Pornography on the Internet

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

I think most would agree that unless a person is wealthy enough to absorb liability costs themselves, it is immoral for that person to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without auto insurance. Therefore, a law exists to enforce that moral, requiring a person to have insurance in order to drive.

To make enforcing this law easier...

You see, this is what I meant when I said people have different moral standards. In my view, failure to carry an insurance card isn't in itself immoral (what a lawyer might call "malum in se") even though it is against the law ("malum prohibitum").

Even you qualified your example..."wealthy enough"..."without insurance". That wasn't my example....my example was someone who *has* insurance who doesn't have their card. Who might not even *know* they don't have their card.

It's still illegal for them to drive...including the person who self-insures, there's still a document they must carry. The law exists strictly for the convenince of the police in verifying that your status under the motor vehicle code is valid.. It's a perfectly good law, I just don't feel that it regulates morality....which in my view is not the law's job.

Similarly, I don't believe it would be *immoral* for me to carry my Pennsylvania-legal handgun loaded with hollow-points in New Jersey, even though it would be highly illegal and not very bright.

If you're simply arguing that breaking any law is immoral, then there's not much point to this discussion....in that case anything can be *made* immoral, just by passing a law against it. :-)

"Grander" is definately a word, being the comparitive of "grand".

<blockquote>
Grand, a. Compar. Grander; superl. Grandest. OE.
<i>grant, grount</i>, OF. <i>grant,</i>, F.<i> grand</i>, fr. L. <i>grandis</i>; perh. akin to <i>gravis</i> heavy, E. <i>grave</i>, a. Cf. Grandee.
1. Of large size or extent; great; extensive; hence, relatively great; greatest; chief; principal...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<i>On the Stork Tower</i>
The sun burns white over the mountains,
The Yellow River rushes to the sea,
If you desire for a grander sight,
you have to reach a greater height. -- Wang Zhihuan
</blockquote>

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by russotto
Well, I don't agree with that. The principle that no one should engage in an action which may impose more liability upon him than he can afford is not something I can accept.

Are you referring to any activities in particular? If you are not able to afford whatever liabilities your actions may cause, who should bear the cost of your liability?

I would say that being able to afford whatever liabilities you cause amounts to being responsible for your actions. Do you disagree?

The acceptance of laws devised simply to make the police's job easier lead inevitably to a police state.

Really. Inevitably? Do you disagree with pastrami's assertion that the law requiring drivers to carry proof of insurance is in place to make the enforcement of the insurance requirements easier, or do you think that having to carry proof of insurance is leading us on the path to a police state?

[hot_pastrami]

Maggie, I daresay that our difference of opinion is rooted in the terminology itself more than in the principles we're discussing.... I think the definition I'm using for the word "moral" is simply less specific than yours. In this discussion, when I say "moral" what I mean is "not immoral." Immoral = wrong, moral = not wrong. In that context, it would be moral for me to drive as an insured driver without my insurance card *except* that I made a promise otherwise when I got my license. So, I'm making no distinction here for the gray area that is perceived between moral and immoral, because in the way I'm using the word here, all things will fall on one side of the other of the boundary.

Of course that boundary is defined by the individual, and that's why I think that a community's law is an attempt to commonalize that boundary as much as possible. Think about the things that the majority of people in your community consider immoral (to whatever degree), and it's a safe bet that there will be a law governing that thing. But of course I welcome your contrasting view, I love to catch of a glimpse of a perspective different from my own.

Also, I make absolutely no argument that laws accomplish this effectively... I think they do it pretty badly much of the time. I'm just trying to peel away the layers and see what lies beneath the complexities of life and society. And NO, I DO NOT think that breaking *any* law is immoral. Icky. Just because I think that's what's being aimed at, doesn't mean it isn't often missed.

Originally posted by russotto
The acceptance of laws devised simply to make the police's job easier lead inevitably to a police state.

Ok, then I pose a question... in what way does a law requiring drivers to carry proof of insurance do anything except protect the other drivers? How can it be abused? Sure, there are many laws that give the police scary amounts of control over the indivduals they are meant to protect and serve, but I don't see how this one is of any harm at all. Sure, police shouldn't be given too much power, but if they have none, they are impotent. And anyone who says that laws and police are completely unnecessary has lived a sheltered, oblivious life. There is a balance that must be acheived, and though a perfect balance is an impossible dream, it is one worth getting as close as possible to, in my opinion.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
Of course that boundary is defined by the individual, and that's why I think that a community's law is an attempt to commonalize that boundary as much as possible.

The law must be *agreed upon* by as many of the members of the community as possible. It's a compromise: restriction of one person's freedoms to preserve those of another person. And for that reason, the fewer of them there are the better.

