I keep the family meatloaf recipe on a TruCrypt partition. No one has discovered it yet!
Anyway--I think there are legitimate reasons to want to encrypt data. How about a doctor wanting to ensure patient records are private? Or a corporation that has done some research that it doesn't want to get out? Or what about your personal diary (some people, believe it or not, don't think MySpace is the best place for a private diary)? Or what if you work for the CIA and have been stealing data from a small quiet--a little too quiet--Scandinavian company for a couple years...and they find you out and take your computer after breaking your legs? (ok, that last one's a stretch).
I'm sure commenters will add many more legitimate items to this list.
As the comments show--a lot of Honda owners find this rather striking. I'll add my name to the list as well--I own a '92 Vigor that just crossed the 190,000 mile mark. It's still running strong.
I'm hoping someone on the Technology Review staff will respond to my comment. Maybe people like us made a difference, or maybe just very few people subscribed and they make more money as an ad-supported magazine (meaning it was all about "the benjamins" and our emails served little purpose).
MIT publishes a magazine called Technology Review, which I have been a reader of for some time now. There came a time a few years back when they required a subscription to view online material, much like Scientific American and many other magazines do. This was after the school had begun their OpenCourseWare program, and I thought it seemed contrary to where the school was headed. I emailed the magazine and told them essentially that. I have no idea if my email played a part (I'm sure it was one of many similar emails--Technology Review really is a great magazine (one I'd be willing to pay for if I wasn't so darn poor...I'm a student)). But anyway, within a few days, the content was all freely accessable again.
Ummm--last I checked the Mississippi still hits the ocean. New orleans may have gotten the river to go around them (though the blockade was unsuccessful at holding back the ocean), but they certainly didn't stop the river.
...trying to stop these is like trying to stop the Missouri River. Give up. People obviously want this technology; give it to them, and figure out how to make money from it.
You know what this reminds me of--my wife's cousin got mad at her for "snooping around" when my wife found out about stuff her cousin did at a party because her cousin posted it on myspace! I was dumbfounded--when you read something that's posted on MySpace, can it posssibly be "snooping around"?
People are publishing blogs containing information similar to a private journal or diary. The weird thing is that they want everyone in the world to see it--except for their parents (or cousin in my wife's case case).
I am still dumbfounded to this very moment. I hardly even know what to say, the whole thing is so stupid.
I actually first used Linux fairly recently with Ubuntu 5.10 (I have an external hard drive with extra space, so I installed it on there), then decided to try switching to SUSE. I thought it was cool for about two days (though, not much cooler than Ubuntu--I was up to 6.06 when I made the switch to SUSE--the only things cooler about SUSE were Slab and Compiz) until the startup stopped recognizing my hard drive because of a weird tendency my hard drive has to switch from sda to sdb at random. That's easy to fix in GRUB, so I did so, but SUSE's startup runs fsck on the designated install disk every time--sda in my case--when it couldn't find sda to run fsck on it, it refused to start. I could find no way to solve this. Whereas, with Ubuntu, this was not a problem.
So, I know, you're thinking, "SUSE just didn't work for you because your hard drive is wacked." But hey--isn't it nice that Ubuntu works even though my hard drive is wacked?
So, to finish the story, when I switched back to Ubuntu, I installed 6.10, which runs Compiz quite easily, and also has slab available. So I'm converted back to Ubuntu.
NOTE: if anyone has any idea why my USB hard drive switches between sda and sdb, I would love to hear.
Yes, I'd probably err the other way. Sure, some people would think they are less "free," but also there would be less damage.
It's sort of the theory that a saved life is worth the cost of preventing its death.
There are limits to this, of course, but I think a lot of people feel the way I do even though they might not say it. But after they get mugged, they think, why weren't the cops there to prevent this from happening? It's like they want "freedom" for the masses, but when they are talking about themselves they want prevention from damage. I, on the other hand, am more upfront. I want prevention from damage for everyone.
On the other hand, you are correct in that most prevention is doing nothing (in that it's "preventing" something that wasn't going to happen anyway), and other times the preventive measures fail to prevent what they were intended to prevent.
If this is the case, then it seems that preventive measures are nothing more than unnecessary surveylance, or security, or whatever (Big Brother) that isn't even doing its job.
So, I guess I like to think of these things on a case by case basis rather than setting a rule for all legislation (legislation is too paternalistic when it crosses line X). I think this is what legislators do this on a case by case basis anyway. And even if the legislature is being too paternalistic, their power is checked by the executive power, which can choose what laws to enforce (for example, they stopped enforcing adultery laws, thereby rendering such laws impotent). And even then, if both the legislative and executive branches are acting overly paternalistically, the judiciary gets to decide if the law has a rational basis.
