I've had some related conversations lately on the topics of criminalization and regulation of behaviors. I thought I'd bring the topic here. Some of the conversations went like this...
I made the point that I am fine with criminalizing behavior that is harmful (ie, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) and was generally opposed to criminalizing behavior that isn't harmful.
For instance, even if you disagree with gay marriage, where's the actual, physical harm? I KNOW that some think there is spiritual harm in gay marriage, but we don't generally criminalize those behaviors that cause spiritual harm, only that which causes physical harm. I am strongly opposed to the notion of trying to criminalize that behavior which SOME MIGHT THINK causes spiritual harm. That is not the proper role of gov't.
Anyway, I am fine with criminalizing that behavior which causes actual harm. As are most people. We have no problem making it against the law to take something which does not belong to you - taking my bicycle, taking her barbie doll, whatever, we rightfully criminalize theft because of the obvious harm by one to another.
FURTHER, I am generally fine with the notion of regulating/taxing other behaviors that cause harm at the larger level. One person driving a car is not necessarily dangerous or harmful in and of itself. BUT, 200 MILLION people driving cars, emiting toxins, causing wrecks... THIS does cause harm.
In saying this, one person asked...
How much power are you willing to cede to the government to regulate your actions? At what point do we start calling it tyranny?
I’m willing and desiring that the People would say to a company that would pollute the groundwater, “You can’t do that.” Are you willing to cede to enterprise your right to clean water? At what point does “free market” become tyranny?
Don’t be melodramatic. I’m speaking of behavior that has measurably harmful effects. The right of the coal company to blow up a mountaintop ends at the People’s right to clean water and intact mountains. Do I support the freedom of a coal company to dig for coal? Yes. Do I support the People’s freedom to regulate that behavior if and when it becomes toxic, dangerous or at a loss to the People? Yes! It would be ridiculous not to do so.
To give up our right to do so IS to give up freedom.
Obviously, at SOME point, regulations and laws could lean towards tyranny, or at least be overbearing and counterproductive. I think of the Prohibition laws against alcohol back in the day, or the prohibiiton laws of today against marijuana and other drugs.
But there is a line somewhere that needs to be drawn.
This critic seemed to be presenting this as if on ONE side his side) there is the fight for liberty at all costs and on the OTHER side (mine) there is the attempt to promote tyranny. As already noted, BOTH sides involve a loss of liberty.
Telling a motorist that he has to drive 25 mph in a residential zone IS taking away “liberty” – the freedom to drive as fast as he wants – but we’d be stupid NOT to regulate that behavior.
The thing is, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We DON’T have a right to take that away from others. THAT’s the difference I’m speaking of...
This person also said...
There is an extremely fine line between regulation and tyranny, so fine no one can really say where it is. When the government regulates pay? When it sets production? When it starts regulating what you eat, or how much you eat? How far you can drive? What you can drive?
I responded that I thought he was making this too hard: We have a right, as a People, to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As a result, we have a right and obligation to either criminalize or regulate behavior that takes away these.
"So fine that no one can really say where it is?" Of course we can and need to draw lines! Will these lines be perfect? No, but they are necessary nonetheless.
We already limit what you can drive: You can’t drive a tank. You can’t drive a street rocket.
I was asked...
Tell me where regulation ends and tyranny begins, in the name of “protection”.
The limit is, that which causes harm to others. When we allow people to take away the rights of others to life, liberty, etc in order to give OTHERS the right to make money, drive as fast as they want, blow up whatever they want, pollute, etc, we will have an ugly, undesirable society. I won't engage in the same sort of hyperbole as this critic and call it "tyranny," but I will call it unhealthy and undesirable.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Liberty, Laws and Regulations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
219 comments:
1 – 200 of 219 Newer› Newest»You can drive as fast as you want, you can drive a tank or a rocket car so long as you do so on private property.
The streets are public property, no where does it say we have the right to do what we want on public property.
I agree with about 95% of what you've written here. But I'd like some clarification on one point.
It's necessary to regulate what people dump into the air and the water because these are fluid objects that ignore property boundaries.
But mountains tend be rather solid. What do you mean by a right to "intact mountains"?
I also think that it's fair to sometimes call regulation tyrannical. As the book criminalization of so many normal activities makes us all vulnerable to errant prosecutors.
(I don't know why, John, but your link didn't work for me.)
Regarding this topic, I prefer to think in terms of moral vs immoral people. That is, I lean toward the effect of laws and regulations on the moral people. I think this reflects the attitude of the founders, that this nation and its gov't was meant for a moral people. The idea is that moral people do not need laws. They will always behave properly, or at least with a morally proper intent.
With this in mind, I have an especially hard time with laws and regulations that infringe upon the freedom of moral people.
One example are the many gun laws on the books, especially those that prohibit ownership and concealed carry. These laws were implemented to protect against the wicked, but the good are hurt tremendously by them due to the fact that they are left defenseless. Supporters of such laws make wild arguments to opponents such as, "what if someone wants a bazooka or a tank or a nuclear bomb?" But few people of even moderate moral character find such weapons practical for self-defense. I don't fear any "good" person who chooses to carry a Glock at all times. Rather, I feel safer knowing good people are armed at all times, even if I choose against carrying myself. But as I might choose to carry a weapon to defend myself and my loved ones and property, I resent the implication of such prohibitions that I can't be trusted to be responsible. It's unAmerican to presume I'm guilty.
Similar are laws against recreational drug use. I'm not keen on people having access to smack and meth and PCP, but the harm done to society by driving this market underground, both in terms of economics and crime, is undeniable. Plus, the same dynamic exists as in the gun example. Many people of high moral character enjoy a beer or glass of wine now and then. Many such people even get drunk now and then (not in itself a sign of high moral character, but not necessarily a sign that one is the opposite), and remain responsible enough to stay out from behind the wheel. Thus, to deny a person a toke now and then, is not protecting too many people from anything. No true harm is being done and responsible people can indulge in most anything in a responsible manner.
Those that act irresponsibly, or criminally in either of the above cases are already covered by laws, such as those against theft, assault, murder, consequences from negligence. These laws also govern corporations so that responsible corporations need not be burdened or stifled in their pursuit of profits because other corporations acted greedily.
In other areas, laws should promote behavior that is most ideal for society. That is what drives the support for traditional marriage. Two (or more) people are free to live as they choose. But thus far, society finds traditional marriage worthy of support and promotion. Thus, laws, regs and legal bennies reflecting this exist. Society does not see other "marital" arrangements to be beneficial (or as beneficial), so the definition remains unchanged.
As for harm, those who favor alternate lifestyles being granted the legal equivalence of the traditional refuse to even consider possible harm, even as we are seing that harm manifest not only in other nations that have so "bent over" for these people, but even in this nation already.
And no, I will not elaborate at this time. It would be too off topic. Suffice to say that at this point, there is no "criminalization" of the behavior that any state or municipality enforces (if existing at all), and denying them their whine is not "criminalizing" anything.
Thats a good point MA, society really have nothing to gain from gay marriage.
March 28, 2011.
The day I agreed fairly well with something Marshall has said.
Maybe.
Does gun ownership in and of itself cause harm to others?
No.
Should gun ownership be criminalized, then?
No. And it's not.
Does imbibing in mind altering drugs (alcohol, marijuana, etc) in and of itself cause harm to others?
No.
Should it be criminalized, then?
No.
We agree, as far as that goes.
Where the disagreement comes in, then (maybe), is in regulation.
Can we reasonably say that not just ANYONE should be able to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs? Can we make these off limits to children, for instance?
Can we reasonably place limits on driving while intoxicated?
Can we reasonably say that not just ANYONE should own guns? The dangerous mentally ill? Those with violence in their past? Children?
I think so. I think we as a society have a reasonable expectation of putting limits on SOME behaviors/activities. Thus, regulations on guns that allow us to check for criminals trying to buy guns, on the dangerously mentally unstable trying to buy guns, on WHICH guns we "allow" to be sold... I think this is all reasonable. Placing regulations requiring people buying drugs to produce an ID to show they're not children is reasonable. Criminalizing driving while intoxicated is reasonable.
How about it, Marshall, can we agree fully on that point?
Edwin...
society really have nothing to gain from gay marriage.
?! This is just a shocking statement to hear.
Marriage provides stability to soceity.
Marriage provides stability to families, which, in turn, provides stability to society.
Marriage provides legal protections to couples which, in turn, provides stability and justice to society.
Marriage increases fidelity and decreases licentiousness, both of which improve society, seems to me and, I think, any reasonable person.
Marriage provides faithful companionship, community and family to families and communities, which leads to a healthier society.
There is NOTHING that I can think of in healthy marriages that doesn't help out society. Do you hold marriage in low esteem, Edwin? How many times have you been married, incidentally?
John...
mountains tend be rather solid. What do you mean by a right to "intact mountains"?
Mountains are a boon for tourism, for local communities. They're part of the local value where they exist. Who has the right to decide to destroy one and the streams and valleys and families beneath it?
My point is that mountains don't belong to a company to destroy and why should a company's "right" to remove a mountaintop outweigh a local peoples' right to keep it as is?
Marshall...
laws should promote behavior that is most ideal for society. That is what drives the support for traditional marriage.
While I sort of agree with your idea, that also is a slippery slope to go down. Who decides what is "ideal" for society? The majority?
If so, the latest polls show that a majority DO now support marriage for all.
And, even if you reject that poll or doubt that it's true now, it will almost certainly be true beyond all doubt five years from now. Those opposing gay marriage are going the way of those opposed to the races mixing.
So, my question to you would be: Who decides what is "most ideal?" And will you stand by that point when the majority of Americans no longer agree with you?
I prefer to stand by my "that which causes harm can be criminalized/regulated," rather than just the more whimsical, "What is ideal?" measure. Ideals will change, what causes harm is measurable and verifiable.
My view is pretty simple: If it causes harm to others, we should regulate or ban it. Otherwise, ignore it.
MA blathers, "laws should promote behavior that is most ideal for society. That is what drives the support for traditional marriage."
No, they really shouldn't. We don't need that sort of social engineering, and usually it doesn't work anyway. (eg 50% heterosexual divorce rate.) If people want to get married they can do so without laws to support it. If they want to have kids, they can do so without robbing the rest of us to pay for their tax breaks.
We should have the fewest laws possible for the efficient and safe running of our society. We certainly don't need laws to promote things people naturally do anyway (eg get married and procreate.)
Dan,
Briefly, since I am short on time, those polls do not impress because they are samplings. The polls that do impress are those of states who put the question on their ballots at election time and found better than 60% in favor of maintaining the true definition of marriage. The sampling in THOSE polls reflect a more truthful feeling as the sampling is so much larger than polls such as what you present.
In the meantime, we have people complaining of social engineering, when those who support alternate lifestyles are working their damndest to do just that in the other direction.
I look forward to addressing your responses more completely as time allows. This is a good discussion to have. (the laws and regulation thing I mean)
"In the meantime, we have people complaining of social engineering, when those who support alternate lifestyles are working their damndest to do just that in the other direction. "
Nope, I'm all for getting rid of the needless restriction on the members of a marriage being of the opposite sex.
That is completely consistent with what I've already said.
Strike one.
Marshall...
those polls do not impress because they are samplings.
And my question to you remains: What of when it DOES change (if it hasn't already), that the majority support changing the laws in the interest of justice? Will you still be in favor of the pretty subjective measure of "what is in the best interest?"
I agree with Alan and stand by my original point: Harm to others should be the measure by which we decide if something needs regulation/criminalization.
Something went wrong with my comment. It's like a whole paragraph got cut off midway. Anyway, Dan wrote:
Mountains are a boon for tourism, for local communities. They're part of the local value where they exist. Who has the right to decide to destroy one and the streams and valleys and families beneath it?
My point is that mountains don't belong to a company to destroy and why should a company's "right" to remove a mountaintop outweigh a local peoples' right to keep it as is?
Absolutely not, and this is where you're using government force to infringe on another person's liberty.
The owner of the mountain is the only person who gets a say in what gets done with it.
And really, would you even stop with mountains? What about valleys? Plains? Shoot, all land?
"Nope, I'm all for getting rid of the needless restriction on the members of a marriage being of the opposite sex."
I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you were "married". If I am wrong on that, there are people of the same sex marrying each other all the time. Indeed, if you want to commit yourself to anyone for the rest of your life, and the other person wants to do the same for you, who is restricting you? The UCC has no shame in performing same-sex marriages. What's your problem? Obviously, it's that you demand that the rest of us, otherwise known as "the state", recognize such unions as legitimate and equal to the real deal, the union of a man and a woman. That's social engineering. Strike that.
"What of when it DOES change (if it hasn't already), that the majority support changing the laws in the interest of justice?"
There is no injustice as the laws stand now, so I don't get the question. But if you're suggesting that if the sentiment amongst the people may change enough that the majority thinks it is just dandy that any arrangement of peoples can be called "marriage" and the state should recognize them as it now does the real deal, the union of a man and woman, I would think the nation is truly going to hell in a handbag. It certainly wouldn't be an example of events turning in the best interest of the nation. If the majority of Americans thought that everyone should shoot smack, or drive drunk or jump off a cliff, I don't see that the best interest is being served just because of majority approval.
What's in the best interest is not all that subjective if the facts are honestly appraised. On this topic in particular, homosexual "marriage", there's not a whole lot of honesty from the supporters of that bad idea. So I really don't care to get into a discussion on it at this time, especially after being accused of having an obsession with the issue (as if it is I who is trying to change the law and Scripture).
More later.
Marshall...
There is no injustice as the laws stand now, so I don't get the question.
You suggested that we "should promote behavior that is most ideal for society."
I asked you, "Ideal," according to whom? The majority?
The point is, your suggested standard for what ought to be law is subjective, emotion-based and a bit whimsical. I was asking, "ideal" according to whom to try to help get across the idea how whimsical and subjective your suggested standard is.
I was asking "ideal, according to the MAJORITY?" to point out that ideals change over time. The majority of people at one time had no problem with laws banning inter-racial marriage. But the majority changed on that point (rightly so).
So, I'm asking you to clarify, "WHAT standard? Ideal, according to whom?"
Are you suggesting we ought to make laws that Marshall finds contributes to an ideal society and that Marshall is the standard? Or the majority?
Again, this is why keeping the standard closer to only being that which causes harm to others is more objective and rational, not subjective and whimsical.
Marshall said...
On this topic in particular, homosexual "marriage", there's not a whole lot of honesty from the supporters of that bad idea.
Marshall, you can't reasonably lob out this false witness, this unsupported charge and at the same time, make a claim to civility. If you have some specific charge to make, with evidence, make it. Otherwise, I'm unimpressed that you have these whimsical hunches.
We shall pass to make law based on appeasing Marshall's tender feelings, I hope you can appreciate that.
I'll repeat a point that I made to another ridiculous and unsupported charge from Edwin earlier:
Marriage provides stability to soceity.
Marriage provides stability to families, which, in turn, provides stability to society.
Marriage provides legal protections to couples which, in turn, provides stability and justice to society.
Marriage increases fidelity and decreases licentiousness, both of which improve society, seems to me and, I think, any reasonable person.
Marriage provides faithful companionship, community and family to families and communities, which leads to a healthier society.
There is NOTHING that I can think of in healthy marriages that doesn't help out society.
EVEN IF you have an unsupported hunch that marriage between some folk (gay folk) is not spiritually healthy, surely you can recognize that there are only benefits to endorsing commitment, fidelity, community, family, wholesomeness.
"Obviously, it's that you demand that the rest of us, otherwise known as "the state", recognize such unions as legitimate and equal to the real deal, the union of a man and a woman. That's social engineering. Strike that."
Actually my favored option would be that the state no longer recognize marriage at all.
Barring that, then the state will just have to do what the 14th Amendment says, and not discriminate.
So no, it isn't social engineering at all. It's justice. In other words, as I said above, the law should make sure that people are not harmed. So this law needs to be changed.
Completely consistent.
Thanks for trying MA, but again, as usual: you FAIL.
You could at least link at me! I've got a few new post that should also get your dander up.
"Actually my favored option would be that the state no longer recognize marriage at all."
A common theme among those who want things their own way to serve their own ends. The state has a vested interest in supporting real marriage. Wintery Knight has links to and a recent video with Jennifer Rorbach Morse that explains it all very nicely.
"Barring that, then the state will just have to do what the 14th Amendment says, and not discriminate."
The state is not discriminating, except where being discriminating is proper (children, for example). What you want is for the state to accept YOUR definition of marriage, which is not a correct one.
"So no, it isn't social engineering at all. It's justice."
So no, you've got it backwards. It wouldn't be justice at all to change things to your preference. Indeed, where such changes have occurred, unjust practices have risen against those who maintain a more rational, not to mention Christian, perspective on the issue.
The current legal view does NOT need to be changed because no harm is being done as a result of it. For example, we needn't change marital laws in order to allow you to have visitation rights when your "spouse" is in the hospital or to make medical decision. That's simply a matter of changing hospital policies.
And the current situation does not prevent anyone from living in a "marital" arrangement. If you are truly committed to each other, so people like Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell would have us believe, no piece of paper will make a difference (except that they think it will put pressure on their relationship---go figure). What's more, there are plenty of corrupt churches and profit hungry banquet halls that will facilitate such unions.
Furthermore, the true "haters", like Fred Phelps, and apparently Dan in his former life, are no more allowed to beat on one type of person than on any other.
No injustice under the current situation.
Marshall posted some comments with some falsehoods/attacks. Here is his comment with the ad homs removed...
Dan,
I have "lobbed" nothing but truth. The supporters of whom I spoke have built their arguments on one or both of two [premises with which I disagree]:
1. Scripture does not prohibit all form and/or manifestations of homsexual behavior.
2. There is nothing abnormal about same-sex attractions.
"EVEN IF you have an unsupported hunch that marriage between some folk (gay folk) is not spiritually healthy, surely you can recognize that there are only benefits to endorsing commitment, fidelity, community, family, wholesomeness."
What I recognize is that by forcing this notion that there is no difference, parents have to accept their children being taught that which they find sinful, unwholesome and absolutely inappropriate for their ages.
What I recognize is that people who understand the truth are forced to forsake their Constitutional rights to free association and religious expression under the laughable guise of "justice" for a tiny minority who want their own way regardless of the positions of others (not to mention the above facts).
What I recognize is that health care costs will rise as a result of more people freely engaging in harmful sexual practices, because of course, we couldn't omit consequences of these "natural" desires from coverage.
What I recognize is that any possible arrangement of people will also have to be accepted as natural, normal and entitled to legal protections (that go far beyond simply getting a marriage license).
I recognize [that I believe there is] harm [in same sex marriage] while you [believe the harm] is non-existent.
Marshall...
I have "lobbed" nothing but truth.
You stated THIS line, Marshall:
"On this topic in particular, homosexual "marriage", there's not a whole lot of honesty from the supporters of that bad idea.
You made an UNSUPPORTED (and I contend, false) charge that there is a lack of honesty in the supporters of equal marriage rights for all. There is NO - ZERO - support for that charge. As such, it is, by definition, UNSUPPORTED. If you'd like to provide support for it, you could. But then, even that would be off topic and, thus, an ad hom attack.
The topic of this post is: On what grounds do we create laws/regulations? I support criminalizing/regulating that behavior which causes harm to others. You have suggested you think it good to create laws based on a so-far undefined and subjective appeal to "promote behavior that is most ideal for society."
I remain awaiting an answer to my question: "IDEAL," according to whom?
Do you have non ad hom comments on the topic of the post, or an answer to that question, which is on topic?
Marshall...
The supporters of whom I spoke have built their arguments on one or both of two [premises with which I disagree]:
1. Scripture does not prohibit all form and/or manifestations of homsexual behavior.
2. There is nothing abnormal about same-sex attractions.
1. Scripture DOESN'T prohibit all forms/manifestations of homosexual behavior. That is YOUR interpretation of LESS than a handful of rather obscure passages.
2. Homosexuality is not "the norm," no one claims otherwise. But that does not mean that it isn't "normal," in the sense that it isn't a naturally occurring orientation, not unlike heterosexuality. It normally happens in the real world that some percentage of folk are attracted to the same gender, or to both genders.
Neither of which has anything to do with the question: On what basis do we make laws.
Any ON topic commentary?
Marshall had this off topic commentary...
What I recognize is that by forcing this notion that there is no difference, parents have to accept their children being taught that which they find sinful, unwholesome and absolutely inappropriate for their ages.
Are you suggesting we have a right to not hear about people who hold different opinions than ours? That we have a right to have our children taught by teachers who ONLY agree with us? Well, you DO have that right, as far as school goes, insofar as you can homeschool them. But we have no right to NOT be in a society where people hold different opinions/values than we do. Are you suggesting (per the topic) that we ought to be able to criminalize/regulate people holding different opinions than we do?
Marshall had other off topic commentary on his fears of what "might" happen in a world where gay folk enjoyed the same privileges as straight folk, concluding with...
I recognize [that I believe there is] harm [in same sex marriage] while you [believe the harm] is non-existent.
So, if you have evidence that there is actual harm in equal marriage rights for all, you could present it. But rattling off a list of your fears of what might happen is not an especially compelling way of making your case. And it seems (getting back to the topic) that you are suggesting that it is a good idea to criminalize/regulate behavior which is offensive to Marshall and those who agree with him, regardless of harm. If that's your position, I'll have to say that this, too, is not compelling.
Alan had some commentary that included some sarcastic mocking. I've removed/toned down that and here is the rest of the commentary...
Marshall:
"A common theme among those who want things their own way to serve their own ends."
"What you want is for the state to accept YOUR definition of marriage"
LOL. Actually, I did really laugh out loud at that one.
Um, yeah, I do want gay marriage to be made legal.
Boy, MA, you're [correct.] Imagine that, people! MA has *totally* [understood my position by] claiming that I support something that would, in fact, affect me positively!...
Marshall:
"And the current situation does not prevent..., etc"
There are currently over 1000 special rights given to heterosexual married people based on their particular lifestyle choice. And that's just from the federal government.
Yes, I actually want access to those same special rights. I know, that's a shocker.
MA has clearly and convincingly completely exposed my secret: I want the same things everyone else gets.
Bra-friking-vo, MA. Bra-vo. *golf clap*
What's your next... revelation, MA? That grape nuts do not contain grapes? Or perhaps that ice cream is .... icy?
Aww... I was being nice, Dan!
I totally acknowledged that MA pwned me by his simply stating an underlying premise of my position as if it were some brilliant winning argument. :)
In other news... Dan, the only reason you care about the fairness of laws is because you think fairness is a good thing. *Wham!* I got you on that one! I win!
