Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The law is used to enforce morality on people, and rightly so. Things like murder and rape are obviously illegal, and for good reason. As libertarian as one is or claims to be, most would agree that the government should enforce morality through law in those instances. At the same time though, most would agree that the simple act of being a dick through ones words, though immoral, is not something the government should be allowed to morally police.

Nobody can claim the law has no place enforcing morality without sounding like an anarchist, and nobody can say the law should enforce morality in all instances without sounding like a complete authoritarian. So assuming you are not one of those two things, where do you draw the line? At what point should the government start/stop enforcing morality through legislation?

It's a really tricky subject to discuss since everyone is going to have a different interpretation of what morality is and what should be considered moral.


I'd say instead the law enforces behavior on behalf of legislation that derives from the lawmakers' (and often times their voting constituents') personal sense of morality. Like there's a few steps in between the notion of morality and law enforcement.

Law is not necessary concerned with morality. Government makes law to enforce behavior that is most conducive for a successful society.

The north didn't really outlaw slavery because of morality, they did mostly to protect white wages which were being depressed by free labor in the south.

Okay let me rephrase the question since this is just turning into a game of semantics; At what point should the government be involved in regulating human activity and at what point should it **** off?

Wow this is too complicated to respond to

I have multiple personalities anyway; the one present as I write this is one who supports anarcho-capitalism so not much I can offer.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Okay let me rephrase the question since this is just turning into a game of semantics; At what point should the government be involved in regulating human activity and at what point should it **** off? Semantics ruin discussions. But now that question covers an extremely broad range that would take a good sized book to deconstruct properly as you answer it, and every single case is going to come with a caveat that needs to consider the context of every single scenario that occurs.


So pretty much you'd just wind up getting a type of system what already exists.


Originally posted by Kurk
I have multiple personalities anyway I have divisive personalities. But they don't add much to the conversation so let me just subtract that statement.

We don't enforce morality, we enforce laws based on actions taken. For instance, it's not illegal to be a shitty person.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Okay let me rephrase the question since this is just turning into a game of semantics; At what point should the government be involved in regulating human activity and at what point should it **** off?

When the activity isn't harmful to society.

This is why if I wanna smoke some weed in the privacy of my own home I should be able to.

Or why two consenting adults should be able to perform whatever sex act they want on each other in private.

Originally posted by Surtur
We don't enforce morality, we enforce laws based on actions taken. For instance, it's not illegal to be a shitty person. Otherwise you'd be serving 25 to life.




*Seinfeld theme* *scene transition*

Originally posted by Surtur
When the activity isn't harmful to society. Still too broad. The definition of "harm to society" has never been agreed upon. The argument over its definition is the basis for like... everything to do with politics and legal interpretations.

That could be a thread in the philosophy forum.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Okay let me rephrase the question since this is just turning into a game of semantics; At what point should the government be involved in regulating human activity and at what point should it **** off?

Actually it wasn't, and Firefly is exactly right. Laws are (or a least should be) less about morality and more about maintaining a functional society. They incentivize behavior from the individual that's better for the collective by threat of force.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Otherwise you'd be serving 25 to life.

Originally posted by Beniboybling


I am sure it will happen once the Leftist Progressive Horde takes control again via their violent up rising.

Here's hoping.

Me too,. I can't wait to kick Leftist in their skinny jeans.

First you have to get over your fear of them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Otherwise you'd be serving 25 to life.

Most people here would be serving hard time right along with me.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'd say instead the law enforces behavior on behalf of legislation that derives from the lawmakers' (and often times their voting constituents') personal sense of morality. Like there's a few steps in between the notion of morality and law enforcement.

This is some top-notch intelligent posting.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Okay let me rephrase the question since this is just turning into a game of semantics; At what point should the government be involved in regulating human activity and at what point should it **** off?

I'll answer the question as academically as possible.

The government should step in to regulate morality at the point where one person or persons' ability to exercise their liberty is restricted by another person or persons' activities. Well-defined ownership and property laws must be defined in this system to prevent absurd situations such as one person claiming his liberty is restricted by not being able to eat another's person's food.