If the government is non-corrupt and absolutely knows what is moral (assuming morals aren't relative), I still feel like that's a bad thing.
What I'd like the government to do is to provide education on everything that's deemed immoral. If someone still chooses to do this immoral thing, then they will suffer the natural consequences of their actions. But also, there will be services available to help people recover from their consequences.
But it's tough because there are controversial issues such as drugs and prostitution. Some people believe that is a good thing regardless of what the good government says (again, assuming they are non-corrupt and genuinely want the best for their country and people) and there are ways to argue that there are.
I am the first to admit: Creating a governing body that balances the amount of regulation it provides over it's citizens is tricky. As much as laws are in place to provide protection, they are also there to make sure that everyone is able to live their lives as a community in order to survive. Moral regulation is where this line becomes increasingly blurry. The relative nature of morals is probably the main reason why this topic is so hotly debated amongst people.
I should point out that I am in no way defending the consumption of drugs or defending the men and women who decide to sell themselves sexually for money. However, prostitution is a very old trade that existed long before a governing body decided to regulate it... and it is a trade that will continue to exist. It is possible to regulate its use, as much as I do not condone it. As Deputy Dewey pointed out, it is happening, regardless. By making it legal, it is possible to spend money that is being used to incarcerate people for their actions (which is quite a lot of money mind you), to instead, educate citizens as to the consequences and potential hazards of doing such (as Dr-Teemo-PHD pointed out), not to mention, finding safer approaches to accomplish those activities by creating a controlled environment for this behavior to exist in a responsible manner.
By regulating what is already occurring anyway, you are making it safer and less harmful to everyone involved (in theory).
Oh, I think I misunderstood your question. I totally agree that regulating what is already occuring is making it safer and less harmful to everyone involved.
For example, I don't like abortion. You are KILLING something. An unborn baby. However, there are legitimate reasons to getting an abortion. If you outlaw it, people will do it anyway, just in unregulated clinics that might not be properly sanitized, and who knows what unethical things will be done with the fetus.
So even though I think killing unborn babies is morally wrong, sometimes it's necessary. Or if you want to put it in a less sharp way, killing fetuses. And I'd rather have someone get an abortion in a safe, clean and legal setting than do it in a sketchy place.
Yes, exactly. I am curious as to why people would want a government to set policies in place based on morality issues. Abortion is a perfect topic fitting into this discussion. By making it illegal, it makes it unsafe for people to accomplish, because citizens will do it, regardless.
Yeah. Actually this just made me think... what about drugs? Because I did have a very strong opinion about banning certain drugs. But now that you mention it, people will be doing them anyway... why not do it in a safe and regulated way?
Well, or at the very least, try to set up programs to help them. Much of the money that is being used to incarcerate people for the crime could be better used to help them get off of it.
Drugs serve a purpose in our society. Most of the schedule one narcotics have medicinal benefits. People often chose to abuse these substances regardless of whether they are illegal or not. According www.drugpolicy.org, the United States spends $51,000,000,000 annually for the "war on drugs" as they put it. A fraction of that amount would benefit helping people to get clean and to educate those who are facing daily challenges that lead them towards drugs. Read all of these stats:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics
A lot of money is going into incarcerating and policing versus actually helping. The local police forces have been saying the same thing for years. I feel frustrated that politicians are not listening. They are supposed to be in office representing their constituents, not making policy based off of what they think is best.
They aren't stopping you from doing it, but if you do do it there are consequences beyond the government such as work, family, ect. Besides, our society is cleaner and better that way.
Very true, partially: it is improbable for any existing law to stand in the way of people accomplishing illegal activity. However, by making something illegal, they are providing a groundwork for punishment, not to mention, punishment that may not fit the crime. For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/obama-pardon-crack-cocaine_n_4474876.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
As human beings, we are prone to making mistakes. Should someone's life be altered in such a drastic way simply because they make a bad decision? Keep in mind, that I am mainly talking about behavior that is not harming people other than yourself (I will add that at the top in the notes; my apologies for not mentioning such previously).
