would like to see property tax eliminated so that property is properly owned by individuals. Any side idea of how to do that legistically without causing too many issues is something to be debated. You can't throw out the whole idea of eliminating property tax just because I don't have all the side issues figured out

As for subsidies.. I say we do away with subsidies all together. By eliminating property tax, there is less need for subsidies.

What do we NEED that we cannot provide here? (I said NEED, not want, not feel comfortable with, NEED.)

so the government taxes the property you own, you don't really own it? that's odd logic.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Murder would fall under this category... There are societal forces government has an interest in.

Murder is government by my model.

What of the German cannibal case where the guy ate another human being with consent while he was alive? That was a private issue, and a rather disturbing one. It did not fit any current laws they had. It is in essence a private issue, that unfortunately, there need to be laws in.

Private issues sometimes have public consequences.

This is not a "private issue" but this does not have a public consequence either. It fits under law enforcement which is a government institution. When the actions of one person affect the wellbeing and/or life of another in an adverse way without consent, then is is a government issue. Nobody would let a cannibal eat them that was not mentally ill or handicapped and therefore would not be of sound mind to make such a judgment.

But unfortunately, everytime there is a minimal role, weasels will figure out how to weasel around and dupe investors, so if you say government oversite is needed, minimally, it will of course expand into what you see today.

See, these stupid obviously bad investments should have been outlawed in the 1920's when it caused the first great depression.

I would love to see all taxes abolished except for a flat sales tax with some non-taxable items such as food. Rent, as a non-purchase would probably be left out as well. Meaning if you were just eking by...

The government gets too much money as it is. Ideally we could roll back our spending, keep the government in government business, and we'd be fine. We did it pre-20's and were fine.

Property tax is awful. It often hits hardest seniors who bought a home at a low value and are on a low fixed income, when said home has appreciated. Really when you think about it, it is rather absurd to have to pay tax on an item every year that has been purchased in the past, no income is being made off it, its just sitting their. Lets say we started a similar tax on saving accounts. Its the same basic idea. But then it becomes obvious how messed up it is.

Well, I agree to an extent, but instead of getting rid of property tax make it only apply to acreage after the first two. We have to generate money thru some legal means (our current income tax system is technically illegal), and that should still generate enough flow to keep us moving.

Originally Posted by Becky

Saying canabalizm is okay, opens the doors to a wide variety of options for death. Where you draw the line becomes fuzzier. Who decides when someone is allowed to take their own life, and when they aren't? What of minors? Or the mentally handiecaped? Who has the decision for them? Does it become legal to eat your own children? There would have to be a total revamp of laws regarding who has the authority regarding peoples lives. If your wife is in a coma, and you plan to pull the plug anyways, are you allowed to eat her instead? What if you weren't orriginally going to pull the plug, but given the chance to eat her, you chose to do so?

What about those with mental disabilities? Who has the legal right to say they can die or not? Is it them? We've already determined they are not qualified to make such decisions. However, if it isn't them, then is the person who is legally responsable for them qualified to make that decision for them?

Suicide is illegal strangely enough... I say that because really, what are you gonna do to a person who has just committed suicide. You could give them a citation but I doubt it would get paid. And I'm not joking, it really is illegal. The problem with suicide, however, is how are you gonna stop somebody who has set their minds to killing themselves? If they want to that badly they'll do it, whether or not it's illegal. Whether that's a right or not, it's a non-issue because you can't do anything about it either way.

as far as murder an cannibalism:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - When you kill somebody you are infringing on their right to Life. Those three rights are the basis of our legal system. I shouldn't have to say more.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Teaching is a very weird term there. It is the job of government to prevent murder. Murder is illegal because we have a set of values that as a society we have legislated. Laws are in essence a moral judgment that certain actions are not acceptable because of the harm they do to others.

Wrong, it is wrong to murder somebody, because it is obviously a non-consented infringement on their right to live. And to say that the right to life is a moral value is demeaning life itself. Would life be worth making it to your third birthday if it weren't an inherent right? It is "self-evident". and I know that I'm kinda canonizing this document of rebellion but it is the basis on which we established our country as it's own independent country and one that I find to fit my ideal model pretty damn well. If we had it all to do again, that's one thing that WOULD NOT change.

When you allow a cannibal to roam free and to seek out victims you let him prey on the weak and mentally ill. A lot of people in the society have rights that could be violated here. Essentially, its an escalation to murder, and quite possibly the escalation into a serial killer. Not to mention the public health risks of diseases eating human brains can yield. Also, in a pragmatic nature, it creates a new category of defense for murder. "he asked me to..."

Any Psychiatrist or Psychologist will tell you that a sane person would never consent to that. It is murder and it is absurd to think that any governmental model of a modern nation would allow that.

Protection of the mentally ill. Prevention of violence likely to escalate into the next Jeffery Dahlmer. A lot of the actions done in the privacy of ones home and in ones private life effect others. There are a host of examples I can think of, but most are equally as disturbing and are leaving the realm of allowable for CGR. Suffice it to say, things which damage others, and unleash potential for damage to a society. Here is a "clean" example. (In the SFW realm) Child abuse.

It's not a private issue at that point. A private issue would be a phone call and an infringement or overstepping of government bounds would be wire tapping somebody's phone without reasonable and credible suspicion that that person is guilty of a heinous crime.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Yet without a deity for reference, your source of law must be in function a form of utilitarianism for society. As such, laws are based on values by consensus. The fact that we even value anyone else's rights is a form of utilitarianism and I would say that all laws will inevitably boil down to someone's legislated morality.

Why is killing someone wrong? Per you, violation of their rights. Why is that wrong? It is fundamentally a moral judgment that society has made.

Society has always barred certain activities that are in essence a slippery slope. You can preempt violence by banning activities which are shown to escalate to murder. Torturing of animals for example. Even if it is socially fine to eat them.

Since society legislates the common, secular morality of the masses through law, (nature of a democracy) law often does not have to have a logical basis. It just has to be in line with the constitution and be passed by the legislature. But every law is a reflection of people's morals. Society holds people's rights as sacred.

Murder has been illegal in almost every legal system in history. It's a no brainer. Where the government oversteps it's bounds is gay marriage, television censorship, (and though not a U. S. example) banning chewing gum because it makes your streets dirty and gets under park benches.

[tlj009]

No, because 1) we loose sales and 2) we simply cannot manufacture everything here.

What can't we manufacture here? I deal in the construction business. I am aware that most of our valves, fittings, etc. come from overseas because the US based companies went out of business or went overseas. As a result, some things are simply not manufactured here. But I am curious to know what cannot be manufactured here.