JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: newman on February 14, 2008, 01:37:45 AM
-
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though it is also articulated in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government .
-
hitler (Y'S) banned things left and right. So did the bolsheviks.
-
That's a VERY vague statement though - we want to ban immoral things such as pornography, foul language etc..
-
There shouldn't be a need to ban things, people should do them if they're immoral.
-
That's a VERY vague statement though - we want to ban immoral things such as pornography, foul language etc..
Restriting what is done in public is not the same as banning. Regulating certain activities as far as public places and airwaves go is fine. Banning things (including those in private homes etc) is another thing entirely.
-
The Bible bans a lot of things that are personal and private to one's home.
If we ban nazism, does that make us nazis? Not at all.
-
The Bible bans a lot of things that are personal and private to one's home.
If we ban nazism, does that make us nazis? Not at all.
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
-
That's a VERY vague statement though - we want to ban immoral things such as pornography, foul language etc..
Restriting what is done in public is not the same as banning. Regulating certain activities as far as public places and airwaves go is fine. Banning things (including those in private homes etc) is another thing entirely.
Newman is right.
And besides, how the HELL can you get someone to watch over your private home and enforce such bannings!?
Btw, Chaim is against banning every little thing..He encourages education so that the things which we would want to be banned will instead be things that nobody has the desire to do.
By creating bans, you create a tree of knowledge. And if the ban is not to eat from that tree, human nature will want to see what happens if it did.
I saw Ban bannings and people that want to ban everythign under the sun!
Let's talk about discouraging bad behavior and encouraging good behavior. Judaism is Pro discouragement and encourangement.
-
If private life must be free, then why did you write this?
Homosexuallity can be cured by electric shock. Mormons do it in Salt Lake City.
And why do you hate sexual immorality in some black neighborhoods? (which, btw, is also practised by whites, not only blacks)
-
That's a VERY vague statement though - we want to ban immoral things such as pornography, foul language etc..
Restriting what is done in public is not the same as banning. Regulating certain activities as far as public places and airwaves go is fine. Banning things (including those in private homes etc) is another thing entirely.
Newman is right.
And besides, how the HELL can you get someone to watch over your private home and enforce such bannings!?
Btw, Chaim is against banning every little thing..He encourages education so that the things which we would want to be banned will instead be things that nobody has the desire to do.
By creating bans, you create a tree of knowledge. And if the ban is not to eat from that tree, human nature will want to see what happens if it did.
I saw Ban bannings and people that want to ban everythign under the sun!
Let's talk about discouraging bad behavior and encouraging good behavior. Judaism is Pro discouragement and encourangement.
The Bible proscribes crimes and demands that crimes be outlawed.
Sins however are another matter. It is up to individuals to strive not to sin. Government has no place outlawing things that are sins but not crimes.
-
I think the issue here is the loose definition of the word "ban". Ban what? Banning in general? Specific types of banning? We ban nazis on here sometimes. That's a form of banning.
If you are talking about things like banning cigs and alcohol, then, by all mean, of course. No government agency should try to dictate people's rights on these types of issues. Though I've heard the argument that banning these items protects children who are innocent - even though I disagree because it goes against the rights of parenting. Still, it's an example of how loosely the word "ban" can be used and how the libertarians have a good argument against them on their hands. We can make almost any ban out to be "banning something dangerous to others".
So is banning crack or heroin right or wrong?
If we are talking about not banning islam which is nothing more than a dealth cult, then I disagree. We should ban islam. Obviously, I'm a little biased there.
-
'ban' as in society. I don't mean a private club, forum or institution banning certain individuals.
iSSlam is a manifesto of death, pack-rape and terror. You can stop it's books being circulated and outlaw it's mosques being built etc, but it is not possible to ban it ('ban meaning totally) in private homes.
As far as illegal drugs go, they are illegal drugs. On principal though I think all adults should have the freedom to do as they choose PROVIDED they do not harm others. You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Only a liberal would even try.
-
You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Only a liberal would even try.
Very well said.
-
You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Only a liberal would even try.
Very well said.
Yes, well said O0
-
You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Only a liberal would even try.
Very well said.
Yes, well said O0
Or as my old pal Brooks used to say...."I basically believe that people should be able to ride straight to hell on the bobsled of their choice"
-
I'm really getting tired of these posts.
-
I'm really getting tired of these posts.
Me too. That's why I started this one
-
Banning things is also what liberals do (wanting to regulate everything)
-
Authoritarianism doesn't equal nazism.
-
That's a VERY vague statement though - we want to ban immoral things such as pornography, foul language etc..
Restricting what is done in public is not the same as banning. Regulating certain activities as far as public places and airwaves go is fine. Banning things (including those in private homes etc) is another thing entirely.
Newman is right.
And besides, how the HELL can you get someone to watch over your private home and enforce such bannings!?
Btw, Chaim is against banning every little thing..He encourages education so that the things which we would want to be banned will instead be things that nobody has the desire to do.
By creating bans, you create a tree of knowledge. And if the ban is not to eat from that tree, human nature will want to see what happens if it did.
I saw Ban bannings and people that want to ban everything under the sun!
Let's talk about discouraging bad behavior and encouraging good behavior. Judaism is Pro discouragement and encourangement.
The Bible proscribes crimes and demands that crimes be outlawed.
Sins however are another matter. It is up to individuals to strive not to sin. Government has no place outlawing things that are sins but not crimes.
You are thinking form a Western point of view. In Judaism, there is no separation of religion and state. The Torah includes civil laws as well as spiritual laws. Violating any of them is called an averah, which in modern Hebrew means a crime.
