 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Time for your medication Mr Graham...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
BK - you are confusing coercive laws versus permissive laws (Imran, help out please – what are the technical terms used in your field if any). This is the single greatest confusor used by those who wish to legislate morality. That in fact is the same argument used for the imposition of Sharia in Moslem countries – is that who you want to associate with 
To use your example, there is no difference between a “Freedom of the Press” law and a Blasphemy law. They are totally different. A “Freedom of the Press” protects your freedom to write almost any opinion you want, and protects you from coercion by others. The Blasphemy law forces your behavior to conform to whatever standards those writing and passing it wish to impose on you, in this case typically from a religious vantage.
People then throw out the next confusor. All laws are coercive (by implication criminal law especially). I cannot remember who said this, but your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. Much of criminal, (and in certain areas of environmental law IMHO, i..e. when your toxic waste ends up in my drinking water), is based on that premise. Those laws are protective, instead of being coercive. This similarly applies to many areas of Business law regarding fraud. Again, one of the individuals is being “robbed”, except instead of strong arm tactics, they abuse the business structure of the country, putting that at risk in addition to sanctioning thievery.
Many business laws are there for the enforcement of various kinds of contracts. These laws are there simply because every society must have a method to enforce contracts, or that society dissolves into tribalism. Enforcement becomes a matter of warfare, with the stronger groups able to flout contracts because they have the largest armies. This leads to Warlordism and Balkanization. You could argue this is “imposing a belief system” but I would argue that this is simply providing the most basic framework to having a functioning society.
Now there are two very grey areas. The first is “victimless” crimes. I suspect Berz could write a much more comprehensive indictment of these, but they are coercive laws that prevent personal behavior that affects nobody else directly or consenting behavior between adults. These very much fall into your example, Ben.
These laws are imposing a belief system, which for example right now includes the fact that “Marijuana is bad.” Some people argue, very persuasively, that these laws are necessary to maintain societal order and cohesiveness (those who bother to try and hide the moral/religious nature of these laws). There are many of us who argue that such laws ARE imposing moral believes, and should be banned. FYI, this argument has been going on since the founding of the USA.
The other group of coercive laws include various business and regulatory laws. These often for example attempt to address things like asymmetrical power, i.e. work weeks, pay, etc. These have to do with a vision of what you want your society to be. These clearly fall into your area of “imposing a belief system” and, again IMHO, are very legitimate areas for various political groups to argue with and get into conflict over. One example is that some states give workers a right to take employment issues to court, while other’s permit business to impose an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. These two very different views are whether you believe businesses should be largely unfettered in the majority of areas in employment, or whether you believe workers should have certain rights, labeled by their proponents as basic.
Abortion, as I’ve mentioned Ben, is also one of those very few areas where coercive and permissive laws start to have a very messy overlap, as in you Ben will never have to be concerned about carrying a child after you are raped, or abused (as an adolescent) by a parent, relative, or adult authority figure. Conversely, that fetus/child is also affected by the prospective mother’s choices, and you have the makings of over a quarter century of arguments on this issue. However, we are talking a very small subset of the body of laws in any country. Most laws are not coercive, at least in democracies – funny thing, that. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
BK - you are confusing coercive laws versus permissive laws (Imran, help out please – what are the technical terms used in your field if any). This is the single greatest confusor used by those who wish to legislate morality. That in fact is the same argument used for the imposition of Sharia in Moslem countries – is that who you want to associate with
|
First of all, you are assuming that I want to side with the folks who want sharia, and that's not the case. I'm trying to draw out this very point that laws are in fact coercive, and that this is also a good thing that we have laws, even though they are coercive.
quote:
To use your example, there is no difference between a “Freedom of the Press” law and a Blasphemy law. They are totally different. A “Freedom of the Press” protects your freedom to write almost any opinion you want, and protects you from coercion by others. The Blasphemy law forces your behavior to conform to whatever standards those writing and passing it wish to impose on you, in this case typically from a religious vantage.
|
Those who would defend blasphemy prohibitions, say that the laws are intended to protect people from harms done to their belief systems. They see blasphemy, rather than an expression of beliefs, as a direct attack on their own beliefs.