So, I think that's my decision: whether a law is too paternalistic should be determined on a case by case basis by the legislative, then the executive, and then the judicial branches of government. If the people disagree with their decisions, they can use their right to vote to change the legislature and heads of the executive branch (and in some cases, the judges), and try again.
Considering this is how things are already done, I guess I'm pleased with the way things are.
In general I agree with you on these things. I'm just stuck on one thing (not a disagreement with you; just something on which I'm not settled in myself):
Personally, I do find tolerance and minding ones own business to be valuable. I like the idea of less regulation--its a burden on the tax system. However, there are some people that I don't want in that camp with me--and that is the people who are using "freedom" as an excuse to do bad things. If it isn't bad for a married man to look up pornography, then why is he hiding it from his wife? If child pornography is not bad, then why do you want your search history to be untouchable?
When people use privacy as nothing more than a cover so they can get away with things that they know are wrong, then they are doing nothing to help make the internet more free. You need better spokesmen than that.
Tolerance and understanding of people with unusual thought patterns is one thing, but that doesn't mean I have to allow them to get away with having sex with children in the name of tolerance. You can call it me forcing my morality down other people's throats, but the people in that linked post were taking your argument and using that to say they should be able to have sex with children.
So that's my problem with the whole "mind your own business" thing. If the people saying it weren't so suspicious it would be different.
That is my first point--whether or not you agree with thee "legislation of morality," "morality" will be legislated. It is not unconstitutional to do so.
My second point is somewhat more philosophical. But I'll try to bring it down to Earth. I think that the vast majority of the current populace of the US would now agree that it is wrong to allow a person to be enslaved merely because of his skin color. This was not always the case. Prior to the civil war, there were an awful lot of people that did not feel it was wrong to enslave black people. They agreed that it was the exploitation of black people, but they did not feel that it was immoral to exploit black people. Times, thoughts, and people have changed--now most people feel its wrong to exploit black people. The legislation follows the morals of the people.
Where do you draw the line as to when the legislation is "Piritanical" rather than general morality? No such line is drawn anywhere. It's up to legislators to decide what is the morality of the masses. So, we will be subjected to what polititions think is "right," and important enough that it should be enforced by law.
Further, you say "Secular laws regarding murder, theft, etc. are held to be different because there is an obvious victim and lack of consent." First, I don't know who you're saying is "holding" these laws to be "different"--your use of the word "held" implies this is the opinion of courts. Such is obviously not the case. Second, there is nothing other than morality holding up laws against murder: It impedes on another's right to life (this assumes it's wrong to impede on another's right to life); it deprives his kids of a father (this assumes it's wrong to deprive kids of their father); it removes the family's income (who cares? Only people who think its wrong to deprive a family of their rightful income); it removes a taxpayer from the system (even this also could be phrased in moral terms; but this is the only reason I can think of that seems silly to do so. However, do you really think that's what the legislature said when it made murder illegal? No--they said "murder is wrong.").
Additionally, why need there be an obvious victim? Just because the victims aren't obvious doesn't mean something should be legal. And consent--what if I consent to murder? It's still illegal (except under very specific circumstances in the state of Oregon).
You think you've drawn a line at which point laws shouldn't be made--lack of consent and obvious victim--but the legislature is smart enough to see that is a stupid line. So they don't use it. Instead, they decide for themselves at which point they are being overly-paternalistic.
If the government changed its mind and decided to amend the constitution to say "Legislating morality is overly paternalistic and therefore is hereby illegal," this amendment would cancel itself out because it assumes that it is "wrong" to be overly paternalistic (not to mention it would unconstitutionally vague--at what point is something overly paternalistic).
I could go on. It isn't that I don't understand--I certainly understand. I see that there is no way to make
This isn't to say that all laws have a rational basis. It merely means that, if a law's rational basis is challenged (which often does not happen), then it should be found unconstitutional if the court finds the law has no rational basis. Any law's rational basis may be challenged, not merely laws that hit upon a particular point (whereas, laws that intrude on certain rights must pass higher levels of review, but not all laws need to pass these higher levels of review).
I generally agree with you (as my posts make obvious). However, I thought I'd note that all laws do require at least a rational basis to meet constitutional muster. That rational basis need not be much beyond a moral basis usually though.
I think its obvious that polititions are thinking morally when they legislate; I'm just saying that I think polititions need not hide this fact. They are legislating morality, and that's all there is to it. They don't need to pretend there is some other motive. And yes, seat belt laws are an excellent example of this. You may think seatbelt laws are "wrong," but my point is merely that seatbelt laws are an example of legislating morality. So apparently it is ok to legislate morality, otherwise the seatbelt laws would all be struck down by the courts.
