'What's Right' vs 'What you've got a right to do'
Hi Barb,
you wrote:
<<<"...I don't see how anyone who would take the position that murder is ok if done by a family member could engage in a rational discussion. Hey, my dad is way old, and I'll get a nice chunk of change when he goes providing he doesn't use it up on nursing home bills and medical expenses. Is it ok for me to go whack him? After all, we are related so I'd guess you'd take the position that the gov't should not worry about that. After all, you said, 'People killing each other inside a family is private stuff, imho.' ..."
I didn't take the position that 'that murder is ok if done by a family member'.
My position is that we should not have gvrnmnt intrusion into families. What's right & wrong is another matter altogether. I would guess that the reason you're not killing your father is Not that you don't think you'd get away with it, that gvrnmnt would punish you, but that you think it would be wrong.
--- Lots of things people do I think I think are wrong, or unwise, or self-destructive, but I don't have a right to try to impose my will on them and make them live the way I think they should. If their actions don't directly harm others or others' property, they should be free to chose their own path. If my neighbor drinks a quart of whiskey for breakfast, I will try to convince him this is not a good thing, but I have no right to compel him to stop.
--- Likewise, people treat others in their families in ways I disagree with. But this is their business, not mine. I can try to convince them to act differently, but I have no right to compel them. And neither does the gvrnmnt, imho.
--- I think it might make my position clearer to think of me as holding the family to be an extension of the individual which ought to have recognized rights to be free to conduct itself without intrusion by outsiders. I do also believe that anyone should be able to opt out of a family if they chose to.
--- The idea that gvrnmnt is everybody's uberparent, checking on and punishing any behavior deemed 'not right'; interceding between husband & wife, parent & child, etc, is what I object to.
Barb, it occurs to me to ask your position on abortion rights.
Who should have control over a woman's body, gvrnmnt or herself?
Should the fetus be protected against abortion by gvrnmnt intervention?
What is the Libertarian Party position on mommy murdering unborn babe?
------------------------------
Just as a point of interest, I'll mention the ancient Roman laws regarding Paterfamilias.
---Paterfamilias('family father') was the status held by male citizens who were heads of households. The family included (by law) his wife, sons, unmarried daughters, daughters-in-law, grandchildren by same, any slaves owned, and various other persons who might be part of the household. Paterfamilias had absolute authority over his family. He could beat them, kill them, sell them into slavery, force marriages and divorces, etc. There is a moderately well-known example of a Roman Army General who acted in a disgraceful way while on campaign. When he returned to Rome, his father, who was Paterfamilias, killed him. This was seen as a family tragedy, but Not as something the gvrnmnt had any business interfering in. It was a family matter.
I don't advocate a return of the Paterfamilias <G>.
I mention it to make the point that this was an advanced civilization who saw things differently. They weren't irrational or insane or depraved. Their society evolved into what it was, just as this one has. There are many ways that societies can be organized. No way is the 'right' way ordained by the gods. (I should add an 'imho' there, I guess).
I saw an inscription once on a stone archway which translates (roughly) as ---
"Never Say 'This is What's True.'
Say Rather 'This is How It Seems To Be Based On What I Can Perceive Now."
regards,
diana
Here's a snip from Harry---------------
Harry Browne's
stand on
Family Values
Overview
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to tell us how to live our lives. However, the politicians insist upon governing every aspect of our existence.
Democratic and Republican politicians believe Americans are dysfunctional children who need government to act as their parents. Both parties seek to impose their values and recognize no limits on their authority.
Who Should Decide Such Questions?
If you ask the government to impose morality, you are asking that moral questions be decided by those with the most political power. This means that people like Teddy Kennedy and Newt Gingrich will dictate personal morality to you.
When you choose a political solution as your means for restoring virtue to society, you must then wait until the majority becomes virtuous enough to vote for the right policies. But granting everyone personal freedom would get the job done much faster -- by giving people an incentive to be upright. A free market rewards virtue and punishes irresponsibility, while government does just the opposite. |