Ha!
:)
How about this, Dan?
Why not, just for awhile, keep all my comments intact and find some way to highlight what you consider to be "ad homs" or insults or snark. I've been trying really hard to refrain from any "ungracious" behavior, while you continue to allow it from others. Now, I don't really care about what others say about me. I really don't. But you are deleting or adjusting my comments far more and I don't believe you are being in the least bit fair about it. What's more, I'm concerned about the parameters when you simply delete comments I've intended to comply with your demand for "grace" and such.
Furthermore, I wasn't the one who brought up homosexual marriage. You did. It's right there in the post. As to harm, I didn't present opinion. I presented a short list of the problems ALREADY occurring because of lefty cow-towing to the this tiny minority who seek to alter thousands of years of tradtion, law and understanding. Don't give the "hunch" crap.
And no, educators have no right to take a position on the morality of this issue without the consent of the people who pay their salaries. That right there is an example of harm being done.
The issue is akin to Frank insisting that the state recognize his preference to be a cat, or Napoleon, or a woman without the trouble of a sex change or dressing and acting like one. The state is not required in any way, shape or form to deliver happiness to anyone. It is only required to protect one's pursuit of it. That does not include forcing the rest of society to live in a manner that pleases the 2% that are homosexuals.
Now I've plainly stated that I did not want to engage in a debate on the homosexuality, but you seem to be insisting.
As to "ideal", such is not as subjective as you make it out to be. It IS ideal for a man to marry a woman, despite the abnormal attractions some may have. It IS ideal for a child to be raised by his biological parents, despite that some biological parents should never have had kids. It is NOT ideal that everyone should have what they want simply because they want it, like homosexuals, and then claim injustice when they don't get it.
More later.
Marshall...
Why not, just for awhile, keep all my comments intact and find some way to highlight what you consider to be "ad homs" or insults or snark.
Why not, just for a while, not post comments that are ad homs? Comments that are off-topic attacks not related to the post in question?
As to the "fairness," I've been far harsher on others on my side than I have been with you. That you don't see it does not make it untrue. It's just that they haven't fussed about it.
Marshall...
I wasn't the one who brought up homosexual marriage. You did. It's right there in the post.
Marshall, if I posted a commentary all about how much I LOVE ice cream and HATE broccoli and, in the midst of that, I reference a boy who loved broccoli, and then someone chose to comment about how boys are stupid, that does not make it "on-topic."
Just because marriage is listed as an example in my post on WHAT GROUNDS ought we use for creating law, does not make this a post on marriage.
Do you have any thoughts on WHY and HOW we ought to create law? Do you have an answer to my on-topic question about "IDEAL," according to whom?
Marshall...
educators have no right to take a position on the morality of this issue without the consent of the people who pay their salaries. That right there is an example of harm being done.
So, as it relates to the topic, you are suggesting that the laws should be that teachers can't express political opinions in classrooms? Or are you suggesting that teachers have no right to hold/offer opinions on morality in the classroom? OR, are you saying that teachers can express SOME political and/or moral opinions in the classroom, but not others?
And, in either case, what is your reasoning for suggesting that teachers have no right to express political or moral opinions in classrooms?
I wasn't aware becoming a teacher meant forfeiting your right to freedom of speech.
Marshall...
Marshall...
As to "ideal", such is not as subjective as you make it out to be. It IS ideal for a man to marry a woman, despite the abnormal attractions some may have.
I'm not sure that that word - subjective - means what you think it means. "Ideal," Marshall, TO WHOM? WHO gets to decide what is ideal? The Gov't? Your church? My church? The Southern Baptists? The Jewish Orthodoxy? Reformed Judaism? The Sierra Club?
If you're in Utah, is it the LDS that ought to decide what is ideal?
WHO?
You're making a case for basing laws upon "Ideals." I'm asking you a reasonable question: WHO gets to decide what is and isn't ideal?
If you just repeat again, "'ideal', such is not as subjective as you make it out to be." I will again repeat: Ideal to WHOM?
Or, how about this? YES! Let's base laws on what I think is ideal.
Fair enough?
Many children do not want to eat what is good for them. To them, what is "ideal" is nothing but cookies and ice cream. But that is not really "ideal" at all, is it?
Do adults have to comiserate on the notion of "ideal" in order to settle on ideal laws and regulations or on ideal conditions for life? Sure. But their majority vote doesn't guarantee what "ideal" is, but only what they think it is at the time.
Most gun laws are not "ideal" because they leave law abiding citizens at risk. (BTW, there are gun laws that restrict ownership, though some have recently been struck down in court) There's a push to publicize who owns guns (maybe only in Illinois, though I'm not sure). This is not ideal because it opens up non-owners as easy targets and gun owners as sources for firearms. This is clearly a proposal that does great harm.
"I wasn't aware becoming a teacher meant forfeiting your right to freedom of speech."
You mean like teaching about Christianity as the best option? You're right. Teachers are free to teach that all day long.
I'm not talking about opinion, which is indeed restricted in most public schools, but pushing opinions held by only the corrupt left, such as homosexuality is just peachy and normal. Most people object to this implementation of the agenda.
Let me clarify: Most people who actually give it any thought.
Did any of that make any sense to anyone else?
Was that even a reply of any type to my comment?
Was it actually English?
Sorry, MA, I left my MA-to-English dictionary at home today.
But to answer my own question, no, becoming a teacher does not mean forfeiting your right to freedom of speech.
OK, instead of being snarky, I'll be nice:
OK, MA, please quote chapter and verse of whatever law you think it is that requires teachers to forfeit their first amendment rights.
Should be simple enough.
Cannot wait to see the answer to this one...
Alan...
Did any of that make any sense to anyone else?
Not me.
Marshall, what I'm asking you is...
1. Do you really think that we should enact laws based upon what is "ideal?"
2. If so, how do you define ideal? Who gets to decide what is ideal? Can we enact laws that are ideal based upon Dan's hunches?
I'm sorry Marshall, but I seriously, no snark or mocking intended at all, have no idea what you were just trying to say? Were those answers to the questions we asked?
Alan...
to answer my own question, no, becoming a teacher does not mean forfeiting your right to freedom of speech.
I think we can reasonably assume that employers have a SOME rights to hold SOME expectations of their employees. If a teacher claims his free speech means he can try to convert a student in class to Christianity or Islam or Zoroastrianism, I don't think that free speech covers that teacher. The schools can reasonably expect teachers not to just say anything and everything they want.
We all have free speech, but in the workplace, there can be legitimate consequences to that speech. I'd say that's a fine line we can dance upon.
Teachers (and other jobs as well) DO have free speech, but in the workplace and in schools, we can have reasonable limitations placed upon that free speech.
And, trying to keep it on topic, I'll re-ask:
In either case, what is your reasoning for suggesting that teachers have no right to express political or moral opinions in classrooms?
On what grounds do we create laws?
Dan,
You speak in terms of doing no harm. I wonder if we might feel the same way if rewording that to say that laws punish harm done. There is no law that cannot be broken. To say "Thou shalt not murder" has not yet prevented murder from being committed.
So on one hand, some laws are consequences for actions that cause harm. In this sense, regulations that say "don't pollute" are worthless. Laws that say, "if you what you introduce to the water supply causes harm, you are liable for medical expenses of the harmed" that's reasonable. A second offense would bring more punishment. A third, far more. (a rough sketch to be sure)
I'll leave that there for now.
To clarify my answer to Alan, teachers are indeed restricted as to what they can say or promote in schools. But those restrictions do not include things that parents might oppose. Sometimes parents can have their kids opt out. There is a push to prevent that as regards pro-homosexual propaganda. The point here is what is or isn't allowed for a teacher to say or teach is a matter of politics.
As to what law prevents a teacher from speaking freely, I've wondered that myself. As regards religious matters, we're told the fictional "wall of separation" prohibits any expression of faith.
Marshall...
In this sense, regulations that say "don't pollute" are worthless. Laws that say, "if you what you introduce to the water supply causes harm, you are liable for medical expenses of the harmed" that's reasonable.
I'm fine with that approach, and, in fact, I think that's not far from what we have right now. BP has been made liable for damage done to the Gulf, and that's good.
The point I'm making is that these laws/regulations are dealing with behaviors that cause harm.
So, then, are you agreeing with us? What then, of the suggestion of laws that promote "ideal society?" Are you still suggesting that ought to be a criteria and, if so, WHO decides what is ideal and on what basis?
As I recall, BP was already dealing with those who entered claims against them without having to be "forced". Obama's demand for money was a political stunt. Had BP not been doing a damned thing for those affected by the situation, pressure would have been rightly applied. It was unnecessary at the time. Again, as I recall.
But if my recollection is correct, and I don't say that it is, it would better reflect my position. If BP was already addressing claims, obviously no law was necessary to force them to do so.
Indeed, no law is. If I suffer as a result of an action or accident of another, I can go to court to seek compensation. A judge and/or jury can decide if and how much I am owed based on arguments heard and evidence presented. If my suffering was due to pollutants introduced into the water supply, and I can provide evidence that a particular company was responsible, I should be entitled to compensation and a judge and/or jury will agree. The accused will then be made to make amends, AND ideally, alter his business practices to prevent another occurrence.
But a law against such a thing will not prevent an occurrence if some company decides to risk punishment that might not excede the profits made. We see this all the time in various ways.
"Do no harm" is not what any law is really doing if by law we mean the consequences of an action that is harmful. What we're saying is in effect, "if you do harm..."
And what is the result? It is to reach an ideal. That ideal, in the most general sense, is to do no harm. That's a minimum goal. It does little else.
Other laws, like tax laws in the beginning, encourage behaviors that are beneficial. If one desired to get the same benefits as a business, one then goes into business himself. What result is there? More prosperity for the new business owner, more opportunities for others if the business hires, more options for the consumer. That's an ideal that does not require Marshall Art, or anyone else, to decide. It's rather self-evident. It's more a matter of realizing and accepting the truth of it.
furthermore...
I recall a cartoon wherein a family was confronted with a sign as they entered a park or forest area. The sign said:
No hunting
No fishing
No camping
No camp fires
No feeding the animals
(the list went on for a bit and then ended with...)
Enjoy your day in the park
If we form laws with only "do no harm", how do we determine THAT? That is every bit as subjective as promoting an ideal. I'd argue more so. Alan thinks he's being harmed because of support for traditional marriage. (We who support traditional marriage know better.)
Now it seems to me that Alan and I agree this much: start with no law first, allowing for free action and liberty and go from there.
We can regulate, for example, speed through residential areas because it promotes an ideal of safety and responsibility. It doesn't prevent higher speeds, however.
Other laws or regs govern things like whether or not privacy fences are allowed or how high they can be. How close to the street a fence or structure can be. Whether or not one can have lighting at night and how much. Etc Etc Etc. These laws promote some ideal or other in terms of community aesthetics. Very subjective, but it was decided by somebody and agreed to by everyone else who decides to live there.
It would still require a level of subjectiveness, but laws that promote liberty and freedom are the basis for the ideal I have in mind. Or rather, laws should not infringe upon liberty and the lack of law, combined with a proper upbringing and understanding of morality and righeousness (like the founders believed) should guide our law making.
As a reflection resulting from my recent vacation, let me just say that I find it appalling that there are billboards all along the highways in several states advertising strip clubs and "spas" which are little better than whorehouses, many of which are engaged in human trafficking. Personally, I would love to see restrictions placed on such advertisements.
I can't imagine how anyone would object to that, seeing as business advertising is not free speech under the Constitution.
"As regards religious matters, we're told the fictional "wall of separation" prohibits any expression of faith."
There is a fiction there, but it isn't the separation of church and state.
Instead, it is a fiction that any statement made by a teacher in any direction regarding religion will result in a lawsuit. It is a fiction which, in my experience, is promoted by expediency and fear. That is, some teachers may be afraid that making any sort of statement about religious matters will result in a lawsuit. It might indeed result in a lawsuit, but one they can reasonably be expected to win.
But it is also a fiction promoted by some groups of Christians who seem to revel in their peculiar fetish of being seen as some sort of oppressed minority.
In the schools I've worked at, every one of them had a Bible Club, which was free to advertise as any other school club and had a faculty advisor. I saw students pray before lunch regularly. I saw students meet every morning for prayer. None of these activities was abridged in any way.
I taught chemistry, so matters of faith rarely came up, and while I told students that religious questions were best left to their minister, priest or rabbi, the students all knew I am a Christian.
However, another fiction is the "homosexual agenda" garbage, that is simply taking a page right out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nonsense of anti-semites.
Interestingly enough, while I knew I would never be fired for being upfront about being a Christian, I also knew that acknowledging my sexual orientation (which was an open secret, students do use the web, and my name is prominently associated with several Presbyterian LGBT organizations) would probably have gotten me fired on the spot.
So spare me your uninformed and misinformed crap, MA. Once again this is a topic I know much more about than you.
"Now it seems to me that Alan and I agree this much: start with no law first, allowing for free action and liberty and go from there. "
Good gravy. It must be Sunday if MA and I agree on anything. I had to read that 10 times just to be sure. But he's right we do agree, and that would be an accurate statement of where I start when it comes to making laws.
Will wonders never cease?
My father taught English literature to high school seniors, and one of his favorite books to teach, after doing Beowulf, was Grendel, by the late John Gardner. When he introduced the book to my class, he said that there might be scenes in the book that some parents might find objectionable, and his advice was for the students not to tell their parents about them. The passages in question were not really objectionable, but they might shock a bit.
Now, I'm sure Art would object to such an attitude, but I find this refreshing both because it trusts the intelligence and maturity of seventeen and eighteen year olds, and it assumes that subject matter approved by a curriculum committee would be defended should a parent raise an objection. He taught that book for a couple decades without, to my knowledge, a single complaint.
How nice, Geoffrey, that your father thought it proper to encourage kids to hide things from their parents. How sad that he didn't possess the intelligence or imagination to find other materials from which to teach. It really isn't a case of what any particular child is capable of digesting. It's whether a given teacher has the right or authority to determine such a thing in place or over the authority of the child's parents.
How sad and pathetic that any teacher feels compelled to force upon their captive audience that which might be morally questionable. The fact that your father suggested the potential of parental objection and chose to delve into the material anyone indicates a decided character flaw in your father. What HE wanted to do was more important than how any parent might feel about it. Nice guy. NOT!
BTW, Geofrey. Whether or not YOU find the passages objectionable is hardly relevant. The question is what the parents believe. There is a plethora of alternatives that few would find objectionable from which any teacher with a shred of decency and compassion for the feelings of others could choose.
Art, have you ever read Grendel? Have you ever read Beowulf, or The Taming of the Shrew, or any Thomas Hardy, such as Jude the Obscure? These are all works my father taught, all approved by the curriculum committee at the school, supported by the Board of Education. If every work that some parent would question was removed from a reading list, there would be, quite simply, nothing left to read. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Billy Budd, "The Monkey's Paw", "The Pearl", Of Mice and Men are among the works I read freshman through senior year of high school, all of which contain all sorts of things people would find objectionable. The five Shakespeare plays, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, The Taming of the Shrew, and Macbeth (which my father also taught along with Shrew, Alice in Wonderland, and so many others) are filled with sex and violence, murder and incest and sexual innuendo and parricide and fratricide and political intrigue and suicide and witchcraft - all reasons some folks would want them not taught.
That is why there are Boards of Education, and curriculum committees, and teachers such as my father who were unafraid of criticism such as yours who wanted the minds of young people exposed to all sorts of things so that they could grow and think. If that included thinking the material was objectionable, well, that would be OK as long as it came after exposure to it.
Marshall...
If I suffer as a result of an action or accident of another, I can go to court to seek compensation.
I'm sorry Marshall, but I'm having a really difficult time figuring out your position. Are you now saying that you are opposed to laws, in general? And if someone steals stuff from you or kills your dog, you should sue them?
But, you can only go to court and seek compensation if LAWS or REGULATIONS were violated, right? Courts decide how to settle LAWS in complaints against others, right?
I'm not at all sure what you're saying.
And I still don't think you've answered the question: IF we're creating laws based upon ideals, WHOSE IDEALS will we base them upon?
Perhaps some straightforward Q/A would help?
Marshall:
Do you believe that laws are sometimes justified?
Do you believe that regulations are sometimes justified?
ON WHAT OBJECTIVE basis do you think that laws should be based upon?
On what objective basis do you think regulations should be based upon?
I'm sorry if I'm just not swift enough to catch your answers if they're in there amidst your many words. Perhaps straightforward answers to these straightforward questions would help me understand?
Since the days of Horace Mann public education has been understood as just that, a public good, serving the needs of the whole community. Exposing children to a variety of sources of information, a variety of viewpoints, a variety of interpretations of historical, literary, and other interpretations serves the public good by providing them with the tools to think, for themselves, in a critical and open fashion.
Also since the days of Horace Mann the debate over the relative weighing of private moral instruction and public moral inculcation has gone on. Of course the public schools teach certain values, none of which, to my mind, conflict in any way with any set of values except, perhaps, those of a sociopath. By offering students the opportunity to experience what they might not otherwise experience, encounter ways of thinking and living and being human that are vastly different from any experience they may have the opportunity of experiencing for themselves, the students can, over time, weigh the merits of the values and moral teaching they bring from their home and test them against the variety they come to learn about in school. In this way our communities do not stagnate, do not wither under the oppressive weight of a tradition no longer fed by insight, wisdom, or novelty.
In other words, just because you or some other parents might object to the content of this or that class - Darwinian evolution in biology, say, or The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test in a literature or contemporary history class - does not mean you or any parent have any right of veto over its inclusion. Most school districts do provide opportunities for parents to register their objections, and the teachers do have the opportunities to provide alternatives (except, perhaps, in the case of evolution by natural selection). All the same, public schools do not exist to make better workers, nor do they exist to serve parents. They exist to create well-rounded, thoughtful adults who can make our communities and our country better because they have been given the most precious gift in the world - the ability to think for themselves.
Marshall...
If we form laws with only "do no harm", how do we determine THAT? That is every bit as subjective as promoting an ideal.
Do you really think so?
Do you think, "Um, your honor, he took $25 from me and that has harmed me, as I need that $25. Additionally, he beat me about my head causing me to incur a $3000 doctor's bill," is subjective, or do you agree that harm has OBJECTIVELY and CLEARLY been done?
In contrast, "Your honor, I believe ideally that men should marry women and that this other stuff is not ideal...," do you NOT see that this is the very definition of subjective?
Harm IS measurable and obvious, although sometimes moreso than others, or sometimes not clearly "blame-able." The asthmatic who can't go outside on days with the worst pollution would have a hard time saying WHO exactly is responsible for that pollution, or WHAT exactly is to blame (the factory next door, the 1 million cars in his city...), but clearly, harm is being done.
Do you really think that "harm" is not at least relatively objective? Do you not think that poison in the groundwater is NOT objectively measurable? Do you not see that murder, rape, assault, etc are objectively harmful?
Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your blanket condemnation of "harm" as a reasonable criteria for creating laws?
Geoffrey, I'll have to side with Marshall on the school point, at least a little bit. I'm not saying that parents have the right to veto a teacher's curriculum, but they DO have a right to be informed.
I'd be outraged if I discovered a teacher had been teaching from a book called "Pacifism = totalitarianism and socialism!" in a social studies class and that was the one voice being presented, for instance. As a former teacher and a parent of school children, I believe in transparency in our transactions between teachers, parents and children.
If my kid's school wants to invite military recruiters into middle school to get them thinking about the army as a career, I want to know about it. If my school wanted to teach kids Christianity or Islam or Zoroastrianism, I'd like to know what's going on.
Why would we NOT be open about what we're teaching? Yes, some parents may disagree with what is being taught and yes, that may gum up the works, but the alternative - having teachers secretly passing on information without informed consent, that would be worse.
Seems to me.
Thank you, Dan.
More to the point is the notion that Geoffrey's father acknowledged the material was morally questionable to at least some parents, and not only chose to teach it anyways, but encouraged the students to lie (by omission) to their parents.
What's more, Boards of Education and curriculum committees are neither all-knowing or especially morally upright and perfect. In recent years, High School District 214 had a controversy over a number of books on their summer reading list that had more than merely suggestive portions or passages of sexual innuendo. They were freakin' pornographic. A solidly Christian woman on that board fought to have those books removed as inappropriate for high school kids (which they were) and other members of the boards resisted. I don't recall the outcome. Geoffrey might be aware of this issue.
Stevenson High School in Lake County had issues of inappropriate sexual seminars wherein the students were advised not to tell their parents about it.
If you want laws and regulations, such indoctrinations need to be severely regulated.
Dan,
Obviously, there does need to be laws and regulations. We are not perfect beings. The founders certainly recognized that were we angels, not only wouldn't we need laws, but no gov't at all.
Yes, do no harm can be very subjective. That doesn't mean a baseball bat against the head should be viewed that way, but at the same time, the ideal that no one should ever fear one bouncing off their skulls isn't all that subjective, either. That's a fairly common ideal, don't you think?
But jailing a person who struck another with a bat doesn't prevent other potential home-run hitters, does it?
But you don't see harm in things like illegal entry into the country. But there is harm done that is documented whether you want to see or believe it or not. You don't believe there is harm in homosexual marriages being made legal, but there is evidence of harm in Scandinavia. You believe there is greater harm done to a body if the guy with the bat is beating him because of prejudices he might have. All these are examples of things you support based on subjective opinion.
But what I seek is liberty. I don't want my liberty infringed by laws and regulations designed with the bad guy in mind rather than the good guy.
An example is the drunk driving law. In most states, the legal blood alcohol limit is .08. For those of us with a commercial driver's license, it's .04. I don't know if realize just how little alcohol is required to reach that low limit. I once saw a chart in an office of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. It showed what it would take to get the average guy my size to .08. Let me tell you...I'd feel cirrhosis of the liver long before I'd ever feel impaired if I only drank that much, and I'm not even in the Big Beer Drinking Brotherhood, if you know what I mean. Now consider that I hold that CDL. A local school bus driver lost her job because she stupidly complained abuut her hangover. She blew .046! That was from the previous night! She lost her job without being drunk! Talk about subjective!
Such a law came about after years of ignoring laws already on the books when one could pay a lot to a lawyer to get off a drunk driving arrest. Now, my ability to drink and drive is restricted far beyond a reasonable degree. No. I'm not supporting drunk driving at all. I'm opposing regulation that is a one-size fits all that deprives me of responsible behavior from which I should not be restricted. Responsible people can indeed drive while under some level of impairment. Responsible people know where the line is they shouldn't cross. Responsible people should not be prohibited due to the reckless behavior of others.
