Morality and Law
Ranked #5,128 in Culture & Society, #110,133 overall
Morality and Law
Should something be illegal simply because it is thought to be immoral? Should morality play a role in deciding law?
If you feel that morality should be considered when deciding if something should be legal or illegal then you are relying on some other person or entity to decide law based on their own subjective opinion of what is moral.
If you feel that morality should be considered when deciding if something should be legal or illegal then you are relying on some other person or entity to decide law based on their own subjective opinion of what is moral.
Who Gets to Decide?
People like to use subjective terms such as "moral," "right," "wrong," "good," or "bad." when deciding if something should be legal or not. Whether something is legal or not should have nothing to do with someones subjective opinion of whether it is moral or not. There is what is legal and then there is what is someones subjective opinion of what is moral, and the two have nothing to do with one another.
Something may be considered to be "immoral" such as prostitution, while at the same time should be legal. If you agree that each person is a self-owner then you would have to agree that the prostitute owns the property (her body) that she is selling. If she in fact is the rightful owner of this property, what right then would some other person or entity such as government have to deny her property rights? If they are claiming a higher right to her property than she has, then she does not own herself and is nothing more than a slave that is owned by the government.
There are many things that are considered to be "immoral" by some that are perfectly legal such as smoking, drinking and gambling which proves that morality should have no place in deciding law. Law should never be decided by a subjective opinion by some other person or entity. All laws should be based on property rights. The deciding question should be; who owns the property in question?
All matters of law could be decided easily if we were to just recognize and respect each others property rights. By doing so questions concerning matters like prostitution and drug procession and use could easily be decided. We simply in each case ask, who owns the property in question?
Something may be considered to be "immoral" such as prostitution, while at the same time should be legal. If you agree that each person is a self-owner then you would have to agree that the prostitute owns the property (her body) that she is selling. If she in fact is the rightful owner of this property, what right then would some other person or entity such as government have to deny her property rights? If they are claiming a higher right to her property than she has, then she does not own herself and is nothing more than a slave that is owned by the government.
There are many things that are considered to be "immoral" by some that are perfectly legal such as smoking, drinking and gambling which proves that morality should have no place in deciding law. Law should never be decided by a subjective opinion by some other person or entity. All laws should be based on property rights. The deciding question should be; who owns the property in question?
All matters of law could be decided easily if we were to just recognize and respect each others property rights. By doing so questions concerning matters like prostitution and drug procession and use could easily be decided. We simply in each case ask, who owns the property in question?
Property Rights
If we are truly the rightful owners of our property (by property I mean body, money, time, etc.) then we should have absolute authority over all matters relating to our property. Many of the laws on the books today would be eliminated because they would be found to be a violation of a persons property rights.
Laws that we have today concerning questions like:
Should a person be able to sell their body?
Should a person be able to purchase sex in exchange for money?
Should a person be able to possess drugs?
Should a person be able to ingest drugs?
Should a person be required to wear a seat belt or a helmet?
Should a person be allowed to participate in dangerous activities?
All of these would be decided by asking a simple question; who owns the property? If you are an adult, and as long as coercion and force was not used, then all contracts between consenting adults should be legal. The governments role should only be to protect our property rights. They should only get involved when force or coercion was involved in a contract. If a woman was forced into selling her body against her will, then a crime would have been committed and the State should then enforce the laws against this trespass.
Laws that we have today concerning questions like:
Should a person be able to sell their body?
Should a person be able to purchase sex in exchange for money?
Should a person be able to possess drugs?
Should a person be able to ingest drugs?
Should a person be required to wear a seat belt or a helmet?
Should a person be allowed to participate in dangerous activities?
All of these would be decided by asking a simple question; who owns the property? If you are an adult, and as long as coercion and force was not used, then all contracts between consenting adults should be legal. The governments role should only be to protect our property rights. They should only get involved when force or coercion was involved in a contract. If a woman was forced into selling her body against her will, then a crime would have been committed and the State should then enforce the laws against this trespass.
Trespass
There are thousands of laws on the books all covering one very basic crime, the crime of trespass. All crime is really nothing more than a trespass upon another persons property rights. If you steal from someone you have trespassed on that person, if you rape someone, you have trespassed on that person, and if you kill someone you have trespassed upon that person.
