Last month, Premier Wall made headlines by reversing his gov’ts decision to allow peeler bars to serve alcohol.
He took some heat, said his mea culpa’s and spent some banked respect from his supporters.
But…he wasn’t wrong.
As opposed to my youth, I’m more conservative than libertarian. The simple reason I can give is that in contrast to libertarian belief, you really can’t trust all individuals to make the moral choices.
Update: First link fixed. TY.
The morality of murder and theft are unimportant. In some belief systems, killing a non-believer or taking their property is considered morally acceptable. Morality is entirely dependent on an individual’s belief system.
Our nations’ laws, both USA and Canada, are not based so much on morals as much as they are based on rights. You have rights to life and property and beliefs and such, just like everyone else has the same rights. Murder and theft are illegal because they are actions by an individual that violate the rights of another individual.
If you want to believe in your own morality and voluntarily limit your own freedom and choices based upon that morality, that is your right. If you work to impose that your morality on others through coercion – the threat of government’s force – it violates the rights of others, by imposing upon their own personal beliefs. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are.
Natural Law Transgressions – Harmful Actions: Murder/Assault, Rape, Theft, Trespass & Coercion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8HDCnA-_cQ
“So, that means do away with the laws against murder and theft?”
~Stradivarious
Nope.
Your argument is both fatuous and specious, congratulations. You are a bonafide mental midget.
fatuous[ˈfaCHo͞oəs]
ADJECTIVE -silly and pointless:
“a fatuous comment”
specious[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE -superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
“a specious argument”
Murder and theft are wrong according to Natural Law.
The wrongness of them is not mere morality.
Morality various from place to place and time to time, but natural law transcends place and time.
Brad Wall has made neither the sale and consumption of liquor illegal nor the operation of strip clubs illegal, he has allowed and then later declined to licence the sale of liquor in a strip club for purely political reasons. There is nothing more immoral in allowing alcohol in strip clubs than there is in allowing them separately.
There is nothing transcendent nor involving natural law in his decision to first do and then undo this.
Brad Wall has not demonstrated a connection between strip clubs and slavery, he has not demonstrated a connection between alcohol consumption at strip clubs and slavery, he has not demonstrated a connection between strip clubs and organized crime, and further more he has not demonstrated a particular connection between the specific strip club which is being denied a licence and organized crime or slavery.
His ruling is *capricious and tyrannical. The explanation he does give is **spurious.
*capricious [kəˈpriSHəs, -ˈprē-]
ADJECTIVE -given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior:
“a capricious and often brutal administration”
**spurious [ˈspyo͝orēəs]
ADJECTIVE -not being what it purports to be; false or fake:
“separating authentic and spurious claims”
“Following Eddie’s advice, I should have the moral choice to take a fire arm and terminate someone I don’t like. And it wouldn’t be a crime.”
The second part of what I stated was that the consequences of those choices shouldn’t be the problem of other people either. Clearly there is a consequence for the person being murdered.
The right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
“The simple reason I can give is that in contrast to libertarian belief, you really can’t trust all individuals to make the moral choices.”
Sure you can. Just as long as you can ensure they bear the Consequence of their choices.
The proper consequence for selling women into slavery is death at the hands of the intended victim. The proper consequence for -buying- an enslaved woman is likewise.
See? No problem.
The problem comes when you think you’re going to regulate these problems away with licensing and taxes. All you’re doing is jacking up the price, the problem persists. Same as drug and alcohol prohibition, it doesn’t work.
Arm the victims, let them take care of it. Scummy would-be slavers will go find something easier to do, or they will win Darwin Awards.
Natural Law Transgressions – Harmful Actions: Murder/Assault, Rape, Theft, Trespass & Coercion
A rose by another name…lol Typical leftist argument, left is really right, right is really left…morals are really natural law…if the cat had kittens in the oven, they aren’t biscuits.
If there were really a natural law, the animals would abide also. Nature, itself, would abide. Platonic nonsense.
You really aren’t capable of coherent argument.
The Natural Law argument distinguishes a difference between harm which is a constant and changeable moral standards which vary because of time, place, and culture. And also apparently change at the whimsy of Brad Wall.
Animals don’t follow laws or morals of any kind.
They react to instinctual triggers and the demands of their biology.
The measurement of harm is a subjective judgement, just as you claim about morals. You follow Platonic nonsense.