I'm really resistant to the notion that "the purpose of the law is to enforce morality", because many people subscribe to religious beliefs that they claim define morality.

Next thing you know, you have laws that bars can't be open on Sunday, or that the official "pledge of allegiance" is to a "nation under God", or that homosexuals should be stoned to death, all in the name of morality. Morals are *individual* values. The stated purpose of law here in the US is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". Not to enforce morality.

Let's try to keep church and state separate, OK?

(Besides, I never <i>promised</i> to not pack heat in New Jersey... :-) )

[russotto]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Are you referring to any activities in particular? If you are not able to afford
whatever liabilities your actions may cause, who should bear the cost of your liability?

There are numerous activities which can create greater liabilities than you can afford. Driving, obviously. Any use of fire -- you can burn down your whole block, or even start multi-million-dollar wildfires. Riding a bicycle, if you're poor enough; you can hurt or even kill someone that way.

If you can't bear the actual cost of your activities, you go bankrupt and the victims or their insurance companies are left holding the bag. This is bad, but it is far worse to insist that you not engage in activities for which you can't pay for the worst possible consequences thereof.

I would say that being able to afford whatever liabilities you cause amounts to being responsible for your actions. Do you disagree?

Yes; it means you must be a multi-millionaire to be "responsible for your actions".

Really. Inevitably? Do you disagree with pastrami's assertion that the law requiring drivers to carry proof of insurance is in place to make the enforcement of the insurance requirements easier, or do you think that having to carry proof of insurance is leading us on the path to a police state?

We're more than halfway there, with laws which are made for the convenience of the police.

[hot_pastrami]

I by no means suggest that church and state *should* be linked, only that at a fundamental level, they usually are. As you say a person's morals are often derived from their religion, and it is my conclusion that these morals are often used to hatch a community's laws.

The perfect example is my place of residence, in the heart of Mormon Utah. There are many ridiculous laws which are so Mormon-slanted that it can make a person ill... such as laws prohibiting the purchase of alcohol on Sundays. There is even a law that dictates that auto dealers cannot be open for business on both Saturday and Sunday... an obvious trap since no auto dealer who wishes to stay in business here will choose Sunday over Saturday. Nasty, eh? Such laws have little direct impact on me, but I still find them unsettling. An even more ghastly idea than a police state is one with a religion at the wheel.

If I seem to have represented the argument that laws *should* be based on morals, then I have poorly communicated my thoughts. I simply argue that at the fundamental level, a law is an attempted reflection of a community majority's morals, often unsuccessfully. I am not trying to answer the question of "What should laws represent?" but rather "Where did laws come from?" An important distinction.

As far as my thoughts on what laws should be based on, that is a broader subject than I intend to broach at this time, outside of a hearty agreement with the excerpt you included from our Constitution's preamble earlier.

Hot Pastrami

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
I by no means suggest that church and state *should* be linked, only that at a fundamental level, they usually are.

I don't think that's at all inevitable.

The perfect example is my place of residence, in the heart of Mormon Utah. There are many ridiculous laws which are so Mormon-slanted that it can make a person ill...

Oh, dear. My sympathies. This explains a lot about your point of view. "Slanted" is a dreadful understatement to describe the stranglehold the LDS has on the state of Utah. And the Boy Scouts.

An even more ghastly idea than a police state is one with a religion at the wheel.

Sometimes they're awfully hard to tell apart....since the latter is often used to justify the former. You couldn't be opposed to <b>morals</b> now, could you? That would be immoral. :-)

Read Heinlein's "If This Goes On --" (1940), frequently published in a collection titled "Revolt in 2100".

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by russotto
There are numerous activities which can create greater liabilities than you can afford. Driving, obviously. Any use of fire -- you can burn down your whole block, or even start multi-million-dollar wildfires. Riding a bicycle, if you're poor enough; you can hurt or even kill someone that way.

True, you could incur millions in liability by just walking down the street. So the place where we draw the line and say "anything with greater than this level of risk of causing a great deal of liability" is somewhat arbitrary. But it is generally agreed upon (and thus, the insurance law) that driving is one of those risky things that can incur large liabilities.

That said, you seemed to be arguing that people shouldn't be required to have insurance in order to drive. If that's not what you were saying, I misunderstood.

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk over a vastly larger population. So your statement that driving can cause liabilities greater than one can afford is incorrect, as long as that person has insurance. That's why it's called "liability insurance".

[russotto]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

The purpose of insurance is to spread risk over a vastly larger population. So your statement that driving can cause liabilities greater than one can afford is incorrect, as long as that person has insurance. That's why it's called "liability insurance". [/b]

It's easy to go over your liability limit, particularly if you're at the minimum.