Rather than have thousands of laws all pertaining to the same thing, we should have just one law, trespassing. Some will think this is silly because they can only relate to trespassing as someone entering another persons physical property such as an area of land or a home, but trespassing covers everything a person owns such as their money, personal property, time, and most importantly their body.
By having one law, the law of trespass we would simplify the entire justice system. The question would simply be, was there a trespass and to what degree was this trespass? We could have different degrees of trespassing based on the nature of the crime. For instance the crime of theft might be a 5th degree trespass, while the crime of murder would be a 1st degree trespass, with all other crimes falling somewhere in between.
All victimless crimes (what I like to refer to as "fake crimes") would be eliminated. For there to be a crime the State would have to prove a trespass and have a victim. Fake crimes like smoking marijuana or paying for sex would no longer exist; no victim, no crime. As it stands now the State fills in for what would be a real victim, for example: The State vs John Doe. This only proves that there is not a real victim because the State has to inject itself as the victim. I am sure you would be hard pressed to find any real person that feels victimized because John Doe was smoking marijuana in his own home, but the State does.
Rather than have thousands of laws all pertaining to the same thing, we should have just one law, trespassing. Some will think this is silly because they can only relate to trespassing as someone entering another persons physical property such as an area of land or a home, but trespassing covers everything a person owns such as their money, personal property, time, and most importantly their body.
By having one law, the law of trespass we would simplify the entire justice system. The question would simply be, was there a trespass and to what degree was this trespass? We could have different degrees of trespassing based on the nature of the crime. For instance the crime of theft might be a 5th degree trespass, while the crime of murder would be a 1st degree trespass, with all other crimes falling somewhere in between.
All victimless crimes (what I like to refer to as "fake crimes") would be eliminated. For there to be a crime the State would have to prove a trespass and have a victim. Fake crimes like smoking marijuana or paying for sex would no longer exist; no victim, no crime. As it stands now the State fills in for what would be a real victim, for example: The State vs John Doe. This only proves that there is not a real victim because the State has to inject itself as the victim. I am sure you would be hard pressed to find any real person that feels victimized because John Doe was smoking marijuana in his own home, but the State does.
The State
The State wants us to believe that it knows better than we do what is best for us and how better to run our lives. When we step outside of the States limits on the freedoms they afford us, they punish us; this of course is to protect us from ourselves. Governments role should not be to decide what is best for us or warn us of things that are thought to be dangerous, that is what the role of our parents was. Now that we are adults it should be up to each self-owning adult to decide what activities they choose to participate in. There will be people that make bad decisions and when this happens, then that is when the State should get involved and decide was a trespass involved and if so punish the guilty party.
The States only function should be to protect our rights, not to decide what those rights should be. If you disagree with this, you have subjected yourself to being nothing more than a slave. If that is the case, what other freedoms and rights are you so eagerly willing to give up and turn over to the State to decide?
The States only function should be to protect our rights, not to decide what those rights should be. If you disagree with this, you have subjected yourself to being nothing more than a slave. If that is the case, what other freedoms and rights are you so eagerly willing to give up and turn over to the State to decide?
Lens Love
Click it if you liked it!
This module only appears with actual data when viewed on a live lens. The favorite and lensroll options will appear on a live lens if the viewer is a member of Squidoo and logged in.
Amazon
Link List
- Thoughts on Freedom
- Past articles by Butler Shaffer on LewRockwell.com
Guestbook Comments
-
-
Wbisbill May 5, 2012 @ 5:33 pm | delete
- I enjoy your write up, although I do not agree with most of what you write. You have some valid points that are interesting. Thank you!
-
-
-
GodlessHeathen
May 6, 2012 @ 11:16 am | delete
- Most people do not agree with what I say...and I do not agree with what most other say and believe.
-
-
-
JasontheBeaver
Mar 7, 2012 @ 12:55 pm | delete
- Nice write up.
-
-
-
GodlessHeathen
Mar 7, 2012 @ 5:47 pm | delete
- Thank you I am glad you like it!