So one standard of law creation must provide that irresponsible people are dealt with while responsible people have room to move.
One size fits all. That kinda describes the problem with laws and regulations in a nutshell. It also makes it difficult to be specific about what I would use as a bumper sticker philosophy of law making, such as "do no harm", or trying to describe the "ideal Ideal" of which I spoke.
First of all, my father's remark was meant as a humorous note, not a serious conspiracy against parental authority. He was, after all, my father, and being one himself, recognized that parents have certain responsibilities toward their children, even as they approach their legal majority.
The point, however, is a serious one. Unlike Dan, I would have no problem with a teacher bringing literature to class that equated pacifism with totalitarianism, or attempted to claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist, or that the Founders were proto-fascists. On the contrary, exposure to the widest range of ideas, good, bad, crazy, or indifferent, is part of the education process. Why object?
As for "morally questionable", precisely because that is such a slippery notion, how do school boards take it in to account? In Grendel, the monster is portrayed as a rebel against both humanity and God, as in the original 8th century poem. As such, he exhibits a rage and hatred against both that some would certainly find objectionable, such as flipping the bird to God early on for making the sun shine upon him as he stands upon a heath, or gleefully contemplates the slow torture and burning of human bodies, in particular women who both attract and repulse him with their combination of remote beauty and sexual attraction. When, on a raid, Grendel spies the young wife of Hrothgar standing nearly naked he ceases killing Hrothgar's soldiers (their weapons are ineffective against him anyway) and is overcome with an attraction/revulsion that is atavistic. He later fantasizes roasting her over an open fire, burning away the source of that feeling that made him stop, confused him.
What teenage male doesn't understand that feeling? What teenager doesn't get what is happening with Grendel at that moment, overwhelmed both by sexual desire as well as the disgust and guilt that come from desiring something so animalistic, so primal with an individual so beautiful, almost unapproachable in her beauty?
That is what is at the heart of the "morally questionable" bits in the novel. A creature described as warring against God expressing his hatred for God; a creature seeing true female beauty for the first time and overwhelmed by the confusion of emotions and physical effects such a moment causes. Even if you find such passages, in and for themselves, objectionable, what is wrong with getting seventeen and eighteen year olds to realize that fighting against God might well be futile? What is wrong with getting near-legal adults, or actual legal adults, to read their own experience of the confusion brought on by the combination of sexual and romantic desire when they encounter an individual who truly stirs those feelings for the first time? If nothing else, it validates those feelings, makes them real, makes the young person fell less like a freak, less like an anomaly.
I love Grendel, and read it again just a few short years ago, and might pick it up here soon. I would let my thirteen year old read it, and there are many books I wouldn't let her read, for any number of reasons (including books I have on my shelf, like Lady Chatterley's Lover and The Illuminatus Trilogy and Sister Carrie).
Marshall...
More to the point is the notion that Geoffrey's father acknowledged the material was morally questionable to at least some parents, and not only chose to teach it anyways, but encouraged the students to lie (by omission) to their parents.
Well, I don't have a problem with schools/teachers teaching that which some might find objectionable. As Geoffrey noted, if we eliminated ALL objectionable material, we'd be teaching not much at all.
My objection is to not being open about it.
As I stated above, this was my father's sense of humor, not an actual instruction. My father could deal with complaints from parents, he did it frequently, although not to my knowledge on this particular work.
He also taught, through a cooperative arrangement with a local community college, AP English composition and reading classes, using the material the professors at the college used. When I was a junior, a girl I knew who was a senior taking that class came up to me during lunch one day and whispered that one of the "poems" (actually a contemporary song) assigned as part of the reading had, as she put it, "the f-word" in it. Getting back in touch with her via Facebook, I asked her if she remembered this incident, and she did, laughing that she was being ironic, seeing as one of her goals her sophomore year in college was to rid her usable vocabulary of that particular word. In any case, once again, we have an instance where parents might object to their children being exposed to such language. In order to fulfill the requirements of the course, however, exposure to morally questionable material, or material that presents language some might find objectionable, is part of the process.
Marshall...
She blew .046! That was from the previous night! She lost her job without being drunk! Talk about subjective!
Marshall, I don't think you're getting the definition of "subjective." Setting a standard of .04 or .08 is, by definition, OBJECTIVE. It's the setting of an OBJECTIVE standard for what we consider "too drunk," in that case. It's measurable, defined.
Now, just because a regulation is objective does not mean it's perfect. In this case, alcohol affects different people in different ways at different times based upon many factors.
But unless you want some incredibly labyrinthian legal system that sets out to FURTHER define "too drunk" by say, "A DRIVER IS CONSIDERED IMPAIRED IF THEY ARE BETWEEN 100-125.4 LBS AND HAVE HAD NOTHING TO EAT IN THE PREVIOUS 4.25 HOURS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY TYLENOL THE PREVIOUS NIGHT AND IF THEY HAVE A FAMILY HISTORY OF ALCOHOLISM AND IF THE ALCOHOL CONSUMED WAS IMPORTED FROM EUROPE, AUSTRALIA OR THE REPUBLIC OF CONGO. FOR DRIVERS 125.5 - 152.75 LBS, WHO HAVE NOT CONSUMED ANY NYQUIL THE PREVIOUS NIGHT (OR DAYQUIL THAT MORNING) WHO HAVE CONSUMED MORE THAN 12.2 OUNCES OF AMERICAN BEER...
Hopefully you get the point. We can NOT create law that tries crazily to define "impaired" for every possible situation. So, we have to choose a baseline number of some sort - what else would our options be?? It's not a perfect solution but it IS objective and it is better than having NO law to deal with impaired drivers.
Tell me, Marshall, in your world, what would the "impaired driving" laws look like, and based upon what?
Geoffrey...
I would have no problem with a teacher bringing literature to class that equated pacifism with totalitarianism, or attempted to claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist, or that the Founders were proto-fascists. On the contrary, exposure to the widest range of ideas, good, bad, crazy, or indifferent, is part of the education process. Why object?
What I object to would be the attempt to do so without parental knowledge.
Transparency, that's what I'm talking about. Encouraging secrets is what I was objecting to.
I'm glad to see the comment about "not telling the parents" was made as a joke. I'm fine with that, as a joke, not as policy.
Marshall...
One size fits all. That kinda describes the problem with laws and regulations in a nutshell. It also makes it difficult to be specific about what I would use as a bumper sticker philosophy of law making
It almost sounds like you're wanting an even BIGGER gov't solution to problems and harm. If one single standard for impaired driving is not good enough, how complex would you want to make it?
I'm not unsympathetic to the notion that setting standards is not a perfect solution, but I can't figure out what exactly you're proposing instead?
If measurable harm is not a reasonable standard, but un-measurable "ideals," ARE more reasonable, what does that look like?
The current laws for drunk driving ARE already more complex than needed. Organizations such as M.A.D.D. were created after current laws failed to properly deal with drunk drivers. Deaths were occurring because drivers who already had drunk driving arrests were still on the roads after paying off lawyers. From this outrage, the blood alcohol level was made to be .08. What should have been done is to disbar judges and lawyers who allowed the drunks to keep their licenses. When the cop pulled the guy over for weaving on the road, and then staggering and slurring his speech for the cop, the result should have been, at the very least, a license suspension and a stain on his record, so that the next cop who pulls him over can jail him and expect a more severe response from a more responsible judge.
Now, in order to prevent what had always been preventable, they've gone to extreme steps of arresting unimpaired people because of a tiny level of alcohol in their blood. Liberty is restricted.
This is a difficult example to use without sounding as if I look forward driving while blind. I don't. I have little patience for drunks in general, and less sympathy when they pay the price for their behavior. But many responsible and moral people let their hair down now and then and now the manner in which they do it is dictated by people who don't know them for reasons to which they did not contribute. Doing no harm caused harm of another sort. And no, I don't think "it's worth it" is a good excuse to frame law in this manner.
Most laws hold people liable for actions taken that cause harm to others. This is elementary. But many of them don't affect the freedoms of moral and responsible people.
Okay Marshall, help me out. What WOULD YOU LIKE to see in place of a law that places a .08 as a limit on where you can and can't drive?
And what would be the REASON for that law?
Would you have that law in place (whatever it is) because society righteously criminalizes drunk driving and thus regulates/defines what that means? And does society rightly do this because it is in our best interests to criminalize/regulate behavior that is harmful? If that is not the reason, then what is?
I'm trying to look to your answers to the TOPIC OF THIS POST - On what grounds do we create laws/regulations?
Geoffrey,
A joke? Sounds like tap-dancing to defend your father. Is he a mind reader capable of knowing when each kid in class will take it as a joke? Or does he actually tell them, "I'm joking. You can tell your parents anything about what goes on in my classes." (Why do I think you'll now claim the latter to be the case?)
It is ludicrous to suggest that adults don't know the limits of traditional propriety or that there's any confusion as to what constitutes a real moral issue. It's also a joke to pretend that liberal educators don't play fast and loose with these notions based on their own greatly slanted opinions on the matter.
And you are mistaken as to the purpose of schools. For K-12, they are for educating kids in the skills they need to be functional in society. Parents and churches are for molding their morality. This is what the liberal educators tell us if the push is to teach Christian morality. But if it's to teach secular morality (as if there is such a thing), such as homosexuality as a morally benign state, or sexually explicit prose in literature, why then parents need to buck up and shut up.
And to clarify, where you said...
in order to prevent what had always been preventable, they've gone to extreme steps of arresting unimpaired people because of a tiny level of alcohol in their blood. Liberty is restricted.
YES! Liberty IS restricted. That is the point and I think you and I agree that liberty OUGHT to be restricted. We both agree that people who are drunk ought not be driving, right. If so, then you and I agree that OUR LIBERTY TO DRIVE A CAR IS RESTRICTED TO DRIVING ONLY WHILE WE'RE NOT IMPAIRED. Am I correct, we DO agree that we both (all) want that "liberty" restricted, right?
So, it appears you have a beef with where that objective line has been drawn (.08%, in your case), but NOT that you disagree with having a line drawn at all, right?
So, if we ALL agree that we WANT "liberties" restricted, no need to point that out, as if SOME of us want liberties restricted and others don't.
Switching from education to the whole discussion concerning the example of drunk driving, I just love Art's construction regarding "moral" people who "let their hair down". So a guy who is my age, 45, without a blemish on his record, who has a couple too many at a celebration, gets pulled over, blows a .09, should, what, not get arrested because he's a decent sort and has never done anything like this before? That's how I read it.
Following on this logic, why get all uptight over some guy, my age, never been arrested, married, father of two, gainfully employed, yadda yadda, gets caught with a small bag of marijuana on his person. Small as in it would barely be enough for one person to use. Are you suggesting that this, too, is wrong? I guess I'm trying to understand the kind of thing you are talking about here.
Geoffrey...
should, what, not get arrested because he's a decent sort and has never done anything like this before? That's how I read it.
This is why I've asked Marshall for clarification. He seems to be all over the road on this one, and he seems to be calling for a pretty subjective, hit and miss sort of legal system, all the while complaining about subjectivity.
Or, put another way, Marshall seems to be calling for a two-tiered (at least?) system that treats "bad guys" (defined, how?) one way and "normal folk" (defined, how?) another way.
Marshall, could you clarify?
I'm guessing that Art doesn't much like the Anglo-American judicial tradition, rooted in the idea that the violation of laws are not personal, but public, effecting everyone. Moving from the kind of Germanic system in which one paid another who one did wrong - the wergeld - the system changed under the Frankish influence after the Norman invasion in the eleventh century to make laws not personal but a matter for the entire public. This is the fundamental reason the system discourages, say, the idea that owning a gun for personal protection is a good thing. Ask any police officer and most will acknowledge that anyone, even a well-trained gun-owner, is unlikely to use a gun in a circumstance to defend one's person or property, and they usually advise, if possible, removing oneself and one's loved ones from the premises and allowing law enforcement to act.
This is why court cases in criminal law always involve the state versus a particular individual. A crime against an individual's person or property is not just a violation of that individual, but the public peace.
Art's asides against attorneys are fascinating reading. My guess is he has never needed one in a criminal matter. For my money, the biggest pain in the butt attorney would be the first person I'd call if I needed one. Those are the folks who understand how the law works, how to get the best for their clients.
The law is about the specific application of general rules of conduct in particular instances. Does a particular incident fall under a generally recognized definition of the terms of a particular statute? If so, in what way? Are all the qualifications of the terms met? Studying law is a fascinating exercise in the interpretation of words and their relationship to real life, which is why many lawyers studied either logic or literary criticism as undergrads - to get a grip on reading and reasoning.
Geoffrey said,
" So a guy who is my age, 45, without a blemish on his record, who has a couple too many at a celebration, gets pulled over, blows a .09, should, what, not get arrested because he's a decent sort and has never done anything like this before? That's how I read it."
Why were you made to blow in the hose at all? You obviously weren't driving in a manner that suggested control of your vehicle, to say nothing of your own motor skills. But if you were pulled over for a broken tail light, and in the normal routine of the cop asking the usual questions, said you came from a celebration and for THAT you were made to take a sobriety test, I'd say you were jobbed. Here's an example in reverse.
I started the bowling season three weeks in. I ran the handicap pot and two guys won all three pots and kicked me back my usual drink, which at the time was a double Jack. I also had my usual at the usual intervals and the result was that, not being in game shape, I got a bit shit-faced. Aware of my condition, I hung around until closing trying to wait it out a bit while having a bite to eat. Eventually I had to leave, as they were closing.
From there, I drove one block to gas up the car and from that point, my trip home was almost all expressway, with one east-west taking me to the northbound road home. From the gas station to the northbound expressway is a five-minute trip doing the limit, if that. Before I could take the on-ramp to go north, I was pulled over. It was a totally random stop with the excuse that the cop supposedly got a call that I was "crossing the lines". Again, five minute trip to this point at the most. No freakin' way any cop could get a call about me and find me within a total time span of five minutes from the time I left the gas station.
Anyway, he asked the usual "where ya going?" "home" "where ya been" "the bowling alley" "have any drinks?" "Yes, it's the bowling alley" "I'll have to ask you to step out of the car."
He had me do a few things, like stand on one leg and count to thirty "One thousand one, one thousand two..." after saying the alphabet. I passed, he let me go, I was drunk. But not so drunk that I couldn't control my car, maintain the proper speed and be aware of other cars on the road (there weren't too many at that hour, which is why I probably got pulled over---he was fishing). I might have blown a .10 or more, but I was still responsible in the sense that though I, myself, would have preferred more time before driving, I was aware I needed to take extra care. (I'm not one who believes being drunk excuses forsaking responsibility.)
The point here is that despire my ability to perform, had he simply made me blow the hose, I'd have been arrested without having been a danger to others. Liberty restricted unjustly.
"Following on this logic, why get all uptight over some guy, my age, never been arrested, married, father of two, gainfully employed, yadda yadda, gets caught with a small bag of marijuana on his person. Small as in it would barely be enough for one person to use. Are you suggesting that this, too, is wrong?"
Yes. Why carry so little if you can't get a buzz? While it's illegal, you deserve to get busted for carrying so little you can barely get high. What kind of idiot does that?
Seriously, I disagree with the current prohibition of weed. I would be less pleased with laws trying to bust you for driving high, as I don't think a weed buzz is as detrimental as far as affecting one's motor skills. It's about the same as being really tired. Laws against pot are really stupid. (I am speaking of what adults can do)
"This is why I've asked Marshall for clarification. He seems to be all over the road on this one..." *snicker* "All over the road" *guffaw*
My point was that there were already laws and penalties for drunk driving well before the institution of the .08 blood alcohol content rule. All one needed was to show a lack of control on the road, or recklessness, and smell of booze and a cop could bust you for drunk driving. Field sobriety tests were already being used as well. As things stand now, I can't argue my way out of BAC test where I am over .04 (as a CDL holder) because despite the fact that I would not be drunk in reality, legally they would say I am. Where's the justice there? So that law, intended to prevent harm, has indeed harmed me by putting unjustifiable restrictions upon me. I'm made to suffer for a combination of other people's sins as well as those who allowed those people to continue sinning without consequence (until they killed somebody on the road).
So it's not a mystery. In the case of drunk driving law, bad guys were those who have been convicted of drunk driving because they were actually drunk. Good guys are those convicted because they were just over the subjective limit by BAC but were not in fact drunk.
The laws that were in place were not enforced. The result was the people died. That led to more laws that were burdensome on responsible people, when the response should have been to enforce the existing laws.
Dan spoke of liberty and restricting it. I come from a perspective of going out of our way to keep from restricting it. Restrict it only when there is no other alternative. There is almost always an alternative, and that is to deal with those who abuse their liberty and leave the rest of us alone.
Again, So, it appears you have a beef with where that objective line has been drawn (.08%, in your case), but NOT that you disagree with having a line drawn at all, right?
You AGREE that liberty can be restricted, you just prefer the more subjective but demonstrative (walking a straight line, touching your nose) than objective (BAC) test, is that right?
So we AGREE that liberties ought rationally be restricted in this case.
We also AGREE, I suppose, that the measure is "people can't do harm," and letting impaired people have the "liberty" to drive impaired is allowing them the chance to do harm, am I right? Or, if not, on what basis are you speaking of limiting liberty?
Would it be fair to point out, Marshall, that you have a vested interest in this BAC regulation? You seemed to suggest that others here had reasons that were suspect due to them having a personal reason for wanting justice.
Is having a real world instance of what you believe to be injustice happening to you and your friends mean that you are less credible or more?
I'll say that on the BAC-as-measure, I have no great opinion. I'm dead set against drunk driving and have no sympathy for those caught and punished. And my REASONING for being so strongly opposed to it is because of the potential for harm.
Now, I'm a tea-totaller and that may make me less concerned about the hows of enforcing the law, I just want to see the potential for harm cut down. IF BAC is an inefficient way of doing that, I'm supportive of changing it. If it works pretty well, I'm in favor of keeping it.
In this case, since there is no fundamental right to drive and certainly not to drive drunk, I'm less concerned if we set a bar too high. Any line we draw will be imperfect. IF we use field sobriety tests, some will complain, "But I DID walk a straight line, it was the officer who didn't think I did! My alphabet was NOT slurred, I was just tired, that's all!"
Field tests are imperfect, inexact measures of sobriety. BAC-tests are too, but they are at least objective, not subjective. The point is, some line needs to be drawn to protect citizens from those who might reasonably cause harm, and any line drawn will be imperfect.
It's all an inexact process, Dan. But I think I understand the founders well in saying that they favored the fewest restrictions on law abiding people. Liberty to live as one chooses without gov't intervention was the standard. Laws are supposed to punish bad behavior (or harmful, if you prefer). Being a bit sauced isn't bad behavior, even if it isn't perfect behavior. What I'm saying is that in the case of drunk driving laws, I'll suffer as if I am some kind of reckless drunk if my BAC is over .04, when the amount of alcohol I'd need to consume to double that still won't make me drunk. So who was at risk by my level being .06 if I was still in total control and driving responsibly? The limit is not objective at all. It's subjective and overkill due to the effects of absent enforcement in the past.
So, once again, it isn't so much that I agree that liberty must be restricted. That's only true if you want to say that liberty includes behavior that is dangerous and detrimental to the safety or rights of others. I don't. Liberty requires morality. Moral, responsible people should not have their liberty restricted. The fewer laws the better.
We must also consider which laws we're discussing. Village codes, for example, that regulate things like the presence, type, size and/or location of fences might offend, but at least there are ways to find out what the codes on fences are before purchasing a property in that village. Such codes are usually the result of deliberation, the results of which most residents approve.
But what harm is there by ignoring those codes? The harm is not as noticable, but it exists in property values as the aesthetics of the village is compromised. But a ten-foot high privacy fence up against the public sidewalk that totally hides the entire property does no physical harm to anyone. (Except to those who run into it)
But I have no great desire to drink to excess with any regularity. My current job prevents my membership on a bowling league, so my drinking is almost non-existent. I miss the sport, not the drinking, and I don't generally drink to get drunk anyway.
But my liberty is unjustly curtailed as I now have to consider the ramifications of every sip, wondering when I've crossed the legal limit because I can't freakin' feel it.
But I brought up drunk driving laws, as well as gun laws, to illustrate a problem with the manner in which many laws are imposed upon us. I oppose laws that inhibit the law abiding, the moral, the responsible. These two areas are comparable to the many more complex laws that inhibit businesses that are run responsibly, but are harder to use as examples.
You want to see certain regs and laws maintained because of concern for Mother Earth, as if the goal of those restricted is frivolity alone. You want the population to forsake comforts, and without realizing it, necessities (as in medical, for example) that rely on the continued mining and drilling and production of resources.
Geoffrey,
I need to take issue with another of your statements. This one is in regards to "asides against attorneys". I did nothing more than to explain the facts regarding what led to the current drunk driving laws. Attorneys and judges allowed drunks to continue driving. When enough people got pissed that innocents were dying because some asshole with previous drunk driving arrests was at fault, the laws got more restrictive. Everyone deserves defense in court. That doesn't mean the guilty should be given a pass. Any attorney that looks to get a guilty person a pass is not a good person (assuming he knows his client is guilty). The guilty need to be held to account for the sake of justice for the injured party.
BTW, not every police officer believe the public should be disarmed. They may parrot the company policy, dictated by politics, in public. But in private will advise friends and family to arm. They know that responsible people are no threat.
I agree that laws broken are an affront to society in general. But they are specifically an affront to those actually harmed. Once again, refer to the founders who felt that the individual had a right to liberty. Responsible moral individuals do not interfere with the rights of their neighbors and thus do not require laws (in theory). Laws provide the individual justice against rights upon which another infringed. When another finds justice, I benefit, but only to the extent that I have the expectation of finding justice myself. (I also benefit if the one found guilty is no longer a threat to society, if he was at all)
A couple things. First, as a non-drinker, non-drug-user, my examples were completely hypothetical. I am opposed to any driving after having had any alcohol whatsoever. I find the .08 BAC threshold far too high. At the same time, I find the stringent laws punishing even the slightest, smallest possession of as harmless a drug as pot to be ignorant and ridiculous. Far less dangerous than alcohol - pot is, among its other minor virtues, not an inhibition-relaxing drug; in short, it does not create a-holes, but marvelously relaxed, sometimes even childlike wonder - marijuana is non-addictive, but I would also argue that driving under the influence of THC is as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol.
