|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 3, 2006 6:30:03 GMT -5
I am afraid that your response is not obvious to me. Why should not majority rule? Because it turns into a "two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner" scenario. Of course, those who are a part of the majority see nothing wrong with it. It is the minority who suffer and have to deal with the injustice of it. This is all well and good, but you have to answer the rest of my questions as well. If you don't have those answers, this one is nothing more than stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 3, 2006 6:30:41 GMT -5
To protect the innocent, of course. To protect the innocent from what? Those who are not.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 3, 2006 8:25:35 GMT -5
Law inherently, intrinsically and by nature has value, worth, importance. It is not something that should be cast aside -- even in theory -- without due diligence. so the law is worth keeping simply because it is on the books? there is a feeling in the law that that the "status quo" is important - if the current state of affairs is adequate then let's not risk messing it up by interfering (particularly in child custody cases the court wants to cause the child as little disruption as possible) - but that should not prevent us from discussing how it could be improved, don't you agree? i dunno, experts and stuff i'm not interested in discussing how the government should be run, i just want to discuss the theory behind the law (presuming that we are living in our current societies and not totalitarian or marxist or theocratic societies etc.).
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 3, 2006 9:15:32 GMT -5
so the law is worth keeping simply because it is on the books? Unless it is an immoral law, chances are that any given law was enacted for good reason. This is true. And that is because there is a rigorous process for enacting law... nothing becomes a law just because of one person's opinion. Have you ever asked yourself why this is the case with respect to children? I'd be interested in better understanding your view of that, because it directly relates to my view on prostitution laws. Yes -- improved. Not abolished. There is nothing immoral about the laws against prostitution. But analysis of theory outside of an understanding of why the law is the way it is, is analysis in a vacuum. It's like trying to pull the brain out of a person and analyze it -- you're likely to conclude that it's just a useless lump of grey matter, because you can't see how it connects and interacts with the body, mind, and personality of the person. Nor am I, but until you can offer a better solution than "majority rules", I would expect us to keep this discussion within the context of that form of government. There you go -- this is what I mean by analysis in a vacuum. The form of government has a direct impact on the nature of the law. Law in a totalitarian government generally serves the purpose of instilling fear. Law in a marxist government generally serves the purpose of maintaining an equal playing field for all. Law in a theocratic society generally serves the purpose of honoring God's will as it is understood. I live in a democratic republic. You live in a republic that is somewhat democratic and somewhat socialist. So we should understand the purpose of law in those two forms of government. Law in a socialist republic generally serves the purpose of elevating the impoverished or oppressed and preventing the rich from gaining too much power. Law in a democratic republic generally serves the purpose of expressing the collective view of those governed, and therefore tends toward protecting the freedom and independence of individuals. Thus in both democratic and socialist republics, law serves the purpose of protecting the innocent. You have previously expressed that the U.K. is democratic. Do you approve of the democratic form of government? The views you have expressed in this thread reflect strong socialist leanings.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 3, 2006 13:29:47 GMT -5
so the law is worth keeping simply because it is on the books? Unless it is an immoral law, chances are that any given law was enacted for good reason. i'm still not buying this "law based on morality" story ... morality inevitably plays some part in the process though i think it's best to keep its influence to a minimum. i should hope so too, though that is not the reason for the importance given to the status quo. if a law needs changed then it needs changed, change shouldn't be avoided simply because there was once a reason for enacting it ... i know why it is the case with children, it's because in child custody cases usually the parents split up and the child ends up living with one of them for a lengthy period before the case gets to court. if the child is happy enough where he/she is then the court will be reluctant to grant custody to the other parent. morality can't be the only factor in deciding what the law should be. i think it's at least possible that society could be improved if prostitution were decriminalised to some degree (for example, i think the laws that they are going to introduce in england will improve the situation - and so does the UK government, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be introducing them). the law is part of the bigger picture, i know this, and i think the law should serve society, not work against it or hold it back. to extend your analogy, you can still be an expert on the brain without understanding precisely how toes are the way they are ... neither of us lives in a "majority rules" society. we both live in democratic societies, but neither are completely "majority rules". we don't vote on every single bill that goes through congress/parliament, or whatever, and it doesn't matter what people think they want, some things will be good for society whether the majority wants it or not and some things will be bad for society even if the majority does want it. i'll come back to this at the end. yes i know, therefore their theories of law are quite different from ours. actually the UK has a monarchy, so it isn't technically a republic it's a kingdom. if i had my way, however, scotland would be a republic, independant of the rest of the UK the UK is a democracy and the so-called left-wing government is in power at the moment (the opposition, the conservative party, is traditionally more right-wing) though in reality they are both pretty much central and slightly right of centre - it's actually quite scandalous how similar the two parties are. people generally tend to vote for one of the two parties based on whether they personally have right or left wing views, though. also, interestingly, the conservatives have never been popular in scotland, and in fact if you ignore all of scotland's votes in general elections throughout history then we would never have had anyone other than the conservative party in power in westminster ... i suppose i do tend towards left wing views: rich people should be taxed heavier than poor people because they can afford it and inheritance tax should be high to avoid people living off inherited wealth (like the character in "Jeeves & Wooster") and public transport should be run by the state instead of privately etc. nevertheless, as i have pointed out earlier in this topic, the fact is that some things are better run publicly and some things are better run privately in certain countries. it might be that the UK would be better off with public transport run by the state while the USA would be better off with privately run bus and train companies, but that is the only place where i can see arguments based on right or left wing views being of much relevance in this debate (ie. that one solution might only be relevant to a specific place). if you tend towards right-wing views then perhaps you will be more easily persuaded by arguments which minimise state intervention, while if i tend towards left-wing views then perhaps i will be more easily persuaded by arguments which involve much state intervention, but the fact is that either a proposal will work or it won't regardless of whether you agree with it. for the UK government to reject a solution simply because it is too right-wing (or vice versa for the USA) would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 3, 2006 18:14:16 GMT -5