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Feb 22, 2012 @ 5:32 am | delete
- Thanks, Heathen. That is only the second video of her I've seen. I agree with every thing she said and understand precisely what she meant. I haven't had any indication from you that you understood the points I've tried to make. I suspect you have dismissed them out of hand and that means that the very thing you wish to defeat has won. Have you read Nathaniel Brandon's work on Self Esteem? She dedicated Atlas to him you know. Do you remember the passage in Atlas where Dagny was looking at the condensation on the window of her office (it has been 30 years so forgive me if the context is muddled) and it had formed the shape of a question mark? Her observation was that a fundamental truth was being hidden by an optical illusion (a blindspot). My whole point is that there IS truth behind the idea of Morality. There IS good and evil. But we, not God, get to say what it is. And we can attach it to life and build a rational structure for interpersonal relationships. Man has never had a code of clearly defined virtuous behavior based upon fact. But that code does exist and can be identified, however, if we don't think so, then we will not see it. We walk past diamonds every day and don't know it because we don't think there is anything there to see. That is the definition of a blindspot.
-
-
-
GodlessHeathen
Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:26 am | delete
- What do you mean? I have said many times I agree with you and that you and I share the same views on many things. What have I dismissed? I gave your lens a thumbs up, that would mean I agree. What have I not been clear on?
Yes I know Nathaniel, have meet him many times and even talked to him about his time with Ayn. I was at his objectivism lecture many years ago He has been our guest at the annual Freedom Summit we sponsor here in Phoenix and so has Ron Paul:
http://freedomsummit.wordpress.com/home/
If they have anything to do with the freedom movement chances are I know them.
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Feb 22, 2012 @ 8:45 pm | delete
- I'm sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. I am simply desperate for a discussion involving the ideas I presented in my Rational Religion lens and thought you might present arguments to the contrary. You did, but the extent of your disagreement was that Morality was a subjective thing. You and I do have similar belief systems and a pretty similar worldview. I'll let it go at that and thank you for the discussions we've had.
-
-
-
GodlessHeathen
Feb 22, 2012 @ 9:09 pm | delete
- No I am not offended, and besides we do not have the right to not be offended lol. We only disagreed on minor points and my making fun of the title because I thought it was a oxymoron. Other than that I think we are pretty close in our views.
-
-
-
JustOneGuy
Feb 23, 2012 @ 6:26 am | delete
- Good. Although many people have some of the same structure to their worldviews, it is seldom that I come across someone who has so many. You appear to have met many others who are like yourself, I have not. Ayn Rand was really something and gave me a peek into a world of giants, giants that should be and ought to be. Maybe someday mankind will have lifespans measured in millenia instead of the current span which is pathetic.By the time we begin to see through the cloud of stupidity that surrounds us, we find that our life is at an end. It's an outrage. I mentioned the concept of Time and asserted that it might not exist as an entity outside of ourselves. Let's see how courageous you are. Because of the views you believe in, you already are one of the most courageous people I know. I would like your opinion of a book on physics written by a man named Mark McCutcheon. Atlas Shrugged was the most influential book in my life. "The final Theory", second edition by McCutcheon is the only one which comes anywhere near atlas.If you get the book, just for drill, read it as though it were correct. Try not to get hung up on orbits. Keep in mind that our perceptions do not create reality. Nor do our beliefs or their structures. I wish Ayn had been around to read this book. I think she would have loved him. If you do decide to read it, wear a seatbelt.
/Steve
-
-
-
GodlessHeathen
Feb 23, 2012 @ 11:00 am | delete
- Thank you Steve, I will try and get around to reading the book you suggested, but can't promise when. I have so much on my plate right now already.
-
by GodlessHeathen
I am very cynical when it comes to people. If you read any of my articles, you will quickly see that I am not a "people person" and in fact don't like... more »
- 36 featured lenses
- Winner of 25 trophies!
- Top lens » Is God Just Pretend?
Feeling creative?
Create a Lens!
Explore related pages
- William Penn - developing freedom in a new world William Penn - developing freedom in a new world
- Are You Really For Freedom? Are You Really For Freedom?
- Atlas Still Shrugs Atlas Still Shrugs
- Do You Own Yourself? Do You Own Yourself?
- Why I Am a Libertarian Why I Am a Libertarian
- A Celebration for Criminals A Celebration for Criminals
