laws (moral, punishment, doctrine, bless, sex)

[Aqualung]

What sorts of laws does the government have the right to pass? I think the only ones are ones that punish people for harming someone else. These are things like giving punishment to murderers, theifs, arsonists, vandals, and the like. They should also be able to pass laws to regulate certain things for the welfare of our state, like sewers, electricity, and the like. They should not be able to force values upon others if they do not harm others. For example, some people think it's morally wrong to posess guns, do drugs, or have extra marital sex, or marry a perosn of your gender. But it's not the gov't's job to regulate those kind of moralistic things, and if those things don't harm another, the governmetn should not regulate it.

[Engyo]

These sorts of questions are why we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court in the US. When a question fo this type comes up, that is where the answers are found.

[Mike182]

how would we regulate education? teachers would be teaching completely different things, as their would be no national curriculum - this would bodge up the employment situation as their is nothing to compare educational acheivements to

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Aqualung,

You are starting to sound like a Libertarian. Bless your heart. If you look at writings of the framers of our Constitution, it is pretty clear they held the beleif that "he who governs least governs best" that is the basic principle of Libertarian thought, and it clearly was the idea behind the framers who were rebelling against the tyrannical overbearing, overtaxing, non-representative government of England.

Hmm, who else can those attributes be ascribed to?

I firmly agree with you that the Federal Government was set up with a specific set of criteria over which they would have dominion. The remainder would be left to the people in general or the the "several states" under the now defunct doctrine of "states rights".

The Feds overstepped their bounds with the help of the Supreme Court. States rights took a huge hit during the Civil War and the Reconstruction which followed. Then a huge crippling blow was landed by the Feds with the expansion of the Commerce Clause by the Warren Court. After this, the Feds could, and did, regulate any activities they saw fit inside the borders of the U.S. on the theory that anything which affected interstate commerce (liberally construed to include any activity at all by any entity at all) could be overseen, regulated, taxed and so forth, by the Feds.

What little bit of rights the states and the citizens of the states may have had up till that time were all but eradicated by the "war on drugs" which has done more to infringe on the individual liberties including those previously protected by the Bill of Rights, than any other event or ideal in U.S. history.

If the Feds had kept to the framer's principles, then they would have stuck with the areas of law which you outlined in the opening of this thread. I share your opinion that these are the only legitimate areas that the government should be passing laws. Unfortunately, they have far exceeded these bounds.

B.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

What sorts of laws does the government have the right to pass? I think the only ones are ones that punish people for harming someone else. These are things like giving punishment to murderers, theifs, arsonists, vandals, and the like. They should also be able to pass laws to regulate certain things for the welfare of our state, like sewers, electricity, and the like. They should not be able to force values upon others if they do not harm others. For example, some people think it's morally wrong to posess guns, do drugs, or have extra marital sex, or marry a perosn of your gender. But it's not the gov't's job to regulate those kind of moralistic things, and if those things don't harm another, the governmetn should not regulate it.

I agree to a certian extent. Something should not be illegal because some people feel that it is morally wrong. However, what can you do if most people are convinced that your statement "posess guns, do drugs, or have extra marital sex, or marry a perosn of your gender" actually are harming someone else?

EDIT: Also, how much can we allow a person to harm themselves? If it costs me money, I deserve a say in whether or not they should do it. If I lose money because of someone else hurting themself, or money is taken from the state that could otherwise fund projects that I support (like my child's education), I and the state deserve to have a say in the action's legality because I am harmed.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I agree to a certian extent. Something should not be illegal because some people feel that it is morally wrong. However, what can you do if most people are convinced that your statement "posess guns, do drugs, or have extra marital sex, or marry a perosn of your gender" actually are harming someone else?

EDIT: Also, how much can we allow a person to harm themselves? If it costs me money, I deserve a say in whether or not they should do it. If I lose money because of someone else hurting themself, or money is taken from the state that could otherwise fund projects that I support (like my child's education), I and the state deserve to have a say in the action's legality because I am harmed.

Do you think that someone possessing a gun harms You? What about if they have extra marital sex or marry a same sex partner. If so, I'm curious as to how.

[Darkdale]

The government should only create laws that protect individual citizens from either force or fraud.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by corrupt_priest

how would we regulate education? teachers would be teaching completely different things, as their would be no national curriculum - this would bodge up the employment situation as their is nothing to compare educational acheivements to

Education is one of those things that falls under "sewers etc." It's pretty much a thing the government has to regulate because if it doesn't everything would fail. Our country runs on the education of its citizens. It' like we're only as smart as our dumbest citezen, so the nation has a real stake in educating us.

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

(it was so much easier this time to remember what you're name was!)You are starting to sound like a Libertarian. Bless your heart. If you look at writings of the framers of our Constitution, it is pretty clear they held the beleif that "he who governs least governs best" that is the basic principle of Libertarian thought, and it clearly was the idea behind the framers who were rebelling against the tyrannical overbearing, overtaxing, non-representative government of England.

Indeed, and I agree. Small government.

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

If the Feds had kept to the framer's principles, then they would have stuck with the areas of law which you outlined in the opening of this thread. I share your opinion that these are the only legitimate areas that the government should be passing laws. Unfortunately, they have far exceeded these bounds.

Indeed they have! Too bad I just fruballed you in a different thread...

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I agree to a certian extent. Something should not be illegal because some people feel that it is morally wrong. However, what can you do if most people are convinced that your statement "posess guns, do drugs, or have extra marital sex, or marry a perosn of your gender" actually are harming someone else?

That's a good point. But you have to think, the actuall act of owning a gun does nobody any harm. The actaul act of marrying someone of a different gender does no harm. It's what you do after those things that do harm, and that's what we have to make the laws against.

Originally Posted by angelous_evangellous

EDIT: Also, how much can we allow a person to harm themselves? If it costs me money, I deserve a say in whether or not they should do it. If I lose money because of someone else hurting themself, or money is taken from the state that could otherwise fund projects that I support (like my child's education), I and the state deserve to have a say in the action's legality because I am harmed.

Exactly. But I think you're going the wrong way. Instead of legalising things because you have to pay for them, we should make it so we don't have to pay for them.