In fact, have you ever heard of a court striking down a law due to its tendency to "legislate morality"? No. Everyone points to abortion laws, but that was about people's "right" to "procreative freedom."
The reason I say it's impossible to not legislate morality is because there is always "right" or "wrong" underlying the legislation. For example, some other commenter was telling me that stealing is illegal not because it is "wrong," but because it causes harm to others. I pointed out that, stealing is not illegal merely because it harms others; stealing is illegal because it harms others, and it is wrong to harm others. This type of reasoning underlies nearly every law. Here's another example: Rape is illegal because there it lacks consent...and it it wrong to have sex with a person who doesn't consent to it.
Last; I disagree with your summary of my argument. I do not feel that everything immoral should be illegal, and that everything illegal is immoral. Here's how I would summarize my argument: polititions who make laws usually make them for moral reasons, and it is nearly impossible for this to not be the case. Some immoral things need not be regulated--like I don't care about seatbelt laws (I just don't think they're unconstitutional). And some laws aren't morality based (corporate organization laws, for example).
I agree that people's stance on what is moral changes over time. For example, slavery used to be legal. At that time polititions did not feel slavery was "wrong." But slavery later became illegal. Why; what changed? Polititions changed. I'm sure everyone has always agreed that slavery of blacks is exploiting black people. But before the abolishment of slavery, the majority of politions did not think the exploitation of black people was wrong. Later, polititions felt that it was wrong to exploit black people, and the laws changed accordingly. What changed?--the polititions view of what is "wrong." That is legislating morality.
What I'm trying to tell you is that, even though you might not be explicitly thinking in terms of "right" and "wrong," it necessarily underlies your responses.
What I do know is that it HARMS the person who gets exploited.
This implies that it is "wrong" to HARM a person. Otherwise, who cares that there is harm?
To prevent people from victimizing others.
Underlying this is your thoughts that it is "wrong" to victimize others.
Not because it is wrong but because it is an attempt to create a fair playing field where everyone has a chance to live their life without worrying about some scumbag killing them, raping them, taking their money
Now this one's interesting because you say that it has nothing to do with "wrongness." However, your statement nonetheless relies on your thoughts (in agreement with legislators) that it is wrong to kill, rape, and steal. Heck, it even implies that it is "right" to help people to not worry about those things.
My point is that if no one thought it was "wrong" to exploit people, or harm people, or whatever else, when there probably wouldn't be laws against it. It isn't illegal because it is exploitation or harmful, it is illegal because exploitation or causing harm is "wrong."
I find it so fascinating how you put that--you made put your statement in a moral form: "those laws, and every other law that legislates morality, is wrong."
All you people are the same. Let me make this more clear:
In the case of lying to the government, it is not the lying itself that is illegal, it is the act of gaining through the expense of someone else.
First--yes, it is the actual lying that is illegal. But you do give a reason for why is is illegal (it is the act of gaining through the expense of someone else). What you're saying implicitly here is that you think it is illegal because legislators feel it is "wrong" to exploit another for gain. That's morality.
If you lie on your tax return you are deceiving the government for personal gain.
What you're implying here is that it is "wrong" to deceive the government for personal gain. Apparently legislators also felt is was "wrong," and made it law. That is legislating morality!
In all of the cases where "lying" is illegal [it] is due to the direct and intentional harm of another being either for malice or personal gain.
I think I hardly need to say this again. You apparently agree with legislators that lying is illegal when it is done with malice. That is legislating morality!
Allow me to hypothetically ask if it would be legislating morality if the legislators decided that free speech overrides all other consideration, making it legal, then, to lie to a court, or on your tax return, etc. (actually just plain making it illegal to restrict any form of speech)? This would still be legislating morality. It would just mean that the group whose morals say it is "wrong" to restrict speech won out over the people whose morals say it is "wrong" to lie. It is still legislation morality; it's just a question of whose morality wins.
Don't you see? That is legislating morality. Essentially you are saying that it is "wrong" to intrude on the public's safety.
What about the first amendment? It is "wrong" to intrude on a person's speach (except in certain instances when it is "wrong" to speak, like lying to a judge).
What about abortion? It is "wrong" to abort a "living being" for nonmedical reasons.
What about the pro-choice side of the argument? It is "wrong" to restrict a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby.
What about corporate scandal laws that keep people from being ripped off (note that losing money is not a safety issue)? It is "wrong" to rip people off.
What if the laws were backward from this, instead making it illegal to restrict a person's "right to rip people off"? Then it would be because the legislators felt it was "wrong" to restrict such a "right."