i know why it is the case with children, it's because in child custody cases usually the parents split up and the child ends up living with one of them for a lengthy period before the case gets to court. if the child is happy enough where he/she is then the court will be reluctant to grant custody to the other parent. You need to give this a bit more thought. Why would they not make the case to do what's best for the child? Since no one has proven that the child would not be happier separated from both of the parents who have created a chaotic situation for the child, why do they not always remove the child? I do not know why you are being difficult on this point. Of course what you have written here is true. But a republic boils down to "majority rules". Representatives are elected to represent the people on every vote, and "majority rules" applies on every vote. Actually, technically it is a republic because the law is not decided by the monarch. In a true monarchy, law is determined solely by the monarch. The U.K. is a monarchy by formality only, because the government does not even reflect the philosophy of the monarch. This is apparent because the change in Prime Ministers and other representatives has resulted in a rather dramatic change of governmental philosophy even though the monarch has not changed. The founding principle of democracy is essentially independence. The fact that the U.K. maintains the monarchy is evidence that it is not a true democracy. The socialist philosophies further evidence this. Why are you in denial over it? Thank you for that admission, at least. Yes, your views are quite left-wing = socialist. This is not a bad word; I'm not sure why you treat it as though it is. That is interesting. Why do you say that this may vary by country? The only reason I can think of is geographical, which would explain your focus on things like transportation. There is a sense in which people are people regardless of country -- that sense being that all are due certain rights -- in particular, freedom and representation in government. Restrictions on these rights are, in part, what make prostitution unacceptable. This is certainly true, because increased state intervention automatically intrudes upon personal freedom and representation. Actually, I believe that either a democracy or a socialist government will work for a moral people. Both will fail miserably if morality is removed from the equation. Also, there are philosophies behind each form of government which cannot be ignored. Democracy places the rights of the individual higher, while socialism emphasizes the benefit of the people as a whole. I do not believe the U.K. government should reject anything because it is right-wing. I believe the people should reject any proposal which infringes on freedom and representation - and this includes decriminalization of prostitution.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 3, 2006 20:38:00 GMT -5
i know why it is the case with children, it's because in child custody cases usually the parents split up and the child ends up living with one of them for a lengthy period before the case gets to court. if the child is happy enough where he/she is then the court will be reluctant to grant custody to the other parent. You need to give this a bit more thought. Why would they not make the case to do what's best for the child? Since no one has proven that the child would not be happier separated from both of the parents who have created a chaotic situation for the child, why do they not always remove the child? the primary concern in child custody cases is what's best for the child, and it is generally thought that unnecessary disruption is not best for the child. what's this got to do with prostitution? regardless, what the majority wants is not always what is best for society as a whole. the head of state is the monarch, the prime minister is chosen by the monarch and all Acts of parliament require royal assent, therefore it is a monarchy and not a republic. there are "constitutional conventions" that the monarch will elect the leader of the party who wins the general election as prime minister and that the monarch will always grant royal assent to bills passed in parliament, but these are not enforceable and technically the UK is a monarchy. anyway, who cares? "in denial" is a bit of an exaggeration: the UK works as a democracy, which is all that matters. i don't know which socialist philosophies you are referring to, mine or the Labour party's? the UK certainly isn't a socialist country and the Labour party is not a socialist party no matter how it describes itself. we are not as right-wing as the USA but we are not socialist. i don't, it just isn't black and white like that. are you a fascist because your views are more right wing than mine? geographical? how about sociological? just the fact that different societies have different cultures and different histories and will react differently to certain changes in the law. as for prostitution being a restriction of freedom - it is no different from any other form of waged labour. indeed, but some things simply work better that way. no-one but the right-wing extremist would suggest that law enforcement or the armed forces should be privatised, would they? i think socialism will only work while everybody works their hardest all the time, and it's hard to keep morale high enough to achieve this on a large scale where one can't see the direct result of his effort. on a small scale (eg. societies involving less than 100 people, or something) i think it will be much more successful, and this is evidenced by the aboriginal tribes in the americas and australia who never had any sense of private property etc. still, i don't see what this has to do with prostitution, unless you are trying to sneak morality back in as the be-all and end-all of discussion. and? how? it isn't as simple as "most people think prostitution is bad therefore it should be illegal", and people aren't so simple that that's the only kind of reasoning they understand. people can understand that the purpose of decriminalisation is to reduce the problems of prostitution, society isn't going to fall apart over this. and "reject any proposal which infringes on freedom"? all laws are restrictions of freedom in some way or other ... what you are advocating here is literally complete anarchy ...