Second, you seem to be arguing for a certain amount of police discretion in regards to how they decide to arrest or not arrest different persons in different circumstances. Most cops I know are forthright to insist they do exercise such discretion all the time, and that is a good thing. At the same time, police officers are not judges and juries, so their discretion is limited. If there is a clear violation of the law, whether it is drunk driving or whatever else, they are limited in how they can respond because they only enforce the laws. If they witness what they believe to be a violation of particular laws, they make arrests. It is up to the courts to decide whether or not an actual crime has been committed and what the punishment might or should be.
As far as attorneys go, sure they managed to keep some folks on the road who probably should not have been. That is them doing their jobs, and if the laws in question were lax enough to permit such shenanigans, that isn't the attorneys' fault. That is why the laws were changed in the first place. Which is my point exactly.
Finally, to argue in any manner that the only victim who counts is or are the individual or individuals who are harmed in one way or another by the commission of a crime is to return us not only to the old Germanic notions of law, but to a state where law itself no longer functions properly. By defining, either through court precedent or statute what constitutes the violation of another's person or property (Britain, for example, does not have a statute regarding what constitutes homicide or its various gradients, but these definitions have been made through the accretion of hundreds of years of common law court cases), the matter becomes legal and not personal. It becomes a matter, then, of justice and not vengeance (the Germanic system, for all it worked well enough under certain circumstances, was little more than an elaborate system of vengeance; interestingly enough, legal historians note that killing human beings usually carried far less stiff penalties than killing another's cattle or other sustenance-providing animals).
That is why I, for one, find the gratuitous exploitation of the families of victims in court cases to be not only against the whole notion of Anglo-American justice, it pretends that, for example, the families of murder victims somehow have a greater insight in to the violence done to all of us by the horrible acts under scrutiny. It also assumes they have some legal propriety on the scales of justice, for which I can find no logical or other reason. Finally, by and large the scenes that ensue when family members testify in court, particularly in penalty phases, is embarrassing. Grieving, enraged, their querulous emotional state is exploited by opportunistic prosecutors (who are, you know, those despised attorneys of yours) who wish to use these moments of extreme vulnerability to achieve a particular end. If you really think prosecutors care about the victim's families, you are far less intelligent than I give you credit for.
Marshall...
my liberty is unjustly curtailed as I now have to consider the ramifications of every sip
Seeing as how you have no "liberty" to drink and drive impaired, your liberty is NOT curtailed - justly or unjustly. You STILL have the right to drink as much as you wish. You DON'T have the right to drive impaired. Driving is a privilege and the safety of the citizenry outweighs your WISHES to drink and drive.
You agree, don't you, that you have no innate "right" to drive, much less drink and drive, don't you? You agree that it is a privilege, not a right, don't you?
Marshall...
You want to see certain regs and laws maintained because of concern for Mother Earth, as if the goal of those restricted is frivolity alone.
I have been quite clear that MY goal is to see laws created that protect others from harm.
I still am waiting to see you to respond to the actual topic and offer WHAT RATIONAL GROUNDS DO YOU HAVE FOR CREATING LAWS?
Marshall...
You want the population to forsake comforts...
I want people to enjoy their liberties to the extent they wish to enjoy them. I DON'T want to give SOME people the "liberty" to harm others, though. I maintain that, as a rule, laws ought to be created to outlaw/regulate harm from being imposed upon others, taking AWAY "comforts" and liberties.
On what basis do YOU think we ought to create laws, Marshall?
Marshall...
...and without realizing it, necessities (as in medical, for example) that rely on the continued mining and drilling and production of resources.
This is just more strawman ad hom junk, Marshall, as I have not suggested this at all. IF you could actually support any of your ridiculous spurious attacks, that would be one thing, but you continue to make off topic false charges. Which you are FREE to do in our nation up to the point which it starts to cause harm. Which is as it should be, I believe.
But what of you, Marshall: On what basis do YOU think laws ought to be created?
Marshall...
It's all an inexact process, Dan.
Is this your answer to my repeated, unanswered questions? Are you saying you are unable to articulate a rationale for when and where you would like to see laws created, and on what consistent basis?
If you can't address the question, that's fine. But you might just say so, so as I don't keep asking it of you. And then, perhaps you ought to move on, since THAT is the topic of this post.
Marshall...
...But I think I understand the founders well in saying that they favored the fewest restrictions on law abiding people
Me, too, Marshall. The fewest restrictions on people's liberties, and yet enough that protect OTHER people's liberties. When someone steals something from someone, they are causing harm by restricting someone else's liberty to keep what is theirs.
Marshall...
Liberty to live as one chooses without gov't intervention was the standard.
???
Marshall, do you think I'm OPPOSED to people having the liberty to live as they choose without gov't intervention? YOU are the one who wishes to intervene in the area of marriage rights for all with no serious reason other than your emotional attachment to NOT letting two guys call themselves married and enjoy the many legal rights straight folk enjoy.
To clarify: I FULLY support people having the liberty to live as they choose, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T; and UP TO THE POINT WHERE THEY cause harm to others.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. I support you enjoying your right to swing your fist anywhere and everywhere you wish. Have fun with that. Do it all day and all night if you wish. BUT, your right to swing your fist ENDS at my nose. At that point, it is no longer a right, but a violation of OTHER people's rights, due to the harm caused to an innocent bystander.
And so, Marshall, I'll ask you to address these questions or go away, if you just want to whine about how you're being oppressed by being required not to drink while you're driving...
You AGREE that liberty can be restricted, you just prefer the more subjective but demonstrative (walking a straight line, touching your nose) than objective (BAC) test, is that right?
So we AGREE that liberties ought rationally be restricted in this case, right?
We also AGREE, I suppose, that the measure is "people can't do harm," and letting impaired people have the "liberty" to drive impaired is allowing them the chance to do harm, am I right?
Or, if not, on what basis are you speaking of limiting liberty?
Just direct answers would be helpful.
I've been answering the question repeatedly Dan, and in many ways, it mirrors what YOU seem to be saying but from the perspective of respecting liberty as opposed to "doing no harm".
If I'm a moral person, no possibility of infringing on another's rights is possible, at least without my willingness to make amends. As such, moral people do not need laws. Do you get this basic concept upon which the founders acted?
But we aren't perfect so laws are put in place. I think we're in agreement here.
I also want to re-iterate that drinking does not guarantee impairment of motor skills to any degree that would be obvious to anyone, including one's own ability to function. If Geoffrey thinks .08 is too high, then he has no idea of what it takes to get to .08. After a year of sobriety, I could drink at the level that brings me to .08 and not feel it at all. I think this is true for most people. As a CDL holder, .04 is a freakin' joke.
So to say that I don't have the right to drive impaired would be a great argument if I was promoting that privilege. I'm not. I haven't. I don't.
As to Germanic law and such, I don't really care. If you murder someone, I am not impacted except insofar as you might still be at large nad lacking the knowledge regarding motivation, I am at risk.
But there is no mention of any attitude that I believe laws should not be equally applied to all regardless of race, creed or religion or social or economic status. Thus, I don't see why Geoffrey feels the need to bring up this stuff except to appear like an intellectual.
I haven't called for any intervening in marriage law. There is no inequality in how it is currently applied. Anyone can get married. The problem is that some want to redefine what the word means. The current definition has served us well for thousands of years and reasonable, thoughtful and honest people see no reason to change that. The reasons for maintaining the current situation is far from merely the emotional or irrational. Quite the contrary, it is ONLY emotion and selfishness that drives the push to demand from the majority what the minority has no beneficial reason to demand. We, as a nation, are not in any way required to adjust our attitudes and practices in order to placate the perverted notions of a tiny percentage of the population. That is not, in any way, denying rights. It is not denying any pursuit of happiness. The state is not required to provide the happiness anyone might pursue. They are still quite free to marry, either the in the proper and real sense of the word, or in the alternative, distorted sense of the word that they insist the rest of us adopt.
Art: "I don't see why Geoffrey feels the need to bring up this stuff except to appear like an intellectual. "
Actually, I brought it up to make the point that the law, like anything else, has an interesting history that needs to be taken in to account. You may not care about that history, but understanding how the law functions is impossible without it.
Also, I never said that a .08 BAC is too high. I said I am not a drinker and oppose driving after having taken one drink, because there are enough studies that show even that can significantly impact reaction time and judgment. Furthermore, if the state regards a BAC of .08 as the legal limit, OK. If it defines it as it once did as .1, or reduces it to .05, or .04, or raises it to .2 because there are manly men like you who can handle their booze behind the wheel just fine, well I might have something to about such a rise, but once it becomes law, it is just that, the law.
As the law it is no longer "subjective", but an objective standard against which it is easy enough to determine whether that law has been violated. You may not like it, but there are all sorts of laws I don't like, too. The price we pay for living with a bunch of other people is we give up the absolute right to act like children, doing whatever we want whenever we want in whatever manner we want.
Okay, so I guess I'm slow. Would you mind posting your DIRECT and CLEAR answer to these questions?
1. You AGREE that liberty can be restricted, you just prefer the more subjective but demonstrative (walking a straight line, touching your nose) than objective (BAC) test, is that right?
2. So we AGREE that liberties ought rationally be restricted in the case of driving impaired, right?
3. We also AGREE, I suppose, that the measure is "people can't do harm," and letting impaired people have the "liberty" to drive impaired is allowing them the chance to do harm, am I right?
4. Or, if not, on what basis are you speaking of limiting liberty?
5. Where you say, "moral people do not need laws," you DO agree that people may well THINK they're moral and yet cause harm, right?
6. The person who THINKS they're "sober enough" to drive and who nonetheless wrecks and kills someone may be a perfectly moral person who is just a poor judge of when they're impaired (imagine that, someone whose judgment is impaired might have impaired judgment as to if their judgment is impaired!), is that right?
7. Moral people DO need laws. We need laws on how to interact with society. If we had 10,000 perfectly moral people on a road with no signs or speed limit, we WOULD have people harmed because of poor judgment on behalf of perfectly moral people, can we agree upon that?
8. Besides which, as you acknowledge, even "we moral" people are not perfect. Thus, we need laws, EVEN FOR moral people, agreed?
9. The problem with the measure of creating an "ideal" society is the question: "IDEAL" according to whom? Who gets to decide what is ideal in your world, Marshall?
If you have answered these questions, I have missed it. Would you mind a direct answer to them, as I don't believe you have offered a direct answer to any of these (some of these are new, based upon the latest statement you made, but for the rest I can see no direct answers)?
Returning to your comment, Marshall...
If I'm a moral person, no possibility of infringing on another's rights is possible, at least without my willingness to make amends. As such, moral people do not need laws.
Did you mean to say, "if I am a PERFECT person, no possibility..." rather than "moral?" You DO agree, don't you, that moral people infringe on other's rights all the time, even if in error or in ignorance?
For instance, you consider yourself a moral person, I imagine. And yet, you would infringe upon the rights of millions of people by refusing them the rights and privileges offered straight folk. Now, you disagree with the concept, but we are quite sure you are mistaken and you ARE infringing on their rights.
Or, flip it around, I consider myself a moral person. And yet, I have no problem with policies that limit driving to those who've been drinking. You would suggest that I'm limiting liberties, and I AM, I just think rightfully so.
I think you could easily make the case that PERFECT people need no laws, but I don't know any of those, other than Jesus.
Moral people need laws if for no other reason than ALL of us moral people are mistaken at times or because we disagree with other moral people, as we have here oftentimes between each other.
And it would also raise that yet unanswered question: WHO would determine who's "moral" and thus, whose ideals we'll abide by?
Dan,
Your notion of civility is very much like my notion of being a wise-ass. I have stated my position quite clearly. Where you fail is in expecting an exact formula that is beyond reproach. I stated that this exercise of how one would craft law is inexact. "Do no harm" is not even close to exact because "harm" is subjective. Does this mean there is no form of harm upon which all can agree? No. Of course not. But homosexuals believe themselves to be harmed by the rest of us who wish to maintain the true meaning of "marriage". This is crap, of course, but yet these self-serving people feel harmed nonetheless. Smokers can't light up in Wrigley Field anymore because some jokers believe they are somehow harmed by the wafting puffs of tobacco in the open air, never giving a rat's ass that their perfume is every bit as annoying.
Moving to your list:
1. I see where you confused the issue in the use of the terms "subjective/objective". The BAC level was arrived at subjectively. That is, the level chosen is subjective. As to the field sobriety tests, a cop uses his descretion all day long. It is up to the judge to decide if he did so in a manner that reflects his job as law enforcer, or if he went too far and the defendant is judged not guilty.
2 & 3. I plainly said I opposed impaired driving. I also said that under the current BAC standards, I am NOT impaired at .08 to any extent that could be determined easily. That is, should I be at .08 and involved in an accident, an expert would be hardpressed to determine if I was in any way impaired by a BAC of .08.
I do want to admit, however, that I've been able to review some materials and found that what it would take for me to reach .08 would be more than I'd drink in an hour. But I could reach .04 fairly easily. Still, it would be a stretch for me to drink at even THAT pace, and I would not be too impaired to drive safely. There is subjectivity involved in the BAC standards that make it easier to bust people, but not necessarily do so justly. I don't see that as a just excuse to craft a law.
4. Being drunk doesn't automatically equate to lack of reason or sense of responsibility. Back in the day, any level of inebriation would provoke a greater sense of caution in me. Any struggle to maintain speed or direction (and I'm referring to just walking to the car) would have compelled me to call a cab. IF I cannot maintain behind the wheel, it will be obvious and an arrest is appropriate. If I can function, and nothing in my driving shows otherwise, I should never be expected to prove I'm sober if pulled over for something like a broken tail-light, even if the cop thinks I may have been drinking.
I have to say that I'm getting tired of the drunk driving aspects of law creation, because it's hard to argue the point I'm trying to make without sounding like I approve of drunk driving. I don't.
5 & 6. So what? As to six, if a moral person with poor judgement drives drunk and kills someone, the BAC standards won't matter. You're still left with wondering if his poor judgement was enought to cause the accident with or without the drinking. What did he judge poorly? His level of drunkeness and ability to drive, or his judgement in a split second choice? Would he have made a better decision had he not been drinking? It's easy to say yes or probably, but no one can say for sure.
7. Perfectly moral people are honest about their abilities of judgement. But then, what judgements do you think are so hard for 10,000 people to not inherently agree upon? Speed and distance? Texting while driving? Moral people are honest people, don't you think? Honest people will understand the danger of texting while driving or driving too fast for conditions or following too closely, etc.
8. No. I don't agree. I don't think I said we weren't perfect so we, as moral people, need laws. I said simply that we are not perfect, we are not angels, not perfectly moral (or at least that's what I hope came across---I was following the sentiments of the founders).
9. The ideal exists without my participation in life. Were I never born, the ideal would still exist. It is as truth. Truth exists independent of any one individual or group of people and with "ideal" it's the same. Should all the world become Christian, even without all current Christians understanding the faith properly, the world would be closer to an ideal world.
I have to stop now. I'm impaired. Gotta cop some ZZZ's.
Art, your last two comments are astounding in so many ways, I'm not even sure where to begin. First, and perhaps by way of clarification, I think you are confusing "subjective" with "arbitrary" in your description of the statutory definition of alcohol-induced impairment levels. The legal limit in IL was set at .08 not subjectively, but perhaps, in your view, arbitrarily. It is not a number without reference to anything other than the whims of legislators. That would be "subjective".
All your talk about your abilities to perform with both judgment and reason while under the influence of alcohol make me wonder if I should drive in the north suburbs late at night or on weekends. Indeed, most folks who insist their tolerance for alcohol, and their abilities to perform without any impairment past the legal limit are those more likely to be the cause of mischief than those who accept the legal limits and act accordingly.
Furthermore, while you seem to believe the law impinges upon your liberty by setting an arbitrarily low threshold for the determination of impairment belies the reality that we live in a society with all sorts of people in it, including those who have a far less lower tolerance than your self-professed strengths. It is for that reason that we have laws that force all of us to curtail our behaviors and limit our choices of action at one or another time. The laws are for all of us, not set to accommodate you and you alone.
Finally, the selfishness underlying your approach to this particular topic, as well as your insouciance toward the known and quite well documented effects of even small amounts of alcohol upon the judgment and abilities of people might cause another with a bit more of an introspective bent to reconsider your oft-stated insistence on your own moral uprightness.
Marshall...
Your notion of civility is very much like my notion of being a wise-ass. I have stated my position quite clearly. Where you fail is in expecting an exact formula that is beyond reproach.
I don't really know what this means, other than you find my repeating questions annoying. I'm sorry for that. Feel free NOT to answer them.
I'm just trying to understand your position and get some straightforward answers to questions that arise in seeking to clarify your position. In order to better understand your position, I ask questions.
Do you have a preferred way for me to better understand your position when I don't understand it? Or to get answers to questions when they arise?
Marshall...
I plainly said I opposed impaired driving. I also said that under the current BAC standards, I am NOT impaired at .08 to any extent that could be determined easily.
Okay, so as to my first couple of questions, we DO agree that we can righteously support limiting liberties, if I'm understanding your answer correctly.
[As an aside, you know, if you agree with my question, you can say, "Yes, I agree," or "Yes, I agree, with this caveat..." and be more clear.]
[Also as an aside: The reason I am looking to the individual example (impaired driving) to determine an overarching principle (We can rightfully restrict liberties, in some circumstances) is because this post is about the overarching principle, not the individual example. I'm just trying to determine where we each come down on the overarching principle.]
So, setting aside all the impaired driving example, then you appear to AGREE with me that we have a right, an obligation, to restrict liberties (ie, create laws and regulations).
We further agree that the starting point ought to be liberty. We ARE a free people. We HAVE liberty. Gov't ought NOT remove our liberties... UNLESS.
Unless, what?
One purpose of this post is to suggest that a general rule for restricting liberty (creating laws and regulations) is that the Free Person has the liberty to swing his fist UNTIL he hurts someone else. He does NOT have the liberty to cause harm to others.
That is my starting point and it seems you do (or maybe not, it's hard to tell) object to that as a criteria. My hunch is that you DON'T object to harm as a criteria for when to limit liberties, just that you are suggesting that it's not harm and harm alone that you wish to see used as criteria.
But given your answers, it's just hard to be sure.
I think I'll leave it at that, as this is just too much like work. I do agree with Geoffrey's last comment, that for all your objections about subjectivity, you seem to be advocating an awfully subjective approach to at least impaired driving and, if I'm reading you right, just about everything.
You SEEM to be suggesting that "moral" people (defined, HOW, by WHOM?) ought to be left alone until such time as they are determined to be "immoral" (determined HOW, by WHOM?) and then we ought to impose penalties on THEM, not "moral" people.
Perhaps that's not what you are saying, but it sort of comes across that way - as if you would like an entirely subjective system of cops who use their intuition to guess who is moral and who isn't and arrest/let go accordingly.
I will return just to this last question answer.
Dan...
The problem with the measure of creating an "ideal" society is the question: "IDEAL" according to whom? Who gets to decide what is ideal in your world, Marshall?
Marshall...
The ideal exists without my participation in life. Were I never born, the ideal would still exist. It is as truth. Truth exists independent of any one individual or group of people and with "ideal" it's the same. Should all the world become Christian, even without all current Christians understanding the faith properly, the world would be closer to an ideal world.
????
We AGREE that Ideal conditions exist, regardless if we agree upon them.
We AGREE that these ideals/Truths exist independently of us, individually or collectively.
But my question is: WHO decides what is ideal, IF we are using "ideal" as a standard for creating laws?
IF that is your position, I am saying that I AGREE that it would be pollyanna cool IF we all lived to God's ideals. But my question is, HERE AND NOW, in this society (or any society) WHO amongst the people involved decides what is ideal?
The problem with your proposed criteria of "Ideal" for law creation is that we don't all agree what is ideal. Even amongst Moral, Responsible God-believers, we don't agree on what is ideal. Even amongst Christians or even amongst evangelicals, we don't always agree on what is ideal.
So, the problem with "Ideal" as a standard is that SOME PERSON or PEOPLE have to decide what is ideal and those people are not perfect and aren't representing everyone and, unless you're advocating a dictatorship, that is a problem in a more democratic setting.
So, while I live by ideals and love ideals, I don't think the subjective "we ought to base laws on 'ideals'" is a good criteria for law-making.
Here's how I'm reading Art. "Moral" individuals, by the very definition of the term, cannot break the laws of the community of which they are a part. If, however, such a person does trespass the law - such as, in the on-going example, getting caught with a higher than allowed blood alcohol content while driving - then either, (a) that person deserves a pass for otherwise being an exemplary, moral individual; or, (b) the law itself is misguided, an illegal and undue restraint upon the otherwise exemplary conduct of moral individuals.
How this possibly could ever be applied outside Art's head, I cannot even begin to imagine.
You get my point, then. I'm just trying to determine what systematic approach Marshall would advocate when it comes to law-creation. I GET that it's not as simple as "that which causes harm needs to be outlawed/regulated," but that IS a simple way of looking at it and a valid general guide.
This SEEMS TO ME to be the problem with some of our more conservative brethren: Their approach to laws/governance seems rather subjective and emotion-based, rather than objectively rational. They want to outlaw what they want to outlaw, no systematic approach necessary.
That too often SEEMS to be what they're advocating. And Marshall hasn't helped alleviate that concern.
Geoffrey,
What part of "I don't drive drunk" or "I don't support impaired driving" don't you understand? Such serves to convince me that you guys are not interested in civil discussion, but denegrating those who oppose your positions.
That I have driven drunk in the past is just that, in the past. I mentioned those incidents for the purpose of explaining that despite being intoxicated, I did not fail to maintain reason and a sense of responsibility. I still exercise caution (greater caution, actually, because of the drinking---no, not provoked by the drink itself, but the awareness that impairment may exist).
"The laws are for all of us, not set to accommodate you and you alone."
But some, like these, are based on the actions of a few, not the majority. I am restricted because of what others did, not what I ever did. I am restricted because others couldn't, more accurately in most cases, wouldn't control themselves while under the influence.
But you, because you don't drink, believe the law just. Yet, contrary to American law, you assume guilt, or in this case, you assume that all drinkers are irresponsible, careless and a threat to the general population. I don't.
What's more, if the laws already on the books were enforced in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Current laws regarding alcohol and driving assume bad behavior is guaranteed. The same is true of gun laws. They curtail one's liberty as opposed to punishing those who abuse their liberty.
But keep in mind that I state emphatically that I do not support impaired driving. I oppose it. I will state this in every post if it will help you guys remember my position. But to oppose it does not mean that I believe no one is capable of maintaining sufficient control to avoid doing harm.
