tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post1821487579095852721..comments2022-11-21T03:43:58.782-06:00Comments on Regardant les nuages: The ground on which liberals dare not tread...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-89551679985466255402007-06-03T21:04:00.000-06:002007-06-03T21:04:00.000-06:00Robert,I do not consider myself a libertarian (and...Robert,<BR/>I do not consider myself a libertarian (and, interestingly, I planned to post about that soonish). I actually think I'm an egalitarian, though I hadn't given either view much (serious) thought until recently. I didn't mean to limit the government's overall role to preventing/prosecuting those types of acts. I just meant that if the government were to allow them, then it would be condoning them (given their nature and the overwhelming consensus that they are really bad). Other concerns, such as promoting the flourishing of all citizens, are also important for the government (imo), but that's a seperate issue entirely. <BR/><BR/>I agree (in my limited theological knowledge) that God intends to turn the evil of this world into good, and that evil will then be an intricate part of his plan. The reason God can allow for this without condoning it is that He does plan on setting things straight in the end. If He didn't, He wouldn't be just (at least not in my conception of justice, though I realize He's not limited to my own conceptions). That's where the similarity with the government lies, in that the goverment ought to set things right if it can (as far as these sorts of things go, the sorts of things that we can all agree are pretty bad). I hope that clarifies it a bit more. <BR/><BR/>I have a feeling you and I share a good deal in common in our God views, but perhaps not politically...no matter.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-77013210721268593362007-06-03T17:59:00.000-06:002007-06-03T17:59:00.000-06:00Lindsey,It sounds like you’re saying that the gove...Lindsey,<BR/>It sounds like you’re saying that the government ought to prohibit <I>only</I> those actions that measurably harm others (without their consent), i.e. rape, murder, theft, etc. Am I reading you correctly? If so, you’re essentially making a libertarian argument. Do you consider yourself to be a libertarian? <BR/><BR/>With respect to God’s <I>ultimate</I> judgment (incidentally, I too am a Christian), I’m in full agreement with you. That said though, I think that He not only tolerates evil, but that He has incorporated it into His broader, eternal plan (which is to say that He uses it for His own ends). How do you see it?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10344357253669899950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-80313763193084589002007-06-03T12:15:00.000-06:002007-06-03T12:15:00.000-06:00Robert, Touche. I see what you mean, but hear me o...Robert, <BR/>Touche. I see what you mean, but hear me out. Let's say rape was made legal. If it was permissable from a legal point of view, the government would be pretty hypocritcal to -at the same time- preach that rape is evil. I think there are certain things that I might consider to be "bad" or "evil" that the government shouldn't take a stance on, and maybe that is condoning it. But there are other circumstances where that's clearly not okay. Murder, prime facie, shouldn't be legal, and if it was legal that would say something about what our government (and the people who our government represents) condones as acceptable. About the God part, God only allows evil for a time being, but (the Christian God) he has made it clear that all acts will be judged eventually. The governement, on the other hand, wouldn't be postponing judgement but rather witholding judgement all together. Does that clarify things? Maybe only to me, in which case, my apologies. But I hope you realize that the acts I think the government shouldn't allow need to be bad enough (the threshold I'm uncertain of) to warrent its interference. So that wouldn't just be affirming some religion over another. Thanks for the comment.Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11095269766349024764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-86360822443682995582007-06-02T20:50:00.000-06:002007-06-02T20:50:00.000-06:00Allowing a practice is, in effect, condoning it.We...<I>Allowing a practice is, in effect, condoning it.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, no. The first clause of the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, which essentially <I>allows</I> certain behavior, while simultaneously not <I>condoning it</I>. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, would you say that God <I>condones</I> evil, as He certainly <I>allows</I> it with astonishing regularity?Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10344357253669899950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4807621660146365262.post-33274761552464647642007-05-28T19:55:00.000-06:002007-05-28T19:55:00.000-06:00It seems to me that even a purely individualistic ...It seems to me that even a purely individualistic social philosophy (if that is not a contradication in terms) involves a moral assumption. Why should I care about the freedom of other individuals? If securing individual liberty does not somehow make society <EM>better</EM>, then why go out of my way to do it?<BR/><BR/>Well, maybe the only way to secure <EM>my</EM> freedom is to secure everybody else's too. But I'm not so sure that's true. The liberty of white Protestant males like me could be quite safe even if the liberty of, say, Catholic Latinas were not.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, as you point out, slavery and segregation illustrate the fact that one individual's freedom can conflict with another's. Smith's legal right to keep the property he bought, conflicted with Jones' (moral, not legal) right not to be owned. Doe's legal right not to associate with blacks, conflicted with Roe's (moral, not legal) right to participate as an equal in society.<BR/><BR/>Even a postmodern claim that different groups have different moral standards that should be respected by other groups, itself implies a universal moral standard -- a standard for what is good for society as a whole.<BR/><BR/>And in practice ... I have yet to run across a political activist who lacked a palpable sense of moral zeal and, when appropriate, indignation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com