Basically, most laws (especially criminal laws) legislate morality. The question is merely who's morality gets legislated.
The only laws I can think of that aren't morality-based are laws such as corporate laws that can be easily overridden by contract, such as a law stating that the shareholders of a corporation have an implicit preemptive purchase right when new shares are issued unless the articles of incorporation state otherwise.
I never argued in my entire comment that the proposed legislation would be effective. I merely stated its intended purpose (organize the internet better). In fact, I commented elsewhere to this very effect (that the law probably wouldn't work) prior to your reply.
My comment was merely pointing out that this proposed law was not legislating morality any more than any other law (if it even proposed to legislate morality at all, which I argue it does not, given that it does not make pornogrophy any less available to the public).
And also, it is legal to give a parent the ability to oversee what their children are exposed to. If a 16 year old boy wants to search for pornography on the internet, a parent is allowed to do what they can to stop their boy from finding pornography. Of course, the boy will ultimately be successful, but much of the reason behind that is because there are not effective means of blocking pornography. These legislators, "bless their hearts," are trying to aid these parents in restraining their children from viewing pornography. While their efforts will likely not work, and while they might be better off taking another route, their efforts are nonetheless not legislating morality (since, I repeat, it doesn't block porn), and, even if it did amount to legislating morality, would still be acceptable.
I love it when people do as you did, telling me my argument is so terrible and then attack things that I didn't argue (like when you told me the law wouldn't work), or tell me my argument is just too convoluted for response (and then don't respond to the logic with logic). I've seen lawyers try that in court--doesn't work; it's like lying down. I will admit however that I am sometimes redundant; this is because I've argued with some real morons on slashdot, so I try to get my point across in as many forms as possible in the outset in order to avoid repetition later.
First--the reasons you gave for why murder and statutory rape are illegal are listed in my comment. And, I'll repeat here what I said there--those are the reasons why they are considered immoral.
Second, you ask why adultery and lying are legal despite the fact that they are usually considered immoral. Of course, you remain misinformed--adultery has traditionally been illegal and is still illegal in many states. It has not, however been dutifully enforced. And lying is illegal in a great many contexts--for example, it is illegal to lie on your tax return, it is illegal to lie in a deposition, in court, or before a legislative body, as well as in many other contexts. These are the instances where it is practical and especially important to reprimand lying. Whereas, a law making it illegal to lie to your wife about adultery is much more difficult for the government to enforce--of course, it doesn't matter much because in the end the lying gets you shortchanged by the law anyway when she rightfully gets a divorce and runs with all your money.
Yes, the government legislates morality, and must do so. And where it doesn't, the civil law does. It is impossible for it to not do so.
This is a proposed federal law being pushed by the governor of Utah. So, although you are correct that the whole world would need to cooperate, and you are correct that Huntsman is generally in charge only of his own state, and you are correct that this whole thing probably wouldn't work, you did get one thing wrong--he's pushing a federal law, which would apply to the entire US, so the content providers would not have to be in Utah for this proposed law to reach them (but they would have to be in the US).
First, I don't see how this is legislating morality. This proposal does not in any way block pornogrophy. It just organizes it better; that way it can be more easily blocked by parents or employers. If you are your own administrator at your house, then I assume you won't have the ports in question blocked.
Second, believe it or not you will not find a single legislator in any country at any time that does not believe their purpose is to legislate morality. I believe that one of their main purposes is to legislate morality. An believe it or not--you'd be lying if you say you don't either. Allow me to explain: why is murder illegal? Because it's immoral. Why is it illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 6 year old? Because it's immoral. The reasons why it is immoral may vary--for example, murder is immoral because it is generally wrong to take another's life. And statutory rape is illegal because a 6 year old can't realistically consent. And there are people that disagree with the reasons why these things are illegal--but they will never be legislators because they are so far from the norm that they could not possibly be elected to public office.
In conclusion, you are a moron for trying to make use of the "don't legislate morality" line that is so overused (and I don't even understand why it is still around).
I believe Asimov made this same prediction (? do we call a guess at what happened in the past a "prediction"?) in his book Atom. Or perhaps in another book; anyway, I'm sure Asimov said this a long time ago. He said he though it had to do with random fluctuations in ratio of matter to antimatter in a particular space (or something like that. I'm not much of a physicist).
Slashdot Mirror
I keep the family meatloaf recipe on a TruCrypt partition. No one has discovered it yet!