Art: "I am restricted because of what others did, not what I ever did." So . . . just because I have never killed anyone, just because a few people have - a minority, to be sure - I am restricted in my own actions because some rash folks take the lives of others. Or, just because I have never stolen anything, I am prevented from ever taking what is not mine by laws that punish the minority, and restrict the actions of the majority. Is that what you are saying?
You say, "I do not drive drunk." Yet, you also admit to driving after having had a few drinks, an amount that might put you over the legal limit. So you are, by definition, driving drunk, Art. How is that concept not clear to you? Furthermore, why should the law honor your alleged ability to maintain judgment, response time, and inhibitions while punishing others? Again, this is not subjective; at best it can be described as arbitrary, but it does set a threshold that all must honor or pay the consequences.
Art: "But you, because you don't drink, believe the law just. Yet, contrary to American law, you assume guilt, or in this case, you assume that all drinkers are irresponsible, careless and a threat to the general population. I don't.
"What's more, if the laws already on the books were enforced in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion."
The second paragraph leaves me scratching my head. What DUI laws aren't enforced and where and how?
Second, I do not assume anything other than the fact that even below the legal limit, in IL of a BAC .08, the response time and judgment of most people is effected enough to create hazardous driving, posing a risk to themselves and others. That is why the law is on the books. If someone is stopped, blows in to a breathalyzer and their BAC registers above the legal limit, then they are under arrest and accused of a crime. It is up to the courts to determine the specifics, which law might be violated, etc., etc. As a practical matter, I feel much safer knowing that the police are empowered to remove from behind the wheel any individual whose BAC registers above that limit, roughly a couple drinks in a couple hours for an average-built man in reasonable health and physical condition. Do I assume they are guilty of a specific crime? No, because that is for the courts to decide. Do I assume that, allowing for whether or not the police have followed proper procedure in accordance with due process, a potential danger has been removed from the road is a good thing, even if it hurts otherwise upstanding persons such as yourself? Absolutely.
ah HA!
"We further agree that the starting point ought to be liberty."
This is NOT where you began. You began with "do no harm". I began with liberty. The difference might be slight, but it can mean the difference between liberty and liberty infringed. By the latter, I mean that no harm may be done but liberty might be infringed upon anyway.
"He does NOT have the liberty to cause harm to others."
That would be abusing one's liberty. If I swing my fist, simply for the fun of flailing about, and I inadvertantly strike your nose, I owe you in some manner to some level to be determined by the severity of the harm done. But my liberty to flail remains intact after a settlement of damages. If you prevent me from flailing in order to avoid the potential harm to your nose, I see that as an unjustified curtailment of my liberty. Keep in mind that you also have the responsibility to watch where you're going and to avoid the flying fists of that guy who's flailing about. If you're, say, reading and walking, not paying attention to your surroundings, and you walk into one of those fists, you DO bear some responsibiilty for the damage to your nose. Perhaps more than the flailer who was flailing without harm until YOU came around. But sure as shootin', someone will seek to establish a law against flailing.
Look at all the consumer laws that now exist because people AREN'T acting responsibly. Labels on everything that warn people against self-evident dangers. McDonald's is punished because some idiot spilled hot coffee on her lap. Her carelessness was her windfall. (I believe such a suit is no longer possible, but warnings had to be put on the cups as if people can't understand that hot coffee is hot)
"So, the problem with "Ideal" as a standard is that SOME PERSON or PEOPLE have to decide what is ideal and those people are not perfect and aren't representing everyone and, unless you're advocating a dictatorship, that is a problem in a more democratic setting."
And my point has been that the same dynamic exists under a "do no harm" method. The ideal I am advancing is liberty. And the more I consider it, the more I believe we ARE on the same page conceptually.
In either case, we are left to decide regardless of which perspective comes the deciders. It is hammered out until there is no longer a hue and cry to change the law. Few people, even amongst the staunchest libertarians, whine about EVERY law. I want liberty, not anarchy.
Art: "Current laws regarding alcohol and driving assume bad behavior is guaranteed."
I could say the same about laws regarding assault, kidnapping, fraud, prostitution, drug possession and distribution. That is beside the point. Of COURSE laws assume bad behavior.
Geoffrey,
"How this possibly could ever be applied outside Art's head, I cannot even begin to imagine."
There's much you can't imagine Geoffrey. Of this I have no doubt. Yet, you helped provide an example earlier when you spoke of being pulled over whithout saying why you would have been. If you were pulled over because of a broken tail light and for no other reason (such as swerving), and in the course of normal questioning the cop chooses to give you a sobriety test, you could be busted for drunk driving, not because you were driving erratically, but because you had a broken tail light. Sure. You can say you were busted because you were over the legal limit for BAC, but the legal limit did not account for your ability to drive at that level. It assumes you're incapable.
"I could say the same about laws regarding assault, kidnapping, fraud, prostitution, drug possession and distribution."
Those things ARE examples of bad behavior (with the possible exception of drug p & d---which drugs are you talking about?)
To be sure, the Bible speaks against drunkeness. But an occasional overindulgence is not what it is warning against.
"Art: "I am restricted because of what others did, not what I ever did." So . . ."
This is stupid. Geoffrey. Can you murder without causing harm? Can you steal without causing harm? Can you drive drunk without causing harm? Can you carry a weapon without causing harm? I think the answers are NO, NO, Yes and Yes. Get real.
"You say, "I do not drive drunk." Yet, you also admit to driving after having had a few drinks, an amount that might put you over the legal limit. So you are, by definition, driving drunk, Art"
Not because I am, but because the law says I am based on rules that might not apply to me physically. It assumes I will do harm based on what their averages insist must be true for everyone, thus assuming guilt in me for something I've yet to do. Cause harm.
Gotta go.
My head hurts.
Art: "Those things ARE examples of bad behavior (with the possible exception of drug p & d---which drugs are you talking about?)"
Art, driving over the legal limit is bad behavior! OMG, how many times do we have to dance around this fundamental point, one you simply refuse to admit? That is why I wrote what I did, so that, perhaps, you might begin to understand why your position seems ridiculous to us.
Art: "This is stupid. Geoffrey. Can you murder without causing harm? Can you steal without causing harm? Can you drive drunk without causing harm? Can you carry a weapon without causing harm? I think the answers are NO, NO, Yes and Yes. Get real."
Except the law says that you CAN, and many people HAVE and DO cause harm driving at or just above the legal BAC limit. That some seem to think they can is beside the point. I used those example to drive home the point that the law is uniform for this reason - it has to respect everyone. You seem to think you can drive perfectly fine past the legal limit? OK, go for it. When you get arrested and are before the judge, I would be really interested to hear how far your, "But, I'm a moral guy! Furthermore, the law shouldn't apply to me because I know how to drive after knocking back a few and these other guys don't", argument gets you. Seriously.
In fact, I think you should commit your last full paragraph to memory and tell it to the judge: "Not because I am, but because the law says I am based on rules that might not apply to me physically. It assumes I will do harm based on what their averages insist must be true for everyone, thus assuming guilt in me for something I've yet to do. Cause harm."
I fail to see a workable principle here for assessing any law whatsoever beyond how it effects you, Art.
I think MA is arguing that laws should not be passed which serve as a deterrent. That is, someone should only be charged with drunk driving if, in fact, they kill someone or cause other bodily harm or property damage while drunk.
So anyone can get as hammered as they want and drive, as long as they do not cause harm.
And I suppose, using that rationale of getting rid of any regulatory laws or deterrents, speed limits would be wrong because people should be able to drive as fast as they want and only be charged for reckless driving if, in fact, they cause an accident or death.
I wonder how far that goes... Perhaps there should be no laws regarding stopping at stop signs. You should stop if you need to, but not bother if you don't. And if you get in an accident, then, if you caused harm, you can be charged. No seat belt laws, no child restraint laws, etc.
Or maybe, no laws regarding the regulation of say, medical licenses, and doctors only charged if they actually kill someone? After all, if we base laws on liberty only, then someone ought to be allowed to practice medicine if they want, regardless of their qualifications.
Um..... Can't say I'd be a fan of that.
Dan said...
"We further agree that the starting point ought to be liberty."
To which Marshall responded...
This is NOT where you began. You began with "do no harm". I began with liberty. The difference might be slight, but it can mean the difference between liberty and liberty infringed. By the latter, I mean that no harm may be done but liberty might be infringed upon anyway.
Marshall, the topic is "What grounds for creating laws do we have?" Or, put another way: "What grounds do we have for taking away liberties.
The presumption to begin with IS liberty, but the question I was raising was, "on what grounds do we criminalize, regulate and otherwise TAKE AWAY liberties, with which we're starting.
So then, assuming we BOTH are starting with the assumption of liberty for people, then we agree that sometimes liberties can be taken away.
It is my suggestion that those behaviors which cause harm to others is a logical base reason for taking away/limiting liberties. It doesn't sound, now, like you're totally disagreeing with that idea.
You're just also appearing to hang on to the notion that creating laws based upon "ideals" might also be a measure. Which still raises the question: We people ought to take away/regulate liberties based upon the ideals of WHICH people?
I had said...
"So, the problem with "Ideal" as a standard is that SOME PERSON or PEOPLE have to decide what is ideal and those people are not perfect and aren't representing everyone and, unless you're advocating a dictatorship, that is a problem in a more democratic setting."
And Marshall responded...
my point has been that the same dynamic exists under a "do no harm" method.
Yes, people DO have determine what causes harm. And how do they do that? Well, if someone takes someone else's money, they are objectively harming that person and infringing upon that person's rights and property. If someone poisons someone else's water, they have objectively harmed them. We can MEASURE the harm, because it's observable.
On the other hand, when one person has the ideal that marriage is good for straight folk but not gay folk and they advocate giving benefits to one group and not the other, they are again doing measurable, observable harm. But what "measure" is there to support their ideal that marriage is only good for straight folk? That becomes just a matter of opinion.
Yes, it is true that defining and measuring harm can be inexact, but it's at least based upon observable, measurable behavior. Ideals are not, so far as I can think of.
Thus, if we can agree that it can be difficult to measure and define harm (which is at least observable), can't you see how much more subjective, whimsical and hard to pin down/agree upon "ideals" as a criteria for law would be?
Alan...
I think MA is arguing that laws should not be passed which serve as a deterrent. That is, someone should only be charged with drunk driving if, in fact, they kill someone or cause other bodily harm or property damage while drunk.
I think you're right, Alan. The problem (one problem) with this is, if you remove the law (It is against the law to drive impaired) and someone harms another while impaired, what would you charge them with?
Is Marshall suggesting that "It is against the law to cause harm" ought to be the criteria and then, anything that breaks that law (drunk driving, assault, theft, dumping waste, etc) can be prosecuted?
That WOULD be a simpler world, but it seems to me it would be a more subjective and re-active world. In other words, we wouldn't have laws in place to try to prevent speeding or drunk driving or what have you and police wouldn't have reason to stop someone until AFTER harm has been done, REACTING to harm, rather than preventing it.
I wonder if this is what Marshall's ideal society would look like?
The current BAC limit was not just pulled out of someone's backside. There was already a legal limit that was reduced due to an outcry after deaths occurred when previously arrested drunks were allowed to continue driving. Had they merely enforced existing laws, fewer deaths would have occurred and the limit would not have been reduced.
Marshall posted the following that, for some reason, hasn't show up yet...
Geoffrey,
"Art, driving over the legal limit is bad behavior!"
I see your problem here. You are basing everything on the law as it is now established. I'm speaking to establishing law. I believe that's what Dan was looking for. What criteria is used. Of course breaking established laws is bad behavior. But that's not what is being discussed.
There is nothing inherently bad about having any level of alcohol in one's system. The law seeks to prevent idiots who can't, or won't control themselves because they are drunk from doing harm. I get that. But it assumes guilt automatically simply because one has consumed an arbitrary amount of alcohol. Except for staggering, there's not much difference in how I act when intoxicated. I'm aware of my abilities, or lack of them. I know my limitations and a buzz does not impair that at all. As I said, I tend toward greater caution when inebriated.
BUT, if I was pulled over for swerving, then I have proven that I am, at that time, incapable of maintaining control of my vehicle. It would, however, be no different than if I was simply very tired (and there is a push to prohibited "tired" driving if they can figure out how to do it).
What's more, should I be pulled over in such a case, I would NOT be arguing about being a moral guy. Your inference of such a thing supports my charge that you have a very poor ability to understand anyone's point.
So once again, the law as it stands was created to prevent idiots from driving under the influence, but it assumes that everyone under the influence is an idiot.
I just thought of a scenario that better illustrates my position.
On certain holidays, it is not uncommon to see cops set up roadblocks to catch drivers who are intoxicated. I was stopped by one returning from a company party. In this case I was not drunk, though I did have a few drinks. I don't know what my BAC level was, and I don't know why the cop didn't decide to pull me out of the care to test me. Was it because I didn't slur my speech? I don't know. I don't slur anyway. But, my eyes are often bloodshot for no reason. I've been questioned by friends as to whether or not I'm stoned. What if the cop saw my eyes, figured I was hammered and I had to test for my BAC? And how do I know my BAC anyway? If I tested over the limit (remember, I have a CDL and the limit is .04) I would be considered drunk without actually being drunk. I didn't swerve, I didn't slur, I didn't stagger, I didn't crash my car or run anyone off the road. I didn't do anything but fail to be below the limit. Arrested for doing nothing wrong, for doing no harm.
Marshall, one response I would have to your last two comments is to say that driving is not a right, it is a privilege. Driving an airplane is not a right, it is a privilege. Riding a bicycle, even, is not a right, but a privilege. Walking around would be closer to a right.
What's the difference?
The possibility for harm. The greater the chance that someone could cause harm, the more reasonable it is to place reasonable, objective limitations on that activity.
We don't want just anyone driving an airplane or a car. They have to be able to see, of course, and they have to demonstrate an ability to drive/fly responsibly and in accordance with laws.
There are 1 million people killed a year in car wrecks. Tens or hundreds of millions are harmed, maimed, injured in car wrecks. You're driving around a couple thousand pounds of heavy metal and explosive gasoline and doing so at great speeds (and even 25 mph IS a great speed).
Because of the potential for harm, we reasonably place greater restrictions on who can drive and under what circumstances.
Yes, MAYBE "Barney" can drink one beer, get in his car and not be impaired. MAYBE he could drink a beer and a vodka and jump in the car and not be impaired. Maybe "Barney" THINKS he can do so and not be impaired. But that is a pretty subjective measure. Thousands of drunk drivers involved in wrecks I'm sure would say, after the fact, "I was SURE I was not impaired," but just because someone who's been drinking is "sure" they're not impaired is not an objective measure.
BUT, because of the potential for harm, we reasonably place restrictions on driving. One of those recommended restrictions is simply "Don't Drink and Drive." You want to be SURE someone isn't driving around impaired? The safest way to do so is to limit that privilege to ONLY those who haven't been drinking at all.
Given the millions of deaths, billions of lives harmed and destroyed, trillions of dollars caused by drunk drivers, reasonable citizens have agreed we don't have much tolerance for giving people the "liberty" to freely make that call themselves. So, instead of the subjective measure of field sobriety tests, we have decided that BACs are more objective and clear-cut.
Given the potential (and proven track record) for harm, we think this is a reasonable restriction to place upon this privilege.
Art, to be clear, driving under the influence of alcohol, even an amount below the legally stipulated limit of a .08 BAC, impairs judgment, response time, and because of the suppression of inhibitions creates grave dangers for the driver as well as others on the road. This has been shown in study after study.
Furthermore, the idea that, prior to some alleged neglect of enforcement, driving under the influence was no big deal, to be handled by police using a certain amount of discretion rather than being limited in that discretion by tougher sanctions and tighter policies is just false. It also should be noted that police discretion is too often an abused privilege in so many circumstances, which is why it is often curtailed by legislative and procedural refinement.
Driving under the influence of any mind-altering substance - alcohol, illegal drugs, prescription drugs - creates a demonstrable hazard. As Dan quite rightly notes, driving is not a right, so one hardly has one's "liberty" in any legal or constitutional sense abridged by having one's license to do so removed for creating a public hazard by doing so.
I'm not sure why this example has created such a problem. As a self-avowed "moral person", I would have thought this particular matter would be a no-brainer for you, yet it is me, the immoral liberal, who seems to understand the dangers involved, supports the current status quo of stringent enforcement and harsh penalties, and thinks it a pretty clear and uncontroversial example of a law that works well, serves both the public good and certain moral ends, and is rooted both in the experience of far too many persons dead and injured as well as good scientific research on the effects of mind-altering substances on our ability to perform certain tasks.
No matter how often you insist that the law is unfair because you can handle your booze, it is usually those folks who insist they can do so who pose the most danger. Remind me to keep out of Libertyville on weekend evenings.
Of course, in this discussion, it seems we're not even mentioning that, in fact, the very first thing that alcohol does is impair judgement. The staggering, slurred words, and impaired vision come *after* the impact on judgement. In fact, the reason many buzzed people think they are more capable than they actually are is precisely because the intoxicating effects work first on the frontal lobe and higher order reasoning skills.
Interestingly, alcohol works exactly opposite of maturation in humans. As we mature, we go from having sensory skills, to motor skills, to judgement and higher order reasoning skills. Alcohol works in the opposite fashion. So, by the time you're staggering, your judgement has *already* been impaired, and the reason you don't think it has is because it has been.
So the notion that a buzzed person can accurately assess and judge their own abilities is false to begin with.
But since what we're really doing is simply watching someone attempt to rationalize their buzzed driving and argue for why the law should treat them differently than everyone else, I guess the facts probably don't matter much.
But then, why should this argument be any different than any others.
Boys,
First of all, I don't live in Libertyville. Not even close (relatively speaking).
Secondly, there was a BAC limitation in effect before it became .08. As I said, the concept wasn't just pulled from someone's backside, it was adjusted from a previous level, which was, I believe, .10. Big difference, huh?
Thirdly, the issue is not whether or not alcohol impairs, but how much does it impair a given individual and whether or not the individual makes allowances in his actions based on whatever level of impairment is noted.
As I stated, if I'm impaired, or for that matter, if I've recently had a drink, I do make allowances. I don't know who else acts this way, how many of them are there or what. That's irrelevant. For those of us who do, we have yet to prove that we are incapable of performing safely when we decide to go ahead and drive. I proved it to the cop who pulled me over randomly hoping to catch a drunk driver. I was drunk at the time (though not greatly---enough to blow over .08, I'm sure.)
I'm not concerned with people who only THINK they can deal. Of course, if they prove they can't, they will be arrested. There's nothing about the current law that prevents subjective behavior on the part of the cop, that prevents a total asshole from driving drunk, that has changed really anything from that which was in place before the law was changed. Scofflaws still exist and scoff at the law.
Once change is that the law abiding are further restricted. The moral and responsible now must make even more allowances than they already were due to a more oppressive situation. (I don't mean oppressive as if there's any malevolence involved)
Dude, you are protesting a tad too much.
The reduction in the legal limit is a big difference. It catches more people at a lower level of impairment. Impairment is not subjective, but demonstrably, objectively shown in study after study after study. As I wrote previously, those who insist they, unlike the rest of the world, can handle it, are usually those who are the source of trouble.
Well, since it isn't Libertyville, at least that suburb is safe. If you are traveling through Elgin on a weekend or some other night, please let me know so I can remain safely off the road.
And, no, I am not joking. One drink is enough. One. The legal limit represents less than two over a couple hours, and since it takes roughly an hour or two for the alcohol to leave the system, that means roughly two hours from bottle to throttle just to be safe.
Fourthly, I understand completely that driving is not a right. But liberty is. The problem with laws like this is the burden put on those who are not the problem. That's why I used it as a example. Not because I desire the "right" to drive drunk. These laws hope to prevent harm. My point is that harm is not guaranteed merely because someone is intoxicated. If they had breathalizers at the exit of every bar, no one would be considered sober. But not everyone who leaves a bar will ever get into an accident or even get pulled over.
I used to work with a guy years ago that was a card carrying alcoholic (didn't know they had a club, did you?). Great guy. A truly sweet man and a good, reliable worker. I've never seen him stagger, but he drank hard liquor all day long. (He eventually died of cirrhosis of the liver---the poor fool) I have no doubt this guy lived his life with a BAC over the limit, certainly near it. How could he not? He was a drunk, but not drunk, if you get my meaning. If he got pulled over for a broken taillight, and his flask fell out of his pocket, he'd be arrested for open liquor, made to take a breathalyzer test and smacked for drunken driving.
Thus, he would have been unfairly treated because of an assumption that he was a danger, when he never gave any indication by his driving ability that he could be.
But I tire of this discussion regarding the drunk driving laws. It was not brought up to discuss the details of the law, but the concept of crafting law improperly. My point was in regards to creating laws that burden those who were not acting in a manner that provoked the law being created. The moral, responsible and law-abiding should not have their liberty infringed upon due to the actions of the immoral, irresponsible and law-breaking portion of society. THAT is my point and that alone. I deal with all sorts of laws I don't like. That's because I'm generally law-abiding, moral and responsible.
But because of the actions of others, including those who fail to enforce the law properly, my liberty is restricted in a variety of areas.
Let's put it this way: There's no law that says "Do not punch holes in thy neighbor's house." But if I did punch holes in my neighbor's house, I would be held accountable and made to compensate my neighbor. Of course, few people desire the liberty to punch holes in anyone's house. My position is that doing so is an abuse of liberty. Moral people don't abuse their liberty.
States that prohibit concealed carry of firearms think they are reducing gun related crime. They don't. They merely make a victim out of more people. As a generally moral, responsible and law-abiding citizen, I am no threat by carrying a weapon, except to immoral, irresponsible law-breakers who would seek to harm me or others near me. Being denied my right to protect myself is an infringement of my liberty, especially as it also impacts my ability to go where I want.
Dan speaks of "do no harm". The problem is when the law also prevents "doing good". If a law can address harm done by some, without prohibiting the ability of others to profit without harming anyone, it is a good law. (I'm using "profit" in a general way, not just making money)
Looking at gun laws, ideally I would prefer that I should be able to arm myself without any gov't knowledge that I have weapons. The 2nd Amendment had, as part of it's purpose, the idea that an armed population will keep the gov't at bay. To let the gov't know I have a gun would give them the ability to come and disarm me. Far harder is it to disarm the entire population when you don't know who has guns.
But what of the criminal and insane? Both are already threats and to have a database listing such would not infringe on MY rights if my identification shows I'm not on the list. Heck, they could even match fingerprints and if mine aren't recorded under either heading of criminal or insane, no gun should be denied me.