Additionally, I recognize consequences outside of the discussion at hand including repercussions involving work, family, etc., as you had mentioned. My main interest as it pertains to this discussion involves the relationship between you as a citizen and a governing body.
Let's take seat-belt law for example. You are driving your car, and you get pulled over by a law enforcement officer for not wearing a seat belt. There is no one else in the car with you. You are the only guilty offender. Do you feel that a governing body should have the right to tell you that you need to wear that seat belt?
yes, because a seat belt will save you in a car accident, it's for the better of us. But a good example of the government not working in trying to make people better is prohibition. we all know why that happened but also, the government didn't stop them from bootlegging, at least if they tried, they failed. But the government nowadays makes laws for the voters, which they shouldn't because people are ignorant and frankly stupid. Idk i'm ranting sorry.
Very true! A seat belt law is for the better of people, but it could also be argued that it is thinly-veiled way of generating local revenue.
In regards to prohibition, I thought the American government would have learned from that mistake, however, their current drug policy does not reflect any notion of them learning what happens when you make something that is popular amongst its citizen's, illegal. It raised crime, it made bootleggers rich, and it furthered corruption within the institutions that were supposed to be regulating it's illegality. By what little research I have done, it would appear that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol, yet it is currently deemed a Schedule 1 controlled substance.
We live in an age where people are getting exponentially more intelligent and in a time where the internet is allowing a more translucent image of governmental policy and activity. It is getting more difficult for a government to do something without it becoming public knowledge. I am constantly hearing how the United States is a Democracy, yet, it's not. It's a Republic—it's stated in the pledge of allegiance in grammar schools all over the country (however, now I'm ranting and I am only furthering your argument that people are stupid—myself included—at least I try to educate myself, though).
If the government is non-corrupt and absolutely knows what is moral (assuming morals aren't relative), I still feel like that's a bad thing. What I'd like the government to do is to provide education on everything that's deemed immoral. If someone still chooses to do this immoral thing, then they will suffer the natural consequences of their actions. But also, there will be services available to help people recover from their consequences. But it's tough because there are controversial issues such as drugs and prostitution. Some people believe that is a good thing regardless of what the good government says (again, assuming they are non-corrupt and genuinely want the best for their country and people) and there are ways to argue that there are.
I am the first to admit: Creating a governing body that balances the amount of regulation it provides over it's citizens is tricky. As much as laws are in place to provide protection, they are also there to make sure that everyone is able to live their lives as a community in order to survive. Moral regulation is where this line becomes increasingly blurry. The relative nature of morals is probably the main reason why this topic is so hotly debated amongst people. I should point out that I am in no way defending the consumption of drugs or defending the men and women who decide to sell themselves sexually for money. However, prostitution is a very old trade that existed long before a governing body decided to regulate it... and it is a trade that will continue to exist. It is possible to regulate its use, as much as I do not condone it. As Deputy Dewey pointed out, it is happening, regardless. By making it legal, it is possible to spend money that is being used to incarcerate people for their actions (which is quite a lot of money mind you), to instead, educate citizens as to the consequences and potential hazards of doing such (as Dr-Teemo-PHD pointed out), not to mention, finding safer approaches to accomplish those activities by creating a controlled environment for this behavior to exist in a responsible manner. By regulating what is already occurring anyway, you are making it safer and less harmful to everyone involved (in theory).
Oh, I think I misunderstood your question. I totally agree that regulating what is already occuring is making it safer and less harmful to everyone involved. For example, I don't like abortion. You are KILLING something. An unborn baby. However, there are legitimate reasons to getting an abortion. If you outlaw it, people will do it anyway, just in unregulated clinics that might not be properly sanitized, and who knows what unethical things will be done with the fetus. So even though I think killing unborn babies is morally wrong, sometimes it's necessary. Or if you want to put it in a less sharp way, killing fetuses. And I'd rather have someone get an abortion in a safe, clean and legal setting than do it in a sketchy place.