Anyway--I think there are legitimate reasons to want to encrypt data. How about a doctor wanting to ensure patient records are private? Or a corporation that has done some research that it doesn't want to get out? Or what about your personal diary (some people, believe it or not, don't think MySpace is the best place for a private diary)? Or what if you work for the CIA and have been stealing data from a small quiet--a little too quiet--Scandinavian company for a couple years...and they find you out and take your computer after breaking your legs? (ok, that last one's a stretch).
I'm sure commenters will add many more legitimate items to this list.
As the comments show--a lot of Honda owners find this rather striking. I'll add my name to the list as well--I own a '92 Vigor that just crossed the 190,000 mile mark. It's still running strong.
I'm hoping someone on the Technology Review staff will respond to my comment. Maybe people like us made a difference, or maybe just very few people subscribed and they make more money as an ad-supported magazine (meaning it was all about "the benjamins" and our emails served little purpose).
MIT publishes a magazine called Technology Review, which I have been a reader of for some time now. There came a time a few years back when they required a subscription to view online material, much like Scientific American and many other magazines do. This was after the school had begun their OpenCourseWare program, and I thought it seemed contrary to where the school was headed. I emailed the magazine and told them essentially that. I have no idea if my email played a part (I'm sure it was one of many similar emails--Technology Review really is a great magazine (one I'd be willing to pay for if I wasn't so darn poor...I'm a student)). But anyway, within a few days, the content was all freely accessable again.
Ummm--last I checked the Mississippi still hits the ocean. New orleans may have gotten the river to go around them (though the blockade was unsuccessful at holding back the ocean), but they certainly didn't stop the river.
My analogy holds!
...trying to stop these is like trying to stop the Missouri River. Give up. People obviously want this technology; give it to them, and figure out how to make money from it.
You know what this reminds me of--my wife's cousin got mad at her for "snooping around" when my wife found out about stuff her cousin did at a party because her cousin posted it on myspace! I was dumbfounded--when you read something that's posted on MySpace, can it posssibly be "snooping around"?
People are publishing blogs containing information similar to a private journal or diary. The weird thing is that they want everyone in the world to see it--except for their parents (or cousin in my wife's case case).
I am still dumbfounded to this very moment. I hardly even know what to say, the whole thing is so stupid.
For me, SUSE did not "just work" and Ubuntu did.
I actually first used Linux fairly recently with Ubuntu 5.10 (I have an external hard drive with extra space, so I installed it on there), then decided to try switching to SUSE. I thought it was cool for about two days (though, not much cooler than Ubuntu--I was up to 6.06 when I made the switch to SUSE--the only things cooler about SUSE were Slab and Compiz) until the startup stopped recognizing my hard drive because of a weird tendency my hard drive has to switch from sda to sdb at random. That's easy to fix in GRUB, so I did so, but SUSE's startup runs fsck on the designated install disk every time--sda in my case--when it couldn't find sda to run fsck on it, it refused to start. I could find no way to solve this. Whereas, with Ubuntu, this was not a problem.
So, I know, you're thinking, "SUSE just didn't work for you because your hard drive is wacked." But hey--isn't it nice that Ubuntu works even though my hard drive is wacked?
So, to finish the story, when I switched back to Ubuntu, I installed 6.10, which runs Compiz quite easily, and also has slab available. So I'm converted back to Ubuntu.
NOTE: if anyone has any idea why my USB hard drive switches between sda and sdb, I would love to hear.
Yes, I'd probably err the other way. Sure, some people would think they are less "free," but also there would be less damage.
It's sort of the theory that a saved life is worth the cost of preventing its death.
There are limits to this, of course, but I think a lot of people feel the way I do even though they might not say it. But after they get mugged, they think, why weren't the cops there to prevent this from happening? It's like they want "freedom" for the masses, but when they are talking about themselves they want prevention from damage. I, on the other hand, am more upfront. I want prevention from damage for everyone.
On the other hand, you are correct in that most prevention is doing nothing (in that it's "preventing" something that wasn't going to happen anyway), and other times the preventive measures fail to prevent what they were intended to prevent.
If this is the case, then it seems that preventive measures are nothing more than unnecessary surveylance, or security, or whatever (Big Brother) that isn't even doing its job.
So, I guess I like to think of these things on a case by case basis rather than setting a rule for all legislation (legislation is too paternalistic when it crosses line X). I think this is what legislators do this on a case by case basis anyway. And even if the legislature is being too paternalistic, their power is checked by the executive power, which can choose what laws to enforce (for example, they stopped enforcing adultery laws, thereby rendering such laws impotent). And even then, if both the legislative and executive branches are acting overly paternalistically, the judiciary gets to decide if the law has a rational basis.