Gun laws haven't prevented crime, despite the intention of doing so. Instead, it has made crime easier as being shot isn't as much of a concern to criminals in those areas where guns are prohibited and the moral, responsible law-abiding citizens abide the law.
In short, laws that penalize bad behavior should not penalize those who don't engage in bad behavior.
" "Do not punch holes in thy neighbor's house.""
It's called property damage. And yes, there are laws about that.
Seriously, are you completely trashed right now??!
"In short, laws that penalize bad behavior should not penalize those who don't engage in bad behavior."
Right.
And since I have never driven drunk even once, I should not and have not been penalized for that.
Simple.
And while we're on this liberty thing of yours MA, could you please, after going all anarchist/libertarian on us, remind us again how that's at all consistent with your love for laws banning gay marriage?
Oh, right. Banning drunk driving that could kill someone is bad, but banning gay marriage that does nothing to anyone ... that's good.
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor!
Alan, I'm kind of with you on this. I think Art is arguing, in the example of drunk driving, that the lower legal threshold impacts him, and by extension others, unduly. Yet, I have yet to read how, other than his continued insistence that he is (a) a moral individual; and (b) handles his liquor better than other people. Now, my grandma, who along with her mother was a founder of a chapter of the WCTU in Springfield, OH would certainly argue that these two just aren't compatible.
Furthermore, you keep insisting that an individual's standing as a "moral" individual should or actually does count for something in these matters. It doesn't. How could it possibly be weighed in the balance?
Let's leave drunk driving behind for a moment and take your house-punching example. You and your neighbor are in a dispute over, say, a tree near your shared property line. There is a dispute over exactly whose property it is on, and the consequences of its fallen leaves, branches, and whatnot. In a fit of pique - a branch from the tree lands on top of your car and dents the roof - you go over to his house, pound on his door, and in the process, break some glass in the door and splinter some wood (I'm assuming here that in your anger you knock the door in a bit).
OK, that's destruction of private property, and, yes, it is a crime. You are under arrest. Explain to me how relevant your insistence on your own moral uprightness has any bearing on whether or not you, in fact, committed the act in question and whether or not you deserve to be punished according to the laws of IL.
Geoffrey,
My "moral uprightness", to the extent that it exists, compels me to compensate anyone whose property I damage. No law is needed for this. No court is needed. It's called being, well, morally upright. If you were in such a situation, would you need to be compelled by law to make amends?
If I broke the door or window in the manner you describe, and did nothing about it, he could use the law to force payment, couldn't he?
But the example as you use it, does not address the concern, which is, laws that infringe on the liberty of moral people.
"...you keep insisting that an individual's standing as a "moral" individual should or actually does count for something in these matters."
No I haven't. At least not in the manner you continue to bring up. I'm speaking of crafting law, which is the point of the post, if I'm not mistaken, not to whom an establisyed law should be applied.
The point is better understood if we acknowledge that not all laws work the same way. Some laws are merely penalties for bad behavior. Murder, theft, perjury, property damage. (Are there any actual laws that say something like "Thou shalt not kill" or do we simply assume it's bad behavior worthy of punishment?") None of the laws dealing with THESE bad behaviors affect me or my liberty because as a relatively moral person, I don't engage in any of them. What's more, as Dan suggests, these behaviors are self-evidently bad, and definitely such that causes harm.
But not everybody with alcohol in their system, or a Glock in their shoulder holster causes harm, but in some states, being found to have a concealed weapon will result in arrest and in most states (I think all, really) being found to have a BAC of .08 will as well.
So what we have here are examples of laws that penalize bad behavior that has actually happened, and other laws that assume bad behavior will happen. I oppose laws that make assumptions in such a blanket manner.
Thus, the BAC laws impact my liberty by assuming I'm a danger without my having done anything dangerous. Drinking and driving isn't truly dangerous all the time, everytime everyone has a beer and gets behind the wheel (one beer won't get you to .08) But too many who had proven they were a danger were allowed to keep their licenses and drive again.
Let's put it another way: If I'm at the legal limit (which for me is .04) and you haven't had a drink in years, and we engage in a series of physical competitions, including any that might entail snap decisions, and I kick your ass in every one of them, shouldn't you give up your license?
I want to re-iterate one thing. I am not for breaking established laws. The laws currently say one is drunk driving if their BAC is at .08. My argument is that what led to this level being put into law was a result of bad law enforcement, and the resulting changes burden the responsible unduly. Never, in anything I've said thus far, provides any fodder for suggesting that I think I should given a pass due to what a great guy I am. Not even a hint. That's just you being way too eager to find a reason to demonize me.
But since you keep mentioning it without legitimate cause, I do believe there are many, many examples of sentences for all sorts of offenses being mitigated by a previously clean record, as well as many more cases of repeat offenders getting the max. So there.
"And while we're on this liberty thing of yours MA, could you please, after going all anarchist/libertarian on us, remind us again how that's at all consistent with your love for laws banning gay marriage?"
Eliminating unnessary laws is neither libertarian or anarchy.
I'm aware of no laws banning homosexual marriage. I do love maintaining the current, true meaning of the word "marriage" for which homosexual unions don't qualify, thus I love states that legally recognize that true definition. It's better for the culture that way and aligns well with Dan's bottom line for law creation: do no harm.
BTW, Alan, have the cops in your area been trying to arrest you and your "spouse"?
Finally, I don't drink tequila.
I guess I'm at a total loss here as to how you construe the relationship between morality and law. My thought was that, in general, laws address certain moral precepts - do not kill others, do not hurt others, do not steal or otherwise damage that which belongs to others - and set a kind of baseline for social moral conduct.
With that in mind, I fail to see how criminal law infringes upon any individual with any sense of morality.
Furthermore, your comments about gay marriage prove a point I've been making all along. Sure, at one time people thought two people of the same gender marrying was immoral. Most people don't anymore; polls have been pretty consistent on this point for a while now. So, the notion that morality is unchanging, a standard to which we must adhere rather than the product of changing human choices concerning life, is simply wrong. Furthermore, the decriminalization of all sorts of behaviors once considered immoral - everything from public drunkenness to couples living together outside the bonds of legal marriage to some sexual practices - suggest to me that most folks believe these are not the proper object of legal action. If individuals wish to act in these ways, that is their choice. They are free to do so. This is, like accepting gay marriage, an expansion of that same liberty you so fervently believe is yours to drive intoxicated (regardless of your insistence that you are not). Punishing a couple for living together without the benefit of marriage harms them in myriad ways, seriously intrudes upon their liberty, and advances no social goods beyond the increasingly quaint and outmoded idea that marriage is a social necessity (and before you get all huffy on me, please remember that I am married, have been for 18 years, and find the institution to be a boon in many ways; many, many people consider it irrelevant to their lives, even with continued legal preferences extended to married couples that unmarried couples do not enjoy).
So we have come, in a way, full circle in this whole discussion.
We've not come full circle quite yet. You ARE going in circles by continuing to misconstrue my points regardless of how I restate them. You do so intentionally to demonize without showing that my words can logically be taken the way you insist on taking them.
Also, morals do not change. Particularly those set by the Almighty. Moral truths remain whether people adhere to them or not. If that means that human law changes, that's a problem with the human condition, not the moral truths.
In this country, perspectives on what constitutes bad behavior change according to human desire to resist or succumb to temptations. I've listed all the ills our culture suffers as a result of relaxed attitudes about human sexuality. The abuse of liberty has led to these ills, but I don't support laws to inhibit people. At the same time, I don't support laws that support the abuses, such as health care laws that would force the tax payer to provide treatment of those whose abuse led to consequences that require medical attention. (Supporting immorality)
"With that in mind, I fail to see how criminal law infringes upon any individual with any sense of morality."
No. You refuse to see it. Of course not every law does this. But as in the case of gun laws, a law abiding citizen is put at risk by denying him the means of self-defense the 2nd Amendment was intended to guarantee. It limits the manner in which a moral person can impede the actions of an immoral person, especially if the immoral guy is bigger or armed.
"Sure, at one time people thought two people of the same gender marrying was immoral. Most people don't anymore; polls have been pretty consistent on this point for a while now."
Of course the polls that count, have never shown this to be true. When the question shows up on a ballot at election time, the truth is known. But keep in mind that just because someone decides to allow people to choose their own moral (actually "immoral" in this case) path, it doesn't mean they accept the behavior as moral. Legal does not equal moral. Sometimes in our society, the two are in conflict. It might be illegal in our state to carry a concealed handgun. It is NOT immoral.
"This is, like accepting gay marriage, an expansion of that same liberty you so fervently believe is yours to drive intoxicated (regardless of your insistence that you are not)."
Pay close attention, here Geoffrey, and try to use that highly developed intellectual mind of yours to understand this once and for all. I never meant to insist that I was not impaired by a given BAC level, but only that I was capable of performing a task, like driving, safely at the level now considered illegal (for me, .04). In that manner, I am not "drunk" in the common understanding of the term. Affected by alcohol in my system? Sure. Affected enough to be a danger to anyone else? Not likely.
That "many, many people" feel that marriage is unnecessary doesn't mean that our culture hasn't suffered by choices based on that belief. It has indeed and is getting worse and will get worse faster with any change to the definition of marriage codified by law. As I said, the current laws reflect Dan's philosophy of "do no harm" and really, at the same time, achieve MY goal of advancing an ideal that is beneficial for the entire culture. We call that a "WIN/WIN" situation.
So we see that the "moral" basis for MA's views is only his own opinion. It is neither based in any coherent system of ethics, Scriptural basis, or even basic consistency.
What morals, pray tell, were handed down by God that any rational human being couldn't arrive at with a moment's thought, Art? No matter how ofter you insist this is the case, it is not so, and has by and large been dismissed as sophistry and nonsense for centuries.
What you call "morality", I call the defensive insistence of a threatened class against the press of change of time. As there is far more evidence for my own understanding than yours, I am quite satisfied that mine is a more apt description.
Which is why, by and large, I do not talk about "morality". Not because I don't think there are things we should do, other things we should avoid, and still others that are negotiable. Rather, setting them down as rules - as, for instance, Kant did (whom you resemble far more than any Christian theologian I can name) - that are binding upon all persons in all times and places and situations does nothing to enlighten, let alone clarify what is right and wrong action. Certainly as regards the law, it is irrelevant enough, if one takes as the basis of the law not "morality" but a minimalist description of the basic rules for human beings living together in society, bounded, as they are in the United States, by limits upon state action on certain realms of human activity (particularly, but not exclusively political in nature).
"So we see that the "moral" basis for MA's views is only his own opinion. It is neither based in any coherent system of ethics, Scriptural basis, or even basic consistency."
No you don't see that. Like Dan, you default to this inane position rather than give ground where you're wrong. I've been totally consistent in my approach here, even if I've failed to articulate myself in a manner a hater like yourself can understand. My whole sense of right/wrong, ethics, whatever you'd like to call it is based on Scripture and consistently aligns with it. Scripture is the basis for my opinions.
"What morals, pray tell, were handed down by God that any rational human being couldn't arrive at with a moment's thought, Art?"
All of them, or God wouldn't have felt the need to hand them down in the first place. "Love they neighbor as thyself"? Why would He need to mandate that if it was to have risen up from the people all by itself? And of course sexual immorality, which is the context in which the term "immoral" is used in Scripture, must have been just a fantasy if God had no need to institute proper sexual behaviors. Just a waste of time, I guess.
"What you call "morality", I call the defensive insistence of a threatened class against the press of change of time."
What I call "morality" is God's unchanging will as it applies to the crafting of law and ethics and proper human behavior. Apparently to you it means whatever the majority wants, God's will be damned.
"Which is why, by and large, I do not talk about "morality"."
No. You don't talk about morality because you're morally corrupted. That you've allowed yourself to be conformed to the "press of change of time", is evidence of this. God's morality benefits mankind whether anyone is a Christian or not. But once again, morality doesn't change. A peoples' willingness to adhere to morality does. It's clear you and Alan don't count yourselves amongst that group that is willing to continue adhering.
I'm morally corrupted. I don't drink and drive. My main concern in life is my marriage and raising my children to be happy, healthy, productive human beings without prejudice. I have never, and could not conceive ever lying, cheating, or stealing to advance my own personal ambitions. I give generously to my church. I want the world my children live in to be far better than the one in which I live, and work, to the best of my limited abilities to make it so.
I'm morally corrupted. I do not see people as "homos" or "Negroes" or "Muslims" and judge them on the basis of these categories, but see them as people worthy of love and acceptance, including acceptance in the larger society in which we live. I do not believe that people who make life choices different from my own are worse human beings than I am. I do not believe that people who have different views of how to read the Bible, or how they worship God, or even how they understand their experience of God, to be in error and therefore outside the bounds of grace.
I'm morally corrupt. I want our society to live up to its promises and potential. I do not want a politics of childishness, rooted in fear. I do not wish for the word "America" to be associated with death and destruction. I do not wish to see my fellow residents suffering and dying so that the privileges of the few can remain just that.
You call me morally corrupt. In so doing you reveal, although I am quite sure you would disagree, how little you understand about morality, and even less how little you understand moral corruption.
I know that the morally corrupted will never view themselves as such, and will offer a list of reasons to suggest otherwise.
But let's take a look at "homos" and "negroes" and "muslims". It's the easiest evidence of your corruption to list them together, implying some kind of equal quality or nature. Of the three groups, the negro is simply a person of a particular race. It is an irrelevant and unchosen state of being. A negro can be both homosexual and muslim, and both at the same time if he so chooses. But both the homosexual and the muslim must be born a negro in order to be one.
Then, we can move to the implication that I can't or don't regard any of the people of these groups as worthy of love and acceptance. You make an assumption about my character and do so with this totally dishonest implied charge. It is immoral to suggest that lifestyle choices are all equal, valid and to be protected from moral judgement by others. This also suggests that anyone who would so dare are immoral for doing so, even when the lifestyle choice clearly conflicts with Biblical teaching, the source of our morality. Members of organized criminal organizations would be pleased by your tolerance for other lifestyles. So would those who enjoy spending as much of their time intoxicated.
I accept everyone as human beings worthy of love and acceptance. I don't accept everything they do as worthy of love and acceptance. It's an aspect of the concept of morality that is so incredibly corrupted in you, and you demonstrate this routinely, giving at least tacit approval of immorality or immoral behavior.
My apologies. I've been away enjoying a wonderful spring break trip and have not been available to participate in the conversation. I will say that I thought the conversation had been going along pretty well, with reasonable disagreement and no name-calling sorts of behavior, at least until the last day or so.
C'est la vie.
Instead of trying to comment on the last few days' worth of comments, may I just attempt to summarize things as I see them?
Everyone agrees that we are a free people, that liberty is a self-evident truth for all people.
Everyone also agrees that there are some times when we might rightly limit another people's "liberties" or perceived liberties.
We all agree that sometimes those limits might be an outright criminalizing of a behavior (murder, assault, etc) and other times, we might just regulate behaviors (speeding, drinking and driving), and that, in principle, this is perfectly acceptable in a society that values liberty.
The purpose of this post was to ask WHAT GROUND RULES, WHAT CRITERIA might we have to judge WHEN we can rightly criminalize or regulate behavior.
My assertion was that, as a general rule, "DO NOT HARM," is that criteria. We all agree that we have the liberty to swing our fist. We all agree that this liberty ENDS when it comes too close to hitting someone else's nose.
And the REASON this is where the liberty ends is because it has crossed the line from one person's liberty to infringing on another's liberty by causing actual, measurable harm (which liberty we do NOT have).
I believe that most people here tend to agree with me on this point, with the exception of Marshall. But, for the life of me, I can't say for sure because Marshall has not been able to express his opinion on these matters or answer questions asked of him in a way that I find understandable.
Marshall appears to be saying that "good" people ought not be subject to the same sort of scrutiny or laws that "bad" people are subjected to. Maybe he's not, but that's what it sounds like.
If it is what he's saying, the obvious dilemma is, HOW do we know who the "good" people are and who the "bad" people are?
Perhaps if Marshall would address this set of questions/comments, it might help...
Is Marshall suggesting that "It is against the law to cause harm" ought to be the criteria/law and then, anything that breaks that law (drunk driving, assault, theft, dumping waste, etc) can be prosecuted? And those driving drunk (for instance) who caused NO harm are not liable for anything.
Is Marshall saying that only drunk drivers (for instance) who cause harm are culpable for prosecutions, and those who are caught being drunk accidentally (being pulled over for a broken taillight, for instance) ought NOT be subject to penalty, because no harm had (at least, thus far) been caused?
That WOULD be a simpler world, I guess, but it seems to me it would be a more subjective and re-active world. In other words, we wouldn't have laws in place to try to prevent speeding or drunk driving or what have you and police wouldn't have reason to stop someone until AFTER harm has been done, REACTING to harm, rather than preventing it.
I wonder if this is what Marshall's ideal society would look like?
Ultimately, the HUGE whole in what it appears that Marshall is saying is that it is an extremely subjective and whimsical approach to law-making, so extremely subjective that I can't imagine how it would possibly work in the real world, except maybe in extremely small communities (a few dozen citizens, maybe). Maybe.
I have a couple of questions. Marshall...
Like Dan, you default to this inane position rather than give ground where you're wrong.
Where, in what we are saying here, do you think you have any support for suggesting we are/I am wrong? And by "support" I mean something more than a subjective hunch or opinion that you might hold?
Marshall...
Dan speaks of "do no harm". The problem is when the law also prevents "doing good". If a law can address harm done by some, without prohibiting the ability of others to profit without harming anyone, it is a good law.
If you could provide an example of what you're speaking of here, that might be helpful.
I'm suggesting that, EVEN IF company A can profit by cutting corners and polluting a little, that IF that pollution causes harm to others, we can rightly regulate it.
I'm suggesting that, EVEN IF Mr Barney can more easily drive home (even if he would blow a .10 on a BAC) than taxi or carpool, that the likelihood of drunk driving causing harm is high enough that it is worthy inconveniencing him than letting him "profit" by taking that chance.
You appear to be suggesting that IF it is easier/more beneficial/preferential for Person A to do action X, and there's a 50/50 (60/40? 75/25?) chance it won't cause harm to others, we ought to let them do it in the name of liberty.
Is that what you're saying?
And, a few follow up points on the side topic (but related and a good example for the main topic) of drunk driving.
In all 50 states, the legal limit for drunk driving is a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of .08. A 120-pound woman can reach a .08 BAC level after only two drinks and a 180-pound man can be at .08 after only four drinks...
At the .02 blood alcohol concentration level, experiments have demostrated that people exhibit some loss of judgment, begin to relax and feel good. But tests have also shown that drivers at the .02 level experience a decline in visual functions, affecting their ability to track a moving object, and experience a decline in the ability to perform two tasks at the same time.
These changes may be very subtle and barely noticeable to the person who has had only one drink, but in an emergency situation while behind the wheel of a vehicle, they could cause the driver to react (or not react) as they would without having had a drink...
For the person who is drinking, the above impairments may be hardly noticeable at the time, but the slow reaction times that they can produce could prove fatal in a emergency driving situation. That's why it is not a good idea to drive no matter how much or how little that you have had to drink.
alcoholism.com
You do not have to look or feel drunk for these things to happen. The effects of alcohol can begin long before you become intoxicated or even legally impaired and begin with the first drink.
NY DMV
acknowledges that all alcohol consumption, even at low levels, has a negative impact on driver skills, perceptions, abilities, and performance and poses significant health and safety risks.
AMA
I could go on, but you get the gist of studies from doctors, psychologists and others in related fields. A person begins losing vital driving skills after one drink, this is what the studies show.
Marshall, you APPEAR to be suggesting that, even though study after study would disagree with your subjective hunch, that people (men?) who "can handle it" and who "are sure of it" ought not have BAC limitations opposed upon them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like what you're saying.
If so, then it appears you would make the law impossibly and unreasonably subjective. Sure, some people probably DO handle the loss of vital motor, judgment and reaction skills better than other people, but when it comes to lawmaking, we can't have a legal system that is based upon letting "good" people decide for themselves when they can and can't drink and drive. You DO agree that such a system would be impossibly subjective, right?
Can you imagine a cop pulling a fella over and saying, "Are you a bad guy? Because you smell like you've been drinking and, well, I'm just not sure if I can tell if I ought to stop you from driving..."
"No, officer, it's okay. I'm actually a 'moral' guy and while, yes, I've been drinking, I'm pretty sure my motor skills have not been sufficiently delayed so as to be a risk to others. If I DID accidentally kill or maim someone, though, you could be sure that I would make it up to them or their family because, after all, I AM a 'moral' guy. Thanks for checking though!"
"No, thank YOU, citizen..."
Is that something like what you're suggesting and, if so, do you see the problems inherent in that sort of subjectivity and "liberty?"
I said, "ought not have BAC limitations opposed upon them." when obviously, I meant, "IMPOSED upon them..."
d'oh!
Dan,
I think it would be a lot easier if you would stop at your first question and wait for a response, rather than listing a ton of stuff based on what you expect the answer to be or based on a variety of possible responses. It tends to provoke a sense of having to defend against every question that, left unanswered, might suggest a position not held.
So...
"Marshall appears to be saying that "good" people ought not be subject to the same sort of scrutiny or laws that "bad" people are subjected to."
Not at all, and I've responded to this charge leveled against me in a number of ways. What I've been saying is quite simple and clear: I oppose laws that infringe on the liberties of good people.
Before elaborating, I'll comment on all the BAC info. I've never said that alocohol in the system has no affect. To be more clear, I've recently restated the position to show that I believe alcohol ALWAYS affects us (if you like that better), but that it isn't true that it affects us all to the point where it is crystal clear it had anything to do with causing an accident.
For example, is .02 more, less or equal in affect to having slept only fours hours? Is .04?
Whether I'm tired or tipsy, I am responsible enough to adjust my driving to account for my condition. I once drove with a freshly torn ACL in my left knee and damaged cartilege drastically affecting my range of motion. I had to drive with my seat all the way back to accomodate a leg that wouldn't bend. This condition affected my ability to drive, I adjusted to account for this change of condition and arrived at my destination safely after driving 15-20 miles.
At any given moment, we may be distracted or less than perfectly aware of our surroundings or simply not in the best shape for driving. Yet we drive anyway, allowing for the differences if we have any sense of responsibility at all.
But a random stop that somehow leads to a breathalyzer test would stain my driving record forever, despite the fact that no other factor suggested any possibiilty of an inability to perform behind the wheel.