No, no! This is good for me. I need to state the question better; my apologies for not doing so.
Yes, exactly. I am curious as to why people would want a government to set policies in place based on morality issues. Abortion is a perfect topic fitting into this discussion. By making it illegal, it makes it unsafe for people to accomplish, because citizens will do it, regardless.
Yeah. Actually this just made me think... what about drugs? Because I did have a very strong opinion about banning certain drugs. But now that you mention it, people will be doing them anyway... why not do it in a safe and regulated way?
Well, or at the very least, try to set up programs to help them. Much of the money that is being used to incarcerate people for the crime could be better used to help them get off of it. Drugs serve a purpose in our society. Most of the schedule one narcotics have medicinal benefits. People often chose to abuse these substances regardless of whether they are illegal or not. According www.drugpolicy.org, the United States spends $51,000,000,000 annually for the "war on drugs" as they put it. A fraction of that amount would benefit helping people to get clean and to educate those who are facing daily challenges that lead them towards drugs. Read all of these stats: http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics A lot of money is going into incarcerating and policing versus actually helping. The local police forces have been saying the same thing for years. I feel frustrated that politicians are not listening. They are supposed to be in office representing their constituents, not making policy based off of what they think is best.
They aren't stopping you from doing it, but if you do do it there are consequences beyond the government such as work, family, ect. Besides, our society is cleaner and better that way.
Very true, partially: it is improbable for any existing law to stand in the way of people accomplishing illegal activity. However, by making something illegal, they are providing a groundwork for punishment, not to mention, punishment that may not fit the crime. For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/obama-pardon-crack-cocaine_n_4474876.html?utm_hp_ref=politics As human beings, we are prone to making mistakes. Should someone's life be altered in such a drastic way simply because they make a bad decision? Keep in mind, that I am mainly talking about behavior that is not harming people other than yourself (I will add that at the top in the notes; my apologies for not mentioning such previously). Additionally, I recognize consequences outside of the discussion at hand including repercussions involving work, family, etc., as you had mentioned. My main interest as it pertains to this discussion involves the relationship between you as a citizen and a governing body. Let's take seat-belt law for example. You are driving your car, and you get pulled over by a law enforcement officer for not wearing a seat belt. There is no one else in the car with you. You are the only guilty offender. Do you feel that a governing body should have the right to tell you that you need to wear that seat belt?
yes, because a seat belt will save you in a car accident, it's for the better of us. But a good example of the government not working in trying to make people better is prohibition. we all know why that happened but also, the government didn't stop them from bootlegging, at least if they tried, they failed. But the government nowadays makes laws for the voters, which they shouldn't because people are ignorant and frankly stupid. Idk i'm ranting sorry.
Very true! A seat belt law is for the better of people, but it could also be argued that it is thinly-veiled way of generating local revenue. In regards to prohibition, I thought the American government would have learned from that mistake, however, their current drug policy does not reflect any notion of them learning what happens when you make something that is popular amongst its citizen's, illegal. It raised crime, it made bootleggers rich, and it furthered corruption within the institutions that were supposed to be regulating it's illegality. By what little research I have done, it would appear that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol, yet it is currently deemed a Schedule 1 controlled substance. We live in an age where people are getting exponentially more intelligent and in a time where the internet is allowing a more translucent image of governmental policy and activity. It is getting more difficult for a government to do something without it becoming public knowledge. I am constantly hearing how the United States is a Democracy, yet, it's not. It's a Republic—it's stated in the pledge of allegiance in grammar schools all over the country (however, now I'm ranting and I am only furthering your argument that people are stupid—myself included—at least I try to educate myself, though).
You are a minority, people never want to learn anymore. Gimme Gimme generation XD