So, I think that's my decision: whether a law is too paternalistic should be determined on a case by case basis by the legislative, then the executive, and then the judicial branches of government. If the people disagree with their decisions, they can use their right to vote to change the legislature and heads of the executive branch (and in some cases, the judges), and try again.
Considering this is how things are already done, I guess I'm pleased with the way things are.
In general I agree with you on these things. I'm just stuck on one thing (not a disagreement with you; just something on which I'm not settled in myself):
Personally, I do find tolerance and minding ones own business to be valuable. I like the idea of less regulation--its a burden on the tax system. However, there are some people that I don't want in that camp with me--and that is the people who are using "freedom" as an excuse to do bad things. If it isn't bad for a married man to look up pornography, then why is he hiding it from his wife? If child pornography is not bad, then why do you want your search history to be untouchable?
When people use privacy as nothing more than a cover so they can get away with things that they know are wrong, then they are doing nothing to help make the internet more free. You need better spokesmen than that.
Tolerance and understanding of people with unusual thought patterns is one thing, but that doesn't mean I have to allow them to get away with having sex with children in the name of tolerance. You can call it me forcing my morality down other people's throats, but the people in that linked post were taking your argument and using that to say they should be able to have sex with children.
So that's my problem with the whole "mind your own business" thing. If the people saying it weren't so suspicious it would be different.
First, it's obvious that what is your idea of "legislating morality" is acceptable to the US government and the courts. For example, there are laws against obscenity (things falling under the category of "obscenity" are not protected speech. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_Stat es_obscenity_law). And there are many laws regarding alcohol (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe#United_State s); there are even towns that ban the sale of alcohol altogether (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_town). So, although you may disagree with this type of legislation, it is not unconstitutional.
That is my first point--whether or not you agree with thee "legislation of morality," "morality" will be legislated. It is not unconstitutional to do so.
My second point is somewhat more philosophical. But I'll try to bring it down to Earth. I think that the vast majority of the current populace of the US would now agree that it is wrong to allow a person to be enslaved merely because of his skin color. This was not always the case. Prior to the civil war, there were an awful lot of people that did not feel it was wrong to enslave black people. They agreed that it was the exploitation of black people, but they did not feel that it was immoral to exploit black people. Times, thoughts, and people have changed--now most people feel its wrong to exploit black people. The legislation follows the morals of the people.
Where do you draw the line as to when the legislation is "Piritanical" rather than general morality? No such line is drawn anywhere. It's up to legislators to decide what is the morality of the masses. So, we will be subjected to what polititions think is "right," and important enough that it should be enforced by law.
Further, you say "Secular laws regarding murder, theft, etc. are held to be different because there is an obvious victim and lack of consent." First, I don't know who you're saying is "holding" these laws to be "different"--your use of the word "held" implies this is the opinion of courts. Such is obviously not the case. Second, there is nothing other than morality holding up laws against murder: It impedes on another's right to life (this assumes it's wrong to impede on another's right to life); it deprives his kids of a father (this assumes it's wrong to deprive kids of their father); it removes the family's income (who cares? Only people who think its wrong to deprive a family of their rightful income); it removes a taxpayer from the system (even this also could be phrased in moral terms; but this is the only reason I can think of that seems silly to do so. However, do you really think that's what the legislature said when it made murder illegal? No--they said "murder is wrong.").
Additionally, why need there be an obvious victim? Just because the victims aren't obvious doesn't mean something should be legal. And consent--what if I consent to murder? It's still illegal (except under very specific circumstances in the state of Oregon).
You think you've drawn a line at which point laws shouldn't be made--lack of consent and obvious victim--but the legislature is smart enough to see that is a stupid line. So they don't use it. Instead, they decide for themselves at which point they are being overly-paternalistic.
If the government changed its mind and decided to amend the constitution to say "Legislating morality is overly paternalistic and therefore is hereby illegal," this amendment would cancel itself out because it assumes that it is "wrong" to be overly paternalistic (not to mention it would unconstitutionally vague--at what point is something overly paternalistic).
I could go on. It isn't that I don't understand--I certainly understand. I see that there is no way to make
Well, I think the idea is that Congress only has power to enact laws that are rational. It doesn't necessarily always work out this way in the end.
It's government...
It's called the "rational basis test." To be constitutional, a law (in the US anyway) must have a rational basis.
o nal-basis-test and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_test
See http://law.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/rati
This isn't to say that all laws have a rational basis. It merely means that, if a law's rational basis is challenged (which often does not happen), then it should be found unconstitutional if the court finds the law has no rational basis. Any law's rational basis may be challenged, not merely laws that hit upon a particular point (whereas, laws that intrude on certain rights must pass higher levels of review, but not all laws need to pass these higher levels of review).