To put it another way, .08 is great additional evidence to support a cop's descretion, but by itself means only that alcohol is in my bloodstream. It does NOT by itself guarantee that I'm a danger to anyone ever. Yet it can be held against me as if I was one of those jerks who have been convicted five times but are still allowed to drive. How is that justice? How is that NOT doing me, and responsible people like me, harm?
Keep in mind that the number of drinks necessary to attain .08 requires downing them within an hour's time. There is also a difference in the impact of such a pace between a guy who hasn't had a beer in several months and the same guy after having consumed at that pace on a more regular basis.
My previous story of getting pulled over after a night of bowling was my first night of bowling for the season. It followed a summer of very little alocohol consumption (possibly none, which was common at the time). The amount of alcohol I had consumed was way too much for that first night. But by the middle of the season, that same amount would not have impacted me to the same level. Indeed, my normal average intake at the time was three-four doubles of Jack Daniels every Thursday night while bowling (three games over about three to four hours). Had you met me walking out at the end of a Thursday night of bowling, drinking and winning other peoples' money, you would not have suspected me drunk by any outward indications other than leaving a bowling alley, and not all bowlers drink. The fact is I wasn't drunk, rarely even tipsy, by virtue of having built up a tolerance. Yet I cannot account for my BAC. I would guess it had to be close to .08. THAT'S the way alcohol works for many people.
The problem with all that BAC info you produced is that first, it doesn't account for the differences in a person's condition based on WHEN he reached .08. (First night of bowling vs mid season form). The difference exits and is noticable.
Secondly, the lower levels used to explain alcohol's affect is compared to one who would otherwise be in perfect condition for driving, i.e. well rested, alert, totally sober, etc. It does not speak to that level that can be understood to be the sole mitigating factor. That is, worse than sleep deprivation, for example. I'm sure that would be a higher level than .08 for most people.
It also needs to be remembered that there was already a legal limit before .08 and that the change to .08 was due to the fact that drunk drivers were NOT taken off the road and needless deaths were the result. Cops STILL must use descretion in deciding when to test for alcohol consumption. Cops STILL misjudge and people die.
In the local paper over the weekend, a story ran regarding a guy who was arrested for the FIFTH time for DWI. A previous arrest had his liberty in jeopardy, but he was not imprisoned at that time. FIVE FREAKIN TIMES!!!! Nothing changed for the jerk who will drive drunk, the lawyers that will defend him against proper punishment and the judges who decide guilt. But MY liberty has been infringed upon. I've NEVER gotten arrested for drunk driving because I've NEVER proven I should be. But if I ever blow .04, I'm in trouble.
I'm done with the drunk driving law discussion. If you guys want to focus on the fantasy that I condone drunk driving, that I condone it for myself, or that I think I can plea my way out of legitimate arrests due to being a nice guy, I won't address anything further regarding these laws. NONE of this has been suggested by anything I've written, especially since I've crapped on the very notion repeatedly.
My point in using this example was to show subjectivity in the "do no harm" philosophy, that it exists, and that it can lead to harm of a different kind that is unjust and a burden on responsible, law-abiding people.
At the same time, nobody seems to want to take any time on the gun laws that do the same thing. Thus, I suspect I'm correct in supposing that the point is to find fault with me personally, since the above charges continue to be leveled against me.
Marshall...
My point in using this example was to show subjectivity in the "do no harm" philosophy, that it exists, and that it can lead to harm of a different kind that is unjust and a burden on responsible, law-abiding people.
I'd have to say, Marshall, that if that was your point, it didn't work so well. From my point of view, all you did was reinforce the subjectivity of what you appear to be advocating and reinforced the objectivity of the do no harm approach.
Further, you did nothing to demonstrate that the "do no harm" approach was unjust. We have agreed that we can and ought to limit "liberties" sometimes. Your example of impaired driving did not show ANY unjust burden by having an objective BAC standard.
I think you brought up a great example, I just don't think it served your argument at all.
Marshall...
If you guys want to focus on the fantasy that I condone drunk driving, that I condone it for myself
I have not, nor have I seen that anyone else has suggested you condone drunk driving. I have gone out of my way not to address you personally at all, just your example of impaired driving.
What it DOES seem like, though, is that you feel an emotional tie to this argument because you feel it has unjustly affected you, because you think you can handle yourself when it comes to drinking and driving.
We're just saying that we find an OBJECTIVE measure more reasonable than letting people (not Marshall, but ANY people) decide for themselves if they're (SUBJECTIVELY) sober enough.
If I might attempt another summation:
It seems that Marshall is okay with the notion of "do no harm" as a criteria for law in cases of direct and immediate harm. It is okay to criminalize killing someone because that causes direct and immediate harm, for instance.
Where Marshall SEEMS to be worried is in cases where we regulate "moral" people along with "immoral people" in cases where there is only the POTENTIAL for harm. Thus, holding ANYONE accountable for drunk driving who blows a .08 BAC, even if they had not harmed anyone, or swerved their car, or driven recklessly - and even if they had no record of doing so in the past - holding all people as "impaired" at that level is wrong, Marshall SEEMS to be saying.
It SEEMS that Marshall is suggesting something else (what, I have no idea) where "good" people (again, I THINK this means, those who aren't driving dangerously and who don't have a record of doing so) don't have their "liberty" to drive without being ticketed and charged with impaired driving, even if they would blow a .08.
What it is Marshall is suggesting in place of this approach, I don't know. A doing away with the BAC approach and returning to the more subjective and less demanding field sobriety tests, I would guess.
I, on the other hand, am suggesting that we can reasonably LIMIT "liberty" in cases where harm WILL be done or where harm can REASONABLY be expected.
For this reason, we place 25 mph speed limits in school zones and residential neighborhoods. Like the BAC, this is an objective measure. Either you are driving below 25 mph or not. Either you blow below a .08 or not. It's objective.
Now, some may say that this is ARBITRARY (as Geoffrey pointed out), and the argument can be made. Who decided that 25 mph is the "right" objective number for safety? Why not 22 mph? Why not 30 mph? Why .08 BAC and not .07 or .10?
We choose numbers because WE HAVE TO SET A LINE SOMEWHERE. In a society with multiple drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc, we can't leave it up to individuals - even the "moral" ones to decide speed limits for themselves.
And so, we set a line (and, at least in the case of BAC and speed limits, it's not completely arbitrary - many studies are done, research is considered and then a line is drawn) that may be at least a little arbitrary and we do so because it is reasonable to limit "liberty" because of the POTENTIAL for harm.
We require people who'd like the privilege of driving to register their cars because of the POTENTIAL for harm, and we do so reasonably. And, to touch on Marshall's oft-raised question about guns, we require people who'd like the privilege of owning guns to register them, too, and for the same reason: The POTENTIAL for harm.
Marshall APPEARS to be less willing to limit (not take away, but limit) liberties in cases where we're only speaking of POTENTIAL harm - like speed limits, BAC limits, registering guns - while most here (and in the US, I'd say) find this to be a reasonable precaution.
The thing is, I just can't figure where Marshall is drawing the line or what he's proposing instead.
I don't think this is a liberal/conservative thing, since MANY conservatives are fine with limiting liberties when it comes to speed limits and drinking/driving. I suspect Marshall is also fine with limiting speed limits in school zones (for instance), even for "good people," so I just can't tell what criteria he has for his limits/laws/regulations.
For me, "do no harm" is the starting point, and a reasonable one, I'd suggest.
If Marshall would ever like to propose what his criteria is, I'd be willing to consider it.
I HAVE seen some conservative religious types say that the measure ought to be, "What would God want us to do? What would God criminalize?" and that God believers rightly ought to strive to create laws based upon that measure. For them, if the behavior caused no harm but they thought God opposed it, they could righteously criminalize it. In fact, they could even CAUSE HARM and punish that behavior which causes no harm, IF it's what "God would do."
This is the approach, for instance, of some more fundamentalist Muslims. For them, it is acceptable to stone/kill a gay man or an adulterous woman because "it's what God/Allah would want." I've seen some more fundamentalist Christians hold this same view - that laws ought to be created based upon what God wants.
The problem with this approach - and the problem with the notion that we ought to create laws based upon what is "ideally right" - comes back to the whole question of "RIGHT," according to WHOM?? "What God wants" according to WHOM?
This group wants to criminalize behavior A, B and C. That group wants to DE-criminalize A and B, but wants to make C a capital crime. That OTHER group doesn't want A, B or C to be criminalized, but they want X, Y and Z criminalized, instead. All based upon what THEY THINK God wants (or Allah, or the Goddess, or Gaia...).
Because of the plural nature of communities/societies, I'm suggesting we do much better off to limit our laws and regulations to preventing harm to others and let God sort out the rest. Outside of a wholly homogenous group, I don't see how that "what God wants" approach would work.
But I don't think that's a liberal/conservative divide. I think that's a fundamentalist/non-fundamentalist divide.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I'd have to say, Marshall, that if that was your point, it didn't work so well."
Then you're not paying attention. Not so high above these comments is information showing that impairment is noticable at .02. Why wasn't the that level made the legal limit? A subjective decision based on what someone believed was a more reasonable level.
But there already was a legal limit before .08 was established (.10). It wasn't the limit that was the problem. It was poor enforcement and high tolerance for those that had been "subjectively" found to be too impaired to drive by the trained professionals we trust for such decisions: the cop. (To that, if one feels the cop is abusing his authority, one could demand to take a breathalyzer test to defend against the false charge.)
Plus, as I said in my most recent comments, one can be held as driving while intoxicated if forced to take a breath test for other non-drinking violations, if a cop is indeed abusing his authority. The lower the limit, the more likely this can occur and THIS is how the law can burden the law-abiding. In addition, it is subjective to assume the success of dropping the level to .08 on keeping drunks off the road as there is no legitimate way in which we can determine who is affected by the law (that is, who would restrict themselves more or less based on the change of BAC limitations). It didn't restrict the guy in the story above who was busted for the fifth time, and as has been pointed out, if judgement is impaired because of the alcohol in one's system, how can a change in the BAC limit make a difference to a drunk.
The change in the law to its current state is nothing more than feel-good legislation and does little more than further burden the law-abiding. The law as it stood before the change was sufficient and lacked only enforcement.
"Further, you did nothing to demonstrate that the "do no harm" approach was unjust."
As shown above, I certainly have. What's more, in the area of "gun control", that is even more certainly apparent to anyone who has a real grasp of reality.
But my point isn't that it is "unjust", but that it can be unjust and every bit as subjective as trying to achieve an ideal. Indeed, "do no harm" is an ideal itself and absolutely involves subjectivity when harm isn't obvious. What constitutes harm is a subjective thing as well. Not only that, but who caused the harm can be subjective. Was McDonald's really guilty of causing harm when the woman spilled her coffee on her lap? Of course not. She did it to herself, but McDonald's was held as liable.
But how do we arrive at defining harm? It is the understanding of those who represent us. They, too, seek to achieve ideals, such as gov't provided health care. That is an ideal that I would prefer they re-think to a more logical degree.
"I have not, nor have I seen that anyone else has suggested you condone drunk driving."
Again, you're not paying attention, or you're not reading the comments in their entirety.
"...because you think you can handle yourself when it comes to drinking and driving."
What I said, repeatedly, is that consuming alcohol does not mean that one is automatically incapable of safe driving. Considering the amount necessary to achieve .08, I believe it is not uncommon to have many people reach that state without losing that ability. Thus, if they are stopped for violations unrelated to safe driving, and they are somehow made to test, they would have been subject to legal consequences without having been a danger and thus unjustly treated.
"We're just saying that we find an OBJECTIVE measure more reasonable than letting people (not Marshall, but ANY people) decide for themselves if they're (SUBJECTIVELY) sober enough."
Exactly. You're judging free-born law-abiding Americans before the fact. Very unAmerican. And you've done so by using a measure arrived at subjectively (again, why not .02 if one is indeed impaired at that level as studies have shown?).
"Where Marshall SEEMS to be worried is in cases where we regulate "moral" people along with "immoral people" in cases where there is only the POTENTIAL for harm."
Pretty much. I don't want to regulate ANYONE (aside with those who have already proven themselves to abuse some liberty) for "potentially" doing wrong. Can you not see how this can go too far? Let people be. If they do harm, hold them accountable. To craft laws based on actual harm done, rather than to "prevent" (as if you could) anyone from doing harm is all the deterence anyone could hope to have. Even these types of laws do not deter completely, but they do hold perpetrators accountable.
"What it is Marshall is suggesting in place of this approach, I don't know. A doing away with the BAC approach and returning to the more subjective and less demanding field sobriety tests, I would guess."
What I am NOT doing is suggesting no BAC limitations at all. As I said, there was already a level by which law enforcement assumed too much booze to drive. And subjectivity of the arresting officer is, was and always will be an important aspect of enforcement of these laws. What I object to is the assumption that a given level means one is an automatic danger if one's BAC is the ony indication of alcohol consumption. Does one's BAC insure that one is incapable of driving safely and responsibly? No. It doesn't.
"I, on the other hand, am suggesting that we can reasonably LIMIT "liberty" in cases where harm WILL be done or where harm can REASONABLY be expected."
Who decides? That harm WILL be done suggests it would be obvious to all. That harm "can REASONABLY be expected"? Reasonable to whom?
We get together and hash these things out and seek to find an "ideal" to which we can all agree or concede. But it is subjective whether it's determining harm or an ideal.
The more I think about it, I'd have to say that my criteria is not "do no harm", or even "prevent harm", but rather "hold those who harm accountable". Laws, such as speed limitations, allow enforcers an excuse to suggest that someone was acting recklessly (not that it's necessarily a bad thing). But they can't prevent reckless behavior itself.
As to "what God wants", all I can say here is that I've long felt that even if one were to be a non-believer, one could not do better than the teachings of the Bible for guiding one's life. For whether or not one disagrees with some of God's restrictions (and indeed, even believers have their druthers, such as homosexual Christians wishing their sexual wishes weren't prohibited), there's no way the world would not be a far better place were everyone to adhere strictly to His will.
Be that as it may, it is true that there are way too many non-believers to institute any Biblical teaching without also having a clear explanation as to why a Bible inspired law can stand on it's own without the religious connotations. Still, it would be difficult if it had ANY hint of religious origins, despite the clear harm done by ignoring it, as we clearly see in today's world the harm done by ignoring His will regarding sexual morality.
Be that as it may, how do we craft law? I would think that should a law be suggested, it should be examined first to see:
-If it addresses a harmful behavior no other law already does
-Does it address the behavior better, and if thought so, how?
-Does it punish or seek to prevent the behavior?
-If it seeks to prevent the behavior, how can reasonbly be expected to do that?
-Can we institute this law without an unfair infringement on the rights of law abiding people?
This is a rough draft and I'm out of time.
Marshall...
Then you're not paying attention.
Nope. I'm paying attention, probably WAY too much attention. Your words that I pay attention to do not form the basis for what I consider to be a rational argument. Not even a conservative argument. I haven't heard from any of your comrades, but I sorta doubt that most of them agree with you (if they understand your position).
Marshall...
Not so high above these comments is information showing that impairment is noticable at .02. Why wasn't the that level made the legal limit? A subjective decision based on what someone believed was a more reasonable level.
Perhaps you're not paying attention? It has been pointed out that the LEVEL of an objective number/limit may rightly be called ARBITRARY, but the number itself is objective. Either you're going 25 mph (or less) or you're going above it. Either you blow a .8 or you don't. These are objectively measurable means of determining a limit.
Now, you may DISAGREE with the number (25 mph, .8), but it IS an objectively measurable limits.
Marshall...
The change in the law to its current state is nothing more than feel-good legislation and does little more than further burden the law-abiding.
Set aside the .8 BAC for a minute. Do you think 25 mph (an objective, measurable limit) is a reasonable limit, EVEN for "law-abiding" citizens? Or, do you think that "law-abiding" citizens can go faster or slower, depending upon what they think best?
Dan said...
"We're just saying that we find an OBJECTIVE measure more reasonable than letting people (not Marshall, but ANY people) decide for themselves if they're (SUBJECTIVELY) sober enough."
And Marshall responded...
Exactly. You're judging free-born law-abiding Americans before the fact. Very unAmerican. And you've done so by using a measure arrived at subjectively (again, why not .02 if one is indeed impaired at that level as studies have shown?).
I think we've been through this already, Marshall.
1. Didn't you AGREE with me that we can reasonably LIMIT liberties at times?
2. You AGREE that we can LIMIT someone's liberty to swing their fist before it actually hits someone, right?
3. Do you agree, also, that we can reasonably limit someone's "right" (of course, they have no such right) to drive as fast as they wish, even if they're in a school zone or a residential neighborhood?
4. Do you think it is an un-American infringement upon the "liberties" of "law-abiding" citizens to say, "You have NO legal right to drive 50 mph in a school zone..."?
5. Or, do you agree with me that we citizens can AND SHOULD "limit" such "liberties," because of the high risk of causing harm - a risk that can be reasonably agreed upon?
Marshall (I numbered your points for clarity)...
Be that as it may, how do we craft law? I would think that should a law be suggested, it should be examined first to see:
1. If it addresses a harmful behavior no other law already does
2. Does it address the behavior better, and if thought so, how?
3. Does it punish or seek to prevent the behavior?
4. If it seeks to prevent the behavior, how can it reasonably be expected to do that?
5. Can we institute this law without an unfair infringement on the rights of law abiding people?
Okay. 1-4 are in accord with what I've been saying in this post. We can create a new law to criminalize/regulate behavior which might cause harm.
Of course, if there is an existing law that adequately covers it, no problem, so that part is no problem.
I can further agree that it is not much point in creating a law to criminalize/regulate a behavior IF the law has no teeth/is not likely to be effective.
So, 1-4, we appear to agree.
As to your fifth caveat:
5. Can we institute this law without an unfair infringement on the rights of law abiding people?
I can agree with this, too. But who will decide what is and isn't an "unfair infringement" on law abiders and how will we make that call?
To look at an example:
In an effort to decrease harm caused by folk driving too fast, we create a law that says, in effect, "in school zones and residential neighborhoods where there is an increased likelihood of having many pedestrians and children on the street, we can reasonably say 'SLOW DOWN!' and set a speed limit of 25 mph. Now, this could be considered an 'infringement upon the rights of drivers,' but it is more reasonably considered a rational limit given a specific set of circumstances. Thus, those who'd cry "infringement of liberty!" forget that with the great speed and convenience of a motor vehicle comes great responsibility. Driving is a privilege, not a right and we, the people can rationally agree to set a limit on how fast motorists can drive..."
That is, while it IS a limitation, it is NOT an unjust infringement upon "law-abiding" citizen's rights. It is simply a reasonable limitation - one of many necessary for living safely in a society. People may rationally disagree upon the number (personally, I think 15-20 mph is more reasonable in a school zone), but set a limit, we must.
And setting limits is not an unreasonable or unjust restriction of liberty. As long as we can agree on that, then I can agree with your fifth point, too.
Marshall...
I don't want to regulate ANYONE (aside with those who have already proven themselves to abuse some liberty) for "potentially" doing wrong. Can you not see how this can go too far?
Sure, it could go too far. And not doing anything would CERTAINLY be going too far. Can you see that?
You DO agree, don't you, that you WANT an objective (if somewhat arbitrary) speed limit that "limits" the "liberty" of people in school zones to a relatively slow speed?
That is, you DO want to regulate people in that manner, is that not the case?
If so, then we are agreeing on the principle that I've been advocating all along. It's just a matter of where those lines are drawn and when, not IF they should be drawn in order to protect innocents.
First of all, I have never said, nor written, that I believe you are arguing in support of drinking and driving. The confusion is caused, I think, by a looseness in the way you are presenting your argument, Art. On the one hand, you see the benefits to a standard against which drivers should be held. On the other hand, you object to the arbitrary (most definitely not subjective) setting of that limit at a point you deem too low. Indeed, you ask why it wasn't set as low as .02 if, indeed, there is enough research to show the dangers of even a small bit of alcohol in one's system. The answer is, quite simply, the limit seems to be an arbitrary, compromise number, certainly lower than the .1 limit that existed before, but high enough not to nab folks who might have had one drink then, within an hour or so, get behind the wheel. If for no other reason than unduly burdening the criminal justice system with DUI cases when it is already overloaded, it seems to make a certain pragmatic sense to keep the number a bit higher.
OK so far? Yet, you continue to insist, in your words if not your intent, that the more recent, lower BAC limit is an undue infringement upon law abiding citizens, and you continue to use your own self-reported abilities to function as a competent, safe driver as the example. In your own defense you continue to call yourself a law-abiding, moral individual who might, in your oft-stated view, be arrested for driving under the influence, which you manifestly believe to be in error.
You do not concede that, by violating the law - regardless of whether or not it is just or not, an infringement upon your rights and liberties or not - you would no longer be "law abiding", but by definition a law breaker. Furthermore, by continually referring to yourself as "moral", or otherwise "good", you are the one who introduced this particular qualifier in to the discussion, not us. We are trying to understand your position, and it seems the summary just given accords with your repeated statements.
Dan's question is quite simple. Is a legislated BAC limit - any limit - an undue, illegal infringement upon the rights and privileges of persons. You agree it is not; your sole complaint is the current legislated limit. At least, that is how I am reading you.
Is that fair enough?
Dan highlights the following: "I don't want to regulate ANYONE (aside with those who have already proven themselves to abuse some liberty) for "potentially" doing wrong. Can you not see how this can go too far?"
I'm sorry, Art, but this is just gobbledygook. Pure and simple. It is nonsensical on its face, and if it were taken at all seriously, would result in mass chaos. I can't imagine someone who views gay marriage as a threat to the very fabric of our social existence advocating, as you seem to be doing, the extreme libertarian position you are. After all, since the states that have legalized gay marriage are not experiencing any social disruption at all, your entire argument against it is undermined by your own "legal theory".
Geoffrey,
1. Not state in this union has had homosexual marriages long enough to tell the tale. Scandinavia has shown cultural degradations. However, supporters of that proposal are especially unreliable in recognizing harm associated with the lifestyle.
2. "I'm sorry, Art, but this is just gobbledygook. Pure and simple. It is nonsensical on its face, and if it were taken at all seriously, would result in mass chaos."
Hyperbole, anyone? Not taking it seriously results in liberties vanishing, such as my right to arm myself for self-defense. Oh, wait! You're right! In all those states that allow concealed carry, there's incredibly massive chaos, destruction and gnashing of the teeth!
3. "...your sole complaint is the current legislated limit."
My sole complaint is the manner in which the current limit was determined. It was provoked by the result of poor enforcement of existing laws and the result was the greater burden on personal freedom. Had the law been properly enforced, there'd be no issue here. It was unnecessary to drop the BAC limit. What was necessary was to enforce the existing law. Had that been done, far fewer needless deaths would have occurred and this knee-jerk response would not have occurred.