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 3, 2006 20:49:11 GMT -5
and by the way, why did you only pick out the things i said about politics rather than the things which i said which addressed the issue of the law more specifically? such as: Unless it is an immoral law, chances are that any given law was enacted for good reason. i'm still not buying this "law based on morality" story ... morality inevitably plays some part in the process though i think it's best to keep its influence to a minimum. are you trying to change the subject?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 3, 2006 22:08:40 GMT -5
littlepea, It is late so I will respond to your main post later. But in response to this one: and by the way, why did you only pick out the things i said about politics rather than the things which i said which addressed the issue of the law more specifically? such as: ... are you trying to change the subject? I picked out what was new. Everything you listed here has been covered ad nauseum, to use your phrase.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 4, 2006 7:58:18 GMT -5
oh, so i get the last word on the discussion about the law? that was unexpected i'm happy to discuss politics, though i couldn't describe myself as any sort of authority on that subject compared to law
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 5, 2006 23:40:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you're surprised, since I agreed to disagree about the question of the law several pages ago.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 6, 2006 0:19:20 GMT -5
the primary concern in child custody cases is what's best for the child, and it is generally thought that unnecessary disruption is not best for the child. But WHY? The parents by divorcing (or doing whatever they've done to bring the case to the point of custody having to be determined) have proven themselves unable to prevent disruption in the child's life. The custody decision itself will be an extremely traumatic disruption -- that damage is already done. Why is removal of the child from such people viewed as more disruptive than continuing to subject the child to the whims of these people? (I hope you realize that I am playing devil's advocate here, in an attempt to get you to think this through.) We'll get there... be patient I am trying to emphasize the differences between the government you are accustomed to and a true democracy, since you seem to view them as inconsequential. They are not -- the philosophical differences behind the forms of government in the U.S. and the U.K. are largely responsible for our differences in the view of the law. Since you continue to repeat this, while at the same time contradicting it with your other statements, please define democracy. Why do you think anyone should take your description of the Labour party over their own description? What gives you the right to redefine their philosophy for them? (This is unrelated to this discussion, but it's so impudent of you I can't help but ask.) No, of course not. At the heart of fascism is the exaltation of a particular group of people. That doesn't fit American government or my philosophy of government at all. Meantime, at the heart of socialism is governmental control. Your views on prostitution as a governmental issue rather than a legal issue fit that to a T. I agree. So now, I don't understand at all how you concluded in your previous post that transportation is the only area of government that would be affected. This is untrue. Most forms of waged labor encourage freedom by providing a stable income, a safe working environment, and protection under the law. Prostitution, by its very nature, is unpredictable, unsafe, and unprotected. Prostitutes themselves complain that legalization requires them to register and therefore renders them less protection than before legalization. No, because those are forms of service to the public for its protection as a community. That is what should distinguish what is private from what is in the public domain. Not something as amorphous and subjective as "what's best for society". First of all, I don't believe pure socialism would truly work any more than I believe a pure democracy would truly work. Every form of government has its flaws. However, in a perfect world where everyone agrees on what is right and what is wrong, just the ability to function as part of a strong and stable community where everyone is provided for would be motivation enough. The problem is that this is never enough for us -- we want individual freedom and personal achievement. But those examples also illustrate a key weakness of that philosophy when it comes to being challenged. That kind of environment does not encourage innovation or experimentation, and offers no protection from those who do not share the philosophy. Generally, it results in a fall of the group to the lowest common denominator and leaves them vulnerable to attack. I am raise your awareness of the weaknesses introduced by adopting a philosophy of governmental control in an area that I believe is properly handled via the law and the private sector, since you seem to not have considered those weaknesses. What is your question here? I'm not sure how to interpret your "how?" I very much want to answer, but first I need to know where you are. Are you asking me how people should determine what infringes on freedom and representation, or how prostitution infringes on freedom and representation, or how rejection of prostitution would increase freedom and representation, or what? Please don't misinterpret me -- I am not avoiding your question. I just want to know which question you are ready for me to answer. No, you are confusing freedom with license -- a common error these days. The law restricts license; so long as it is moral, law actually increases freedom.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 6, 2006 18:05:00 GMT -5