There is no separation of religion and state in Judaism. That is true. However, how certain commandments and laws should be partaken isn't up to you to decide to ban or control. That is up to the Sanhedrin to decide.
-
by banning immoral things, we are helping people and improving them in the eyes of hashem
-
by banning immoral things, we are helping people and improving them in the eyes of hashem
you have to define what is truly immoral...
Certain things are definately immoral...Everything is all relative...For all I know some crazy person will think using one's left hand is immoral and therefore make a rule to chop it off..
This isn't too far off with Islam...look what happened to them when they started banning everything under the sun!
I will fight against any movement that decides to go overboard with banning things under the sun.
-
...Everything is all relative...
This is what liberals say. Everything is not relative. There are absolutes in good and evil and they are all laid out in the Torah.
-
EagleEye: "...Authoritarianism doesn't equal nazism..."
Every Sikh is a Singh, but every Singh isn't a Sikh!
-
by banning immoral things, we are helping people and improving them in the eyes of hashem
Not true.
A man who commits no sin out of fear of the 'morals gestapo' is not pure, just scared for his safety.
Morality is like charity. It only has meaning when done volluntarily.
A man in America who has been faithfull to his wife for 20 years DESPITE the fact he could have been unfaithfull without fear of harm is truly righteous.
If a man in Iran who is only faithfull to his wife out of fear of the sharia court it means NOTHING.
-
newman, you do have a point. Just for argument's sake I will say that the Sages state than even if a man doesn't commit a sin (or does a mitzva) for the wrong reasons, that eventually he may not make such a mistake for the right reasons. Remember that most sin hurts others.
Also, adultery is illegal already and can cause someone to lose their children in a divorce case.
-
newman, you do have a point. Just for argument's sake I will say that the Sages state than even if a man doesn't commit a sin (or does a mitzva) for the wrong reasons, that eventually he may not make such a mistake for the right reasons. Remember that most sin hurts others.
Also, adultery is illegal already and can cause someone to lose their children in a divorce case.
Adultery is not illegal. It may effect custody but so may heavy drinking or unemployment.
Prostitution itself is not illegal, either. 'Solicitation' and running 'bawdy houses' are. This is because government have no right to interfere with personal congress btween consenting adults. They can only legislate with regard to public activity.
Remember also that sins are different to crimes hence the two different words averah and chet.
The slippery slope here is that when a government may regulate an aspect of somebody's personal life which has no effect on other people there is nothing to stop them applying it to ALL aspects.
Do you want government deciding how many layers of clothing you wear in winter? Not rugging up will cause pneumonia and death. If a sane, law-abiding human being must be told by government what to imbibe, then surely he must be told what to wear in a given season too.
-
Prostitution and adultery is illegal here in the U.S., although adultery is rarely ever prosecuted.
-
Prostitution and adultery is illegal here in the U.S., although adultery is rarely ever prosecuted.
The act of solicitation is illegal, not the sex itself. There are wealthy business men who keep mistresses in luxury apartments and pay them an allowance of several thousand dollars per month. This is prostitution but it is not illegal. Talking prices on the street corner is what prostitutes get busted for.
Back to my original point.
Governments legislating against sins (as opposed to crimes) is unworkable, expensive and immoral in itself. So-called conservatives who try and legislate against sin are as rediculous as liberals who try and legislate against human stupidity.
-
King David legislated morality and not only was it effective, but he was the greatest King Israel ever had.
-
King David legislated morality and not only was it effective, but he was the greatest King Israel ever had.
The nation of priests with it's divine election and 613 laws has a several fold higher standard than the nations do. Must gentiles observe kashrut, ritual bathing, the Sabbath etc as well? If Biblical Israel is the standard for the nations then the whole notion of a nation of priest becomes redundant. Replacement theology by stealth.
The only reqirement of the goyim is to adhere to the seven laws of Noach. That does not entail banning the eskimos from eating blubber just because it MAY cause heart disease or stopping American indians (or westerners) from smoking because it MAY shorten life by 4.2 years.
-
lol
I'm not sure what you mean by replacement theology. I was referring to the Jewish people. I don't think about Noahide laws very often but the gentile governments should enforce Noahide laws and ban where applicable (i.e. like not eating meat cut from living animals).
As for banning something like not eating blubber, I agree.
-
lol
I'm not sure what you mean by replacement theology. I was referring to the Jewish people. I don't think about Noahide laws very often but the gentile governments should enforce Noahide laws and ban where applicable (i.e. like not eating meat cut from living animals).
As for banning something like not eating blubber, I agree.
That's my point.
Smoking, drinking, eating unhealthy foods may be unwise, foolish, silly,whatever, but NOBODY has the right to ban them.
As conservatives we believe in personal freedom. The only time we tollerate restrictions on individuals is when the personal safety or property of others is threatened without their consent. Or when our cultural well may be polluted (do it from the chandeleer at home but not in the park). We accept peoples right to own home defense guns but legislate against firing them at the shopping mall. We accept peoples right to eat pork BBQ 7 days a week but legislate for food labeling and fund health awareness.
Sometimes it's hard to sit back while a minority of people make 'unwise' decisions but the alternative is to take the leftist approach and believe that people are evolved, from nothing, into needy, helpless, stupid creatures that must have a large government, a ruling, cultural elite, take care of them and run their lives for them for their own good.
It's Ronald Regan or Nancy Pelosi. There's no middle ground. Choose.
-
This is a good debate.
I am personal not fond of either Ronald Regan or Nancy Pelosi though Regan was a MUCH better politician. I would like to see more righteous leaders and not those that use horoscopes to predict the future.
I am also much more in favor of those that support Israel.