4. "You do not concede that, by violating the law - regardless of whether or not it is just or not, an infringement upon your rights and liberties or not - you would no longer be "law abiding", but by definition a law breaker."
Duh! I think we covered this already. I become a law breaker when previously legal behavior has now become illegal. As I don't carry a breathalyzer with me to social events, I cannot know if I am legal or not. The current law compels me to question my normal behavior, that had previously not only been legal, but safe and responsible, in the event that any confrontation with a cop might result in my being found to be "illegal" despite no other outward sign that I am in any way a danger to myself or anyone else.
Furthermore, I distinctly recall, in debates about the legality of both smoking weed AND abortion, questions like, "So, you would arrest an otherwise law abiding woman..." Thus....
5. "Furthermore, by continually referring to yourself as "moral", or otherwise "good", you are the one who introduced this particular qualifier in to the discussion, not us."
But I did not introduce it as a defense for reducing sentencing for an arrest (though it is used often in the real world), but only that the creation of some laws, in this case the change of the BAC requirement, infringes on the liberty of moral and responsible people. I've explained this numerous times and you still don't seem to get it. Do you not see the distinction?
6. "In your own defense you continue to call yourself a law-abiding, moral individual who might, in your oft-stated view, be arrested for driving under the influence, which you manifestly believe to be in error."
There is a difference between being under the influence and being incapable of performing the function of driving safely. The law does not reflect this truth, but instead insists that no one can have consumed alcohol and still be capable of driving safely.
I'm out of time. To answer Geoffrey's points in his first paragraph would be somewhat repetitive, and I don't have time to clear up some of what Dan has said.
Instead, I wish to add one more criteria for crafting law:
-It must be based on fact, truth, something verifiable and/or proven more than once. For example, I have never bought the line about how many people have died from second-hand smoke. In fact, I think the numbers they use are total crap and made up. Yet, laws regarding indoor smoking, warning labels, smoking even in outdoor arenas are at least in part, based on such bullshit numbers. They did the same thing with crap about how many women died from "back alley" abortions.
If a legislator wishes to cite some numbers, then they must table the proposal until the numbers can be verified. Pure sentiment is no basis for crafting law.
I'm fine with laws being fact-based. But how many times must studies/tests be done in order to satisfy Marshall?
Aside from that, this is touching on yet another area of criteria for law-making: Decency laws that allow people to live together in society. Sort of related to harm, but no physical harm has been done, just pain and inconvenience.
In this category, I'd include smoking, spitting, loud music and public nudity. We can rightfully regulate these behaviors because they impact others. Your right to listen to music loudly ends at my ears (within reason) and thus, an arbitrary but objective decibel level has been legislated at least in some areas where you can't play music above that level.
You can't go around spitting on people.
You can't go around smoking on people.
You can't go around showing your body totally nude in public.
No actual physical harm is done for most of these (except perhaps in the case of second hand smoke, according to multiple studies), and yet I think we can rightfully regulate these.
You, Marshall?
"But how many times must studies/tests be done in order to satisfy Marshall?"
Cut the crap, Dan. It is bullshit that you enjoy pretending that I'm taking any position based on "it's all about Marshall". If that's the case, the conversely the opposing argument is what satisfies Dan. I haven't used that crap on you.
But I do represent an opposing opinion and any who agree by stating my thoughts. All law "satisfies" someone.
As to the point, there is no way anyone can accurately gauge just how many deaths can be attributed to second-hand smoke. It's crap. All so-called victims would have to be otherwise exposed to no other carcinogenic influences. It's hype, plainly and simply and these numbers should never have been considered in an honest argument for creating further restrictions on smoking.
But to answer you question as if it wasn't smarmy, if the opposition to a proposed law cannot reproduce the same results that are used to promote the law, the results must be considered worthless for the purpose of basing the law upon it. It cannot be used in the promotion of the law and other means to argue must be found.
But you bring up something that I started to earlier regarding other reasons for creating laws, other types of laws that don't deal with direct harm of any kind. Laws against public nudity, for example, are laws that speak to an ideal, in this case modesty as well as preventing arousal (or disgust, as the case may be :D ).
But in some of your examples we're still dealing with harm being done, even though the harm isn't on the level of killing or maiming. Spitting on someone is still an assault. Loud music is disturbing the peace, as well as the risk to one's hearing. But to restrict people from spitting on each other promotes an ideal of mutual respect. Keeping music to a lower level does the same, as it indicates awareness of others and their comfort and peace.
But you're right. If "do no harm" is the standard, then these laws don't necessarily meet that standard and are subjectively codified to satisfy someone.
"Not state in this union has had homosexual marriages long enough to tell the tale. Scandinavia has shown cultural degradations. However, supporters of that proposal are especially unreliable in recognizing harm associated with the lifestyle."
LOL. The old "There's evidence! It's just that no one can see it!" and "The reason you can't see the evidence is that you can't see it!" methods of argumentation.
Well done, sir. Well done. Those three sentences are a master class in stupidity.
BTW, MA has had gay marriage for 7 years, 5 years longer than Sweden, and 5 years longer than Norway, both Scandinavian countries. So if "Scandinavia" has shown these "degradations" then MA definitely should by now.
Finland does not have gay marriage, and Iceland just legalized it last year, 6 years after MA. (I only mention that because sometimes Finland and Iceland are lumped in as Scandinavian countries, even though they're not.)
So you're actually only talking about Denmark. So why not just say Denmark? Yes, when it comes to this planet, Denmark is certainly a cultural capital.
BTW, do you even realize that Scandinavia is a region, not a country? LOL Wow.
Art: "As to the point, there is no way anyone can accurately gauge just how many deaths can be attributed to second-hand smoke. It's crap. All so-called victims would have to be otherwise exposed to no other carcinogenic influences. It's hype, plainly and simply and these numbers should never have been considered in an honest argument for creating further restrictions on smoking."
Which paragraph shows that you know nothing about how these studies are conducted, that there are things in scientific studies called "control groups", independent variables, various methods of statistical analysis that control for various factors that show a high correlation between second-hand smoke and various ailments from cancer and heart disease to SIDS. I didn't make this up. This is a wonderful overview of the scientific information provided by the CDC. This is a report from the Surgeon General. This isn't some weird alchemy. It's science. To sit here and claim that there is "now way" to determine the health effects of second-hand smoke as a defense of the supposed liberty to kill oneself and others is just wrong.
By the way, marijuana has as few a four, and only in trace amounts, of known carcinogens. One would have to smoke massive amounts of pot each and every day to inhale the same amount of carcinogens that one gets from a single cigarette, which also contains an amazing number of other toxins, from trace amounts of mercury to hydrogen cyanide. In terms of health effects, weed is far less dangerous than tobacco.
psst: Geoffrey, we've already established MA doesn't believe in all that sciency flibbledy-floo nonsense.
It's like watching Phil Hartman's Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer character: "Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: 'Did little demons get inside and type it?' I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. When I see a solar eclipse, like the one I went to last year in Hawaii, I think 'Oh no! Is the moon eating the sun?' I don't know. Because I'm a caveman -- that's the way I think."
Alan...
we've already established MA doesn't believe in all that sciency flibbledy-floo nonsense.
Sorry, Marshall, but that's funny. It's the kind of thing I'm trying to get away from, but your comments sort of provoke it.
when you say...
It's crap. All so-called victims would have to be otherwise exposed to no other carcinogenic influences. It's hype, plainly and simply and these numbers should never have been considered in an honest argument for creating further restrictions on smoking.
It sounds like you WANT laws to be fact-based, but not on that "science-y" crap that can't be trusted, but on REAL facts...
Do you see why I asked you that question ("But how many times must studies/tests be done in order to satisfy Marshall?") You SAY you want fact-based laws, but then reject the facts.
Yeah, Dan. A real freakin' knee slapper. Get real. Your bias is incredibly obvious.
But you boys can carp all you want. I don't deny science at all. I'm just not given to blind faith. There are plenty of studies that dispute the dangers of second hand smoke and no, they do not have ties to the tobacco industry. The number of deaths attributed is crap.
"There are plenty of studies that dispute the dangers of second hand smoke "
Uh huh.
Most scientists would agree that (a) nothing they say is really definitive; and (b) even the most sound scientific theory, from quantum physics to thermodynamics is considered contingent upon new facts showing it to be wrong.
Having said that, Art, it is not "faith" to check out scientific research on second-hand smoke, global warming, evolution, and realize that the phenomena under discussion are real, and the theories underpinning the discussions likely as sound as our current understanding can be. Betting one's life on the possibility that a scientific theory is in error is dangerous, to say the least. Just because physicists don't know what gravity is - there are neither waves nor particles that seem to cause it, and as it is action at a distance, it manifestly violates all sorts of suppositions about physics and reality - doesn't mean I'm going to step off the observation deck of the Empire State Building.
The public health risks of second-hand smoke are so well-established that, here in our great state of IL, the threat of allowing smoking in bars was opposed by . . . bartenders and servers, who do not want to be exposed, against their will, to a proven health risk, second-hand smoke. I used to DJ in bars back before the ban, and quite apart from hating coming home smelling like a brewery and tobacco farm, having drunk people come and blow smoke in my face, or just stand around with a lit cigarette, was offensive to me because I wanted no part of their decision to destroy their hearts and lungs, but I had no choice.
Art: "I don't deny science at all. I'm just not given to blind faith. There are plenty of studies that dispute the dangers of second hand smoke and no, they do not have ties to the tobacco industry. The number of deaths attributed is crap."
Translation - (Fingers placed firmly in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening.
I was going to comment, but I see a great burning orb in the sky, and I need to go throw rocks at it.
After that I'm going to go divining for water with a stick, and do some fortune-telling by reading some squirrel entrails.
"The public health risks of second-hand smoke are so well-established that..."
This is exactly what is disputed in other studies, that the risks are greatly overstated. Basic toxicology understands that it is the size of the dose that matters, not mere exposure. The human body is capable of handling even direct consumption of cigarette smoke, if the number of cigarettes never reaches a certain amount. An extreme example would be one cigarette in one's life, or one cigarette per year, or one per month or one per week...at some point there will be too much.
But in the exposure to 2nd-hand smoke, it is so subtle as to be almost negligable to the otherwise healthy person. Legislation should have always focussed on ventilation (if it must stick its nose into the affairs of private business), which would have lessened the effects of this so-called threat even more.
"...here in our great state of IL, the threat of allowing smoking in bars was opposed by . . . bartenders and servers, who do not want to be exposed, against their will, to a proven health risk, second-hand smoke."
Then legislate against the owners who put guns to the heads of innocent civilians to force them into employment. The risk has NOT been proven. Like global warming, a segment of society accepts one side of the argument regardless of the validity of the research, because it likes the results.
"I used to DJ in bars back before the ban, and quite apart from hating coming home smelling like a brewery and tobacco farm, having drunk people come and blow smoke in my face, or just stand around with a lit cigarette, was offensive to me because I wanted no part of their decision to destroy their hearts and lungs, but I had no choice."
No choice? How ever did you free yourself from that hell with no choice? I come home smelling like diesel fuel. When I worked at the airport years ago, I came home smelling like jet fuel. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
As far as people blowing smoke in your face, that's rude behavior that would be replaced by other rude behavior. It's a freakin' bar, for pete's sake. Drunks get rude. Even just as likely, drunks don't even realize they're blowing it directly in anyone's face. Remember? Their judgement is impaired and no one with any amount of alcohol in their system is capable of maintaining sound judgement?
There's also the possibility that they blew smoke in your face because you sucked as a DJ.
"Translation - (Fingers placed firmly in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening."
That's a more accurate description of YOUR attitude as you dismiss the possibility that other studies refute those to which you put so much faith. My attitude is more of looking at both sides and weighing the evidence and arguments presented.
Alan,
You're such a clever boy! Thanks for the geography lesson. Here's one article speaking to the negative effects of homosexual marriage on the institution (if not society itself--though it indicates that, too) in Denmark.
Here's one for Massachusett.
One of my favorite parts is this:
" Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"
Imagine that! I'm sure that in that state, they teach the kids that smoking and drinking alcohol is normal, because after all, that's legal as well. But of course, as the piece explains, it's not really legal in that state at all.
But the important thing to remember is that as I indicated earlier, people like you will ignore or attempt to explain away the harm that pro-homosexual legislation will inflict on the culture because you only care about what you want, not how what you want will impact anyone else.
Oh, and Alan. When you go out to throw rocks at that burning orb, be sure you never take your eye off your target.
Actually, Art, I used Google - the internet is such a neat thing, you should try it - and found a reference on WebMD to a 2003 study in the British Journal of Medicine that claimed no correlation between second-hand smoke and any attributable health risks. I couldn't find the article itself, but the criticism of the article was pretty substantial, and the study was funded by . . . the tobacco industry. It used publicly available data, but the details of how it misconstrued that data was pretty substantial.
This was after typing "no health risks second-hand smoke" in to the browser and getting over a million and a half hits. One reference to one article eight years ago.
So, no, I don't dismiss it. I just couldn't find any.
You're a funny guy, Art, because, in reality, I refuse to believe that any person in 2011 can emerge from bed, make it to the kitchen to have a cup of coffee, then leave the house and successfully navigate through the streets, as well as interact with other people, holding the views you do. It's like a parody of every right-wing talking point, from the anti-intellectualism to the bigotry to the narrow, non-orthodox view of Christianity. You are a distillation of everything Richard Hofstadter ever wrote about the American right, so I'm figuring it must be a put-on.
BTW, MA, I should thank you for taking the time to post a link to the very first Google search result you could find on the wonderful country of Scandinavia, which just happened to be the wackadoodle Weekly Standard and it just happened to be the place where you originally got your bizarre notions to begin with.
Truly your research abilities are a wonder to behold.
All this discussion on the health risks of second-hand smoke are an important prelude to discussing the matter of legal restrictions on smoking in enclosed public areas. Do the risks to public health, as well as public expenditure and the social costs of increased morbidity and higher health care costs, in and of themselves necessitate legislative action to restrict smoking in such areas? By and large, I would have to say, "Yes", because smoking in public is a clearly defined, delineated, and detailed risk to the health of the public. An individual smoking in the privacy of his or her home, alone, is not a risk to anyone but himself or herself; a person smoking in an enclosed public area is a risk to the health of others. To claim that smoking is a risk only to the smoker, and not to those around them, is clearly wrong.
As the increased morbidity, the higher health-care costs associated with a higher risk for a variety of illnesses as well as stresses on such disorders as diabetes create social costs that all must bear in one way or another, decreasing those potential hazards and costs is manifestly in the public good. Further, as there is manifestly no "right" or "freedom" to harm others in the course of one's own drug addiction, no fundamental infringement on any individual's freedom or rights is involved in placing such restrictions.
BTW, yes, Art, I had no choice but to suffer through others smoking in my presence because I was not in these bars by choice, but because I was working. Thus, I had no choice. Furthermore, it isn't "rude" to expose others to a known cardiovascular and carcinogenic health risk through indifference or ignorance.
BTW, since we're on the topic of meaningless correlations, anyone want to take a wild guess as to which state in the US has the lowest divorce rate?
"Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"
Scandalous!!
Oh wait. It isn't. *yawn*
(The snotty scare quotes around "legal" and the exclamation point at the end are particularly nice wingnut touches.)
But then, I also have no problem with schools also teaching that black people are equal to white people, despite what parents think or believe.
I also think schools should teach real science, no matter what backward paleolithic superstitions their "parents" believe! *ahem*
Marshall, I'm still not sure what you'd like in place of speed limit enforcement or drunk driving enforcement that doesn't "penalize" "good" people?
You're not saying you'd like to abolish speed limits or stopping impaired drivers, so what do you want in place of what we do?
Geoffrey,
Talk about bigotry. I also take with a grain of salt those studies funded by the industry being threatened by legislation. At the same time, it doesn't mean the research is slanted. OR, if we are to assume that, take as a fact of life, then every pro-homosexual study undertaken by those who support the agenda must also be thrown out.
The 2nd-hand smoke fear is logically stupid and mishandled even if we concede the effects might be truly horrible. The human body is not that fragile if properly maintained, and ventilation can provide relief for almost every legitimate fear of being in the same room with a smoker.
Yes, you were in that bar by choice, unless you're trying to say that your employment was forced at the point of a gun.
If an owner wishes to allow smoking in his place of business, no one should tell him he can't. It's called liberty. A responsible guy will ventilate properly. No one must work there if they prefer to not to deal with smokers.
As to how I get along in the world, I do just fine. When one doesn't run from reality and instead copes with things as they are, one gets by just fine. AND there is no bigotry in me, unless refusing to tolerate bad behavior is bigotry (you lefties so enjoy redefining words, that I must qualify everything). Neither am I unOrthodox in my understanding and practice of the Christian faith. That would be you guys. And as to "intellectualism"? Don't flatter yourselves.
"But then, I also have no problem with schools also teaching that black people are equal to white people, despite what parents think or believe."
How generous of you. I happen to think that homosexuals are equal to normal people and would not argue against that being taught in schools. It's the behavior, and always has been, that is in dispute. Thieves are equal to non-thieves, but their behavior isn't. Skin color is morally neutral as Neil rightly reminds us, but sexual behavior isn't.
Dan,
I'm not avoiding your question, but I wasted time on the Bobsey twins (and really wish I had time to elaborate there as well). I'll be back for your question later.
OK - I want a link to a series of studies, or the summary of such studies, that makes the point your are claiming, that second-hand smoke is not a health risk. I told you about how I checked it out and found a single reference to a single, eight-year-old study that was criticized, and rightly so from the details, for its conclusions. So, the names of the studies or summaries and their authors.
If an individual wishes to slowly ingest poison over a period of years, out of the way of other people and ensuring no one is effected by that poison, that's fine. Pouring poison in the city water-supply, however, is a crime. I see little difference between smoking on one's own, in one's own home, and smoking in public around those who do not, knowing full well the well-documented effects of second-hand smoke.
I know you're so busy, but I await with eagerness to read what you could provide.
" OR, if we are to assume that, take as a fact of life, then every pro-homosexual study undertaken by those who support the agenda must also be thrown out. "
... says MA, who does indeed throw out every pro-gay study for exactly that reason.
Yet another excellent example of hilarious unintentional irony.
You are indeed in rare form these days, MA!
BTW, Geoffrey, of course MA has hundreds of published, peer-reviewed journal articles showing that second hand smoke is not only not dangerous, it actually causes longer life, and rainbows, and unicorns.
They're the Emperors New Studies, only fools can't see the words!
Either that or his ouija board told him so.
Personally, I love the whole angle in which an individual, otherwise in good health, should not be effected by second-hand smoke. Um, Art, it's a toxin, which directly impacts how healthy an individual will be after exposure. If I were in robust health, and I am, and sat down and drank about six ounces of undiluted mercury, that basic healthiness wouldn't matter a bit because mercury, like the abundant toxins in second-hand tobacco smoke, poisons.
How is that simple concept beyond your grasp?
Well Geoffrey, then there are things like nitrosoamines which are powerful alkylating agents present in cigarette smoke. The insidious thing about them is that they're effectively filtered by cellulose. So non-smokers could get a higher exposure to them than smokers, interestingly enough.
But them thar's just more of that highfallutin' sciency flibbledy floo, according to MA.
I do think, however, that we've found a cheap and easy alternative to cleaning up all the EPA Superfund sites in the US. Just convince MA and people like him to move and live on the sites. Should be easy enough to convince them since healthy people won't get sick from exposure to toxic substances.
Hmmm.. Actually that would solve two problems.
BTW, Geoffrey, obviously no one gets sick from some invisible made-up notion like "second hand smoke" or "toxic exposure". Heck, no one's even ever seen an atom.
People get sick because they're sinners, or because their fathers or forefathers were sinners. It's right there in the Bible.
"If I were in robust health, and I am, and sat down and drank about six ounces of undiluted mercury, that basic healthiness wouldn't matter a bit because mercury, like the abundant toxins in second-hand tobacco smoke, poisons.
How is that simple concept beyond your grasp?"
Six ounces of undiluted mercury injested in one sitting does not in any way compare to sitting in a bar where people are smoking, especially if the ventilation is good. Drink a glass of rat poison and you die. A miniscule drop of the same in your oatmeal would go unnoticed. What's more, in time, that miniscule drop would be flushed from your system.
Geoffrey,
"OK - I want a link to a series of studies, or the summary of such studies, that makes the point your are claiming, that second-hand smoke is not a health risk."
The first problem with this whine is that you once again, in typical fashion, missed the point I was claiming (what a shocker!). I don't believe I've made any claim that secondhand smoke is risk free. It's the level of risk that is in question and that has been greatly overstated.
The second problem is your belief that you're entitled to demand anything from me. But since you demanded so nicely...
I found this one rather quickly and as luck would have it, it contains not only an explanation from the blog host for the problems with the death claims, but contains a host of studies, listed not only in his post, but also amongst the comments that followed (with some repeated).
Now some of these you might dismiss because of when they took place. But you'll note that one took place over a ten year period, for example.
Also notable was the anecdotal offering of one commenter who grew up with a father who smoked in the home, became a smoker himself and married one, had kids who grew up, etc, etc, etc and the point was the number of people all told with none suffering any "2ndhand" related consequences.
But then, if that's too heady for you, you might find this more palatable.
I mean, to me it's just more of that highfallutin' sciency flibbledy floo. But it sounds pretty compelling. (What kind of an idiot talks like that, anyway, even to try to ridicule another?)
Of course the real point here is the use of specious numbers and studies to influence attitudes in order to craft law.
I checked out the first link - to a quack weight-loss "doctor" whose blog exists to sell his services providing "lap-band surgery" for weight loss. He really shouldn't be trusted because here he says that "diets don't work", when any reputable doctor will insist on diet and exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle. Not paying some quack to perform surgery on you, a last resort in cases of morbid obesity, but other than that . . .
Seriously, this is the link you found, Art? And a YouTube video of people ranting? That's it? Studies - that's what I asked for. Studies, or the summary of them. Not a surgeon writing on a blog.
"What's more, in time, that miniscule drop would be flushed from your system."
Not if it's fat soluble poison.
But again, solubility is probably another one of those wacky sciency concepts you don't believe in.
"to a quack weight-loss "doctor" whose blog exists to sell his services providing "lap-band surgery" for weight loss."
Marshall is quite fond of quacks who sell their wares on websites.
Please, everyone. No personal attacks, stick to the topic.
Post a Comment