Also, you forget that freedom of the press acts as a coercive restraint on those who attempt to restrict speech. It is a powerful tool, when enforced, and to say that it acts as permissive, only sees it from one side. I have, in many situations, wished for a stronger freedom of speech, in order to defend my own speech from those who would rather prefer me to go away.
quote:
People then throw out the next confusor. All laws are coercive (by implication criminal law especially). I cannot remember who said this, but your right to throw a punch stops at my nose. Much of criminal, (and in certain areas of environmental law IMHO, i..e. when your toxic waste ends up in my drinking water), is based on that premise. Those laws are protective, instead of being coercive. This similarly applies to many areas of Business law regarding fraud. Again, one of the individuals is being “robbed”, except instead of strong arm tactics, they abuse the business structure of the country, putting that at risk in addition to sanctioning thievery.
|
A libertarian said that, and the libertarian is right. All laws are coercive, in acting as a restraint upon those who wish to violate them. Where I disagree with the libertarian, is that certain restraints are necessary, in order to preserve the freedoms of everyone.
As for environmental legislation, that acts as a coercive restraint on those who produce the toxic waste, in forcing them to adopt specific practices to prevent the waste from getting into the water. Without a coercive restraint, the regulation has no force, other than through social pressure.
quote:
Many business laws are there for the enforcement of various kinds of contracts. These laws are there simply because every society must have a method to enforce contracts, or that society dissolves into tribalism. Enforcement becomes a matter of warfare, with the stronger groups able to flout contracts because they have the largest armies. This leads to Warlordism and Balkanization. You could argue this is “imposing a belief system” but I would argue that this is simply providing the most basic framework to having a functioning society.
|
Thank you! That's what I was hoping someone would say. It is essential for a working society to have regulations and restrictions, even if they are, by nature, coercive.
quote:
Now there are two very grey areas. The first is “victimless” crimes. I suspect Berz could write a much more comprehensive indictment of these, but they are coercive laws that prevent personal behavior that affects nobody else directly or consenting behavior between adults. These very much fall into your example, Ben.
|
What example did I provide?
quote:
These laws are imposing a belief system, which for example right now includes the fact that “Marijuana is bad.” Some people argue, very persuasively, that these laws are necessary to maintain societal order and cohesiveness (those who bother to try and hide the moral/religious nature of these laws). There are many of us who argue that such laws ARE imposing moral believes, and should be banned.
|
First of all, all drugs are regulated in some fashion, whether it be through laws barring drinking and driving, or the sale of such drugs to minors. This represents the fact that these drugs, though pleasureable, have a detrimental effect on the overall system of those who use them. This fact is not an issue in whether the drug ought to be legalised or not. All drugs, can, if used improperly, have a detrimental effect, even if they can have a benefit when used properly.
The argument is not whether these drugs ought to be regulated, but rather, how these drugs ought to be regulated. In banning the sale and distribution of marijuana, society has decided that the drug is harmful, and enough so, that it should not receive the benefits of legalised distribution. The same could be said of many other drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine and heroin.
The first argument if you want to legalise one drug, marijuana, is also to explain why marijuana ought to recieve preferential treatment over these other drugs.
quote:
Abortion, as I’ve mentioned Ben, is also one of those very few areas where coercive and permissive laws start to have a very messy overlap, as in you Ben will never have to be concerned about carrying a child after you are raped, or abused (as an adolescent) by a parent, relative, or adult authority figure.
|
Correct, I may not be concerned about carrying the child, however, no man is an island. To say that a child ought to be killed, because he or she has been conceived through rape, is a message that concerns me, even though I may not have to carry the child.
quote:
Conversely, that fetus/child is also affected by the prospective mother’s choices, and you have the makings of over a quarter century of arguments on this issue. However, we are talking a very small subset of the body of laws in any country. Most laws are not coercive, at least in democracies – funny thing, that.
|
All laws are coercive, otherwise there is no need for them. A law that is not coercive, is unnecessary, and ought not to be a law in the first place.
For me, the abortion debate is very simple. If the unborn child is a person, then society ought to protect the child from death, just as they would any other person. A mother who has the choice to kill her child in the womb, could also ask the same question, as to why she ought to be coerced from killing her child outside of the womb.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2005 19:41
.
Read my post again, this time with comprehension.
|