(06-19-2009 02:12 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: (06-18-2009 10:13 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: My favorite baseless canard:
"You can't legislate morality!"
Of course you can, that's about as good a definition of a Law as any - - legislated morality. Whether it's speeding, laws against murder, etc.
Of course what they mean is
"You can't enforce morality!"
as all laws get broken eventually, by people who either don't agree with that version or morality, or who temporarily suspend their agreement for some reason they feel justified.
Taken literally, you are correct. But "morality legislation" is generally shorthand for laws that can't or won't be enforced consistently and that are prone to have unintended consequences that can be more severe than the original problem, the canonical example being organized crime as a response to Prohibition. Usually these are laws where the perpetrator and "victim" are the same person.
I'm more in line with Optimistic on this one. I don't think representative governments enact law without trying to accomplish a PERCEIVED societal good (i.e., a moral value)
Regarding prohibilition, I'm not sure that I agree with you on a number of counts, although that is obviously the conventional wisdom.
1. Perpetrator and victim are not identical, at least not exclusively (if Prohibition is aimed at eliminating drunken behavior), all you have to do is look at the number of traffic fatalities (nevermind bar-room shootings, stabbings etc) fueled by alcohol consumption. It's always funny what society tolerates, while being outraged by things that are infrequent in nature by comparison.
2. Organized crime was in place prior to Prohibition, it just expanded into a new market. Al Capone and others would've existed with or without Prohibition, and alcohol distribution was far from the only activity they were engaged in.
Note that I'm not arguing for alcohol prohibition as I don't believe drinking alcohol is morally wrong, in and of itself. However, given its addictive nature (for some) and the human cost of over-consumption there are strong moral components/decisions involved in drinking and selling alcohol.
Bottom line is that laws are placed on the books when law-makers see a moral need to do so (i.e., curb pollution or crime, resolve inequities, prevent discrimination, save people from injury or addictive behavior). I don't believe laws are passed, even those I disagree with, without some 'moral' imperative. The government doesn't regulate without a belief that the regulation is necessary (even if it truly is not).
This gets back to my original comment regarding people who advocate tax increases but don't voluntarily pay more tax than they're required to (and in fact, from evidence set forth by Obama's cabinet nominees, Democrats, who theoretically want to increase government revenud through taxation, are no less guilty of avoiding paying taxes they actually DO owe than Republicans).
People who feel that universal health care, and other government programs are necessary, since "Every American has a right to the same level of health care as everyone else" are very willing to fund those programs, providing they can require someone else to pay for their belief system.
Actions like that cost somebody else something. Just like laws that are restrictive in nature, as opposed to 'encouraging' good behavior (restrictions on pornography vs a seatbelt law).
(I just deleted an exposition on what increased taxes would mean to someone like me - - but suffice it to say that it would be at significant cost, and that cost would not be in terms of luxury lost).
In fact, separately speaking, increased taxes could force people at some income levels out of private health plans and force them into government sponsored plans. It could be like our public school system . . . .without the presence of school districts which prevent complete redistribution of funding and resources. Just a random thought.