This is very basic constitutional law.
I generally agree with you (as my posts make obvious). However, I thought I'd note that all laws do require at least a rational basis to meet constitutional muster. That rational basis need not be much beyond a moral basis usually though.
I think its obvious that polititions are thinking morally when they legislate; I'm just saying that I think polititions need not hide this fact. They are legislating morality, and that's all there is to it. They don't need to pretend there is some other motive. And yes, seat belt laws are an excellent example of this. You may think seatbelt laws are "wrong," but my point is merely that seatbelt laws are an example of legislating morality. So apparently it is ok to legislate morality, otherwise the seatbelt laws would all be struck down by the courts.
In fact, have you ever heard of a court striking down a law due to its tendency to "legislate morality"? No. Everyone points to abortion laws, but that was about people's "right" to "procreative freedom."
The reason I say it's impossible to not legislate morality is because there is always "right" or "wrong" underlying the legislation. For example, some other commenter was telling me that stealing is illegal not because it is "wrong," but because it causes harm to others. I pointed out that, stealing is not illegal merely because it harms others; stealing is illegal because it harms others, and it is wrong to harm others.
This type of reasoning underlies nearly every law. Here's another example:
Rape is illegal because there it lacks consent...and it it wrong to have sex with a person who doesn't consent to it.
Last; I disagree with your summary of my argument. I do not feel that everything immoral should be illegal, and that everything illegal is immoral. Here's how I would summarize my argument: polititions who make laws usually make them for moral reasons, and it is nearly impossible for this to not be the case. Some immoral things need not be regulated--like I don't care about seatbelt laws (I just don't think they're unconstitutional). And some laws aren't morality based (corporate organization laws, for example).
I agree that people's stance on what is moral changes over time. For example, slavery used to be legal. At that time polititions did not feel slavery was "wrong." But slavery later became illegal. Why; what changed? Polititions changed. I'm sure everyone has always agreed that slavery of blacks is exploiting black people. But before the abolishment of slavery, the majority of politions did not think the exploitation of black people was wrong. Later, polititions felt that it was wrong to exploit black people, and the laws changed accordingly. What changed?--the polititions view of what is "wrong." That is legislating morality.
This implies that it is "wrong" to HARM a person. Otherwise, who cares that there is harm?
Underlying this is your thoughts that it is "wrong" to victimize others.
Now this one's interesting because you say that it has nothing to do with "wrongness." However, your statement nonetheless relies on your thoughts (in agreement with legislators) that it is wrong to kill, rape, and steal. Heck, it even implies that it is "right" to help people to not worry about those things.
My point is that if no one thought it was "wrong" to exploit people, or harm people, or whatever else, when there probably wouldn't be laws against it. It isn't illegal because it is exploitation or harmful, it is illegal because exploitation or causing harm is "wrong."
I find it so fascinating how you put that--you made put your statement in a moral form: "those laws, and every other law that legislates morality, is wrong."
n g.html6 /10/12/legislating_morality
As for me being "alone" in this regard (these are just a few off the first page a a google search for "legislating morality"):
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/legislati
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/200
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/duke/040914
I meant it would still be "acceptable" because lots of laws legislate morality. The fact that it legislates morality is not automatically problematic.
I don't feel like laying it all out here again--read my other replies to people who have replied to my comment.
First--yes, it is the actual lying that is illegal. But you do give a reason for why is is illegal (it is the act of gaining through the expense of someone else). What you're saying implicitly here is that you think it is illegal because legislators feel it is "wrong" to exploit another for gain. That's morality.
What you're implying here is that it is "wrong" to deceive the government for personal gain. Apparently legislators also felt is was "wrong," and made it law. That is legislating morality!
I think I hardly need to say this again. You apparently agree with legislators that lying is illegal when it is done with malice. That is legislating morality!
Allow me to hypothetically ask if it would be legislating morality if the legislators decided that free speech overrides all other consideration, making it legal, then, to lie to a court, or on your tax return, etc. (actually just plain making it illegal to restrict any form of speech)? This would still be legislating morality. It would just mean that the group whose morals say it is "wrong" to restrict speech won out over the people whose morals say it is "wrong" to lie. It is still legislation morality; it's just a question of whose morality wins.
They can't not legislate morality!
Don't you see? That is legislating morality. Essentially you are saying that it is "wrong" to intrude on the public's safety.
What about the first amendment? It is "wrong" to intrude on a person's speach (except in certain instances when it is "wrong" to speak, like lying to a judge).
What about abortion? It is "wrong" to abort a "living being" for nonmedical reasons.
What about the pro-choice side of the argument? It is "wrong" to restrict a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a baby.