the primary concern in child custody cases is what's best for the child, and it is generally thought that unnecessary disruption is not best for the child. But WHY? The parents by divorcing (or doing whatever they've done to bring the case to the point of custody having to be determined) have proven themselves unable to prevent disruption in the child's life. The custody decision itself will be an extremely traumatic disruption -- that damage is already done. Why is removal of the child from such people viewed as more disruptive than continuing to subject the child to the whims of these people? (I hope you realize that I am playing devil's advocate here, in an attempt to get you to think this through.) it's just to do with what's best for the child, that is the paramount consideration in such disputes. if the child is happy enough where he is then there is no need to intervene. as i recall, the comparison here was between a republic and a monarchy, not a democracy and a monarchy. the members of the house of commons are elected democratically and parliament has supreme control (they can even get rid of the queen if they wish) but technically the head of state is the queen so we can not be called a republic, we have a monarchy. "government by the people" in one way or another is probably the easiest way to put it. how do my other comments contradict the fact that the UK is governed democratically? our economy is also based on capitalism, don't you know? impudent is another uncalled for exaggeration (though perhaps you are mocking my way of speech in that i'd rather get my point across too forcefully than not at all). the Labour party used to be very left-wing, just as their constitution describes, but "New Labour" (Labour since Tony Blair came to power) is hardly different from the modern Tory Party - both are basically central in their political views, in fact the Liberal Democrats (the 3rd most popular party) are the most left-wing of the 3, and even then not very much. evidence of Labour's abandonment of its left-wing roots: public services are still grossly underfunded, public transport is still run privately with no talk of reintroducing public control, New Labour even "devolved" power to governments in scotland and northern ireland (hence the "scottish parliament" in edinburgh which has authority to legislate on certain issues in scotland without the need for westminster). i mean, just because they say they are socialist doesn't mean they act socialist - just look at the nazis. that doesn't make me a socialist, though, it just makes my view more left-wing than yours on this issue. your view on prostitution as being completely illegal based purely on morality with no need for any substantial reasoning sounds to me as though you've been brainwashed by big brother (ignorance is strength ... ), but obviously you are not sympathetic to fascism. when i said "that is the only place where i can see arguments based on right or left wing views being of much relevance in this debate" i thought i made it clear what i meant when i then said, "(ie. that one solution might only be relevant to a specific place)". i was not referring solely to transportation, i was trying to make the point that your emphasis on pointing out whether a point of view is left-wing or right-wing is not a substantial reason for rejecting or admitting a point of a view, though it might mean that you personally find it more or less persuasive depending on your personal political views. self-employed workers don't have a stable income, soldiers don't work in safe environments, etc. perhaps registration is ineffective, but that doesn't mean that legalisation itself is out of the question. if you say so ... true. also true, but nevertheless the societies did work and didn't collapse like other large-scale attempts at socialism/communism. i think i have, but even so is it not a fact that if something would be better handled via public control then that is what should be done? and similarly if something would be better handled via private control then that should be done? drawing attention to political differences is not a substantial reason for rejecting a possible solution. that's ok, i was getting a bit colloquial on you ... scots sometimes say "how" instead of "why" - it's a bit daft, though it feels more natural in some situations to say "how naw?" instead of "why not?" - usually in the sort of case where someone says "you can't do that", "how naw?" ... rather than "shall we go to the pub", when it is more natural to reply "why not?" i think since i was asking with the intention to disagree with you then "how?" came more naturally than "why?". anyway, i will try and speak english from now on "how prostitution infringes on freedom and representation" was what i was getting at at the time. no i am not, though the distinction between freedom and license seems more like jargon to me than an actual difference. it is illegal to murder - your freedom/license to murder is therefore restricted.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 6, 2006 20:38:10 GMT -5
Littlepea, please give me an example of a "substantial reason" for making something illegal.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 8, 2006 14:20:19 GMT -5
obviously there is no single concept that will dictate whether something should be legal or illegal, but many criminal offences can be justified either by deterrance or by punishment (or both).
for instance we want to deter people from avoiding paying their taxes, so we make it a criminal offence to do that. we want to punish murderers so we make murder a criminal offence. we want to deter people from driving too fast so we make it illegal to break the speed limit, etc.
if, however, it could be shown that speed limits are actually responsible for more harm than they cause, then i'm sure there would be no great hesitation to get rid of them ...
|
|