What about corporate scandal laws that keep people from being ripped off (note that losing money is not a safety issue)? It is "wrong" to rip people off.
What if the laws were backward from this, instead making it illegal to restrict a person's "right to rip people off"? Then it would be because the legislators felt it was "wrong" to restrict such a "right."
Basically, most laws (especially criminal laws) legislate morality. The question is merely who's morality gets legislated.
The only laws I can think of that aren't morality-based are laws such as corporate laws that can be easily overridden by contract, such as a law stating that the shareholders of a corporation have an implicit preemptive purchase right when new shares are issued unless the articles of incorporation state otherwise.
I never argued in my entire comment that the proposed legislation would be effective. I merely stated its intended purpose (organize the internet better). In fact, I commented elsewhere to this very effect (that the law probably wouldn't work) prior to your reply.
My comment was merely pointing out that this proposed law was not legislating morality any more than any other law (if it even proposed to legislate morality at all, which I argue it does not, given that it does not make pornogrophy any less available to the public).
And also, it is legal to give a parent the ability to oversee what their children are exposed to. If a 16 year old boy wants to search for pornography on the internet, a parent is allowed to do what they can to stop their boy from finding pornography. Of course, the boy will ultimately be successful, but much of the reason behind that is because there are not effective means of blocking pornography. These legislators, "bless their hearts," are trying to aid these parents in restraining their children from viewing pornography. While their efforts will likely not work, and while they might be better off taking another route, their efforts are nonetheless not legislating morality (since, I repeat, it doesn't block porn), and, even if it did amount to legislating morality, would still be acceptable.
I love it when people do as you did, telling me my argument is so terrible and then attack things that I didn't argue (like when you told me the law wouldn't work), or tell me my argument is just too convoluted for response (and then don't respond to the logic with logic). I've seen lawyers try that in court--doesn't work; it's like lying down. I will admit however that I am sometimes redundant; this is because I've argued with some real morons on slashdot, so I try to get my point across in as many forms as possible in the outset in order to avoid repetition later.
First--the reasons you gave for why murder and statutory rape are illegal are listed in my comment. And, I'll repeat here what I said there--those are the reasons why they are considered immoral.
Second, you ask why adultery and lying are legal despite the fact that they are usually considered immoral. Of course, you remain misinformed--adultery has traditionally been illegal and is still illegal in many states. It has not, however been dutifully enforced. And lying is illegal in a great many contexts--for example, it is illegal to lie on your tax return, it is illegal to lie in a deposition, in court, or before a legislative body, as well as in many other contexts. These are the instances where it is practical and especially important to reprimand lying. Whereas, a law making it illegal to lie to your wife about adultery is much more difficult for the government to enforce--of course, it doesn't matter much because in the end the lying gets you shortchanged by the law anyway when she rightfully gets a divorce and runs with all your money.
Yes, the government legislates morality, and must do so. And where it doesn't, the civil law does. It is impossible for it to not do so.
This is a proposed federal law being pushed by the governor of Utah. So, although you are correct that the whole world would need to cooperate, and you are correct that Huntsman is generally in charge only of his own state, and you are correct that this whole thing probably wouldn't work, you did get one thing wrong--he's pushing a federal law, which would apply to the entire US, so the content providers would not have to be in Utah for this proposed law to reach them (but they would have to be in the US).
Who's the moron?
First, I don't see how this is legislating morality. This proposal does not in any way block pornogrophy. It just organizes it better; that way it can be more easily blocked by parents or employers. If you are your own administrator at your house, then I assume you won't have the ports in question blocked.
Second, believe it or not you will not find a single legislator in any country at any time that does not believe their purpose is to legislate morality. I believe that one of their main purposes is to legislate morality. An believe it or not--you'd be lying if you say you don't either. Allow me to explain: why is murder illegal? Because it's immoral. Why is it illegal for a 25 year old to have sex with a 6 year old? Because it's immoral. The reasons why it is immoral may vary--for example, murder is immoral because it is generally wrong to take another's life. And statutory rape is illegal because a 6 year old can't realistically consent. And there are people that disagree with the reasons why these things are illegal--but they will never be legislators because they are so far from the norm that they could not possibly be elected to public office.
In conclusion, you are a moron for trying to make use of the "don't legislate morality" line that is so overused (and I don't even understand why it is still around).
I believe Asimov made this same prediction (? do we call a guess at what happened in the past a "prediction"?) in his book Atom. Or perhaps in another book; anyway, I'm sure Asimov said this a long time ago. He said he though it had to do with random fluctuations in ratio of matter to antimatter in a particular space (or something like that. I'm not much of a physicist).