> But this is already the way it is Dave. I don't
>know why you mention theocracy, as the morality or
>immmorality of some action may be totally
>unconnected to God or the gods, the Tao, or what
>have you. In my country, we already have somewhat
>of a theocracy; but the priests who claim to speak
>for God are called Supreme Court Justices, and
>they are appointed by our Prime Minister, the holy
>canadian emperor.

Uh. Ok. If you say so.

>> My thoughts about it are basically this: Things
>>are illegal when they infringe upon the basic
>>rights of others. Killing is illegal because it
>>infringes upon a person's right to live.
>>Stealing is illegal because it infringes upon a
>>person's right to own property.
>
> But that first sentence is not exactly what you
>mean, I think. You can correct me if I am wrong.
>You must not mean "things are illegal when they
>infringe upon the basic rights of others"; you
>must mean "things should be illegal when they
>infringe upon the basic rights of others". I am
>not merely being picky or pedantic here. You can
>have this point, but then one must ask why
>infringements upon basic human rights should be
>illegal. Isn't any answer to this question going
>to be a moral answer?

No. The answer is only moral in as far as it makes a statement about right and wrong. It does so, however, not based on some higher power or anything, but based on the best way to have a functioning society of humans. Governments exist for one reason, and that's to protect the rights of its citizens against those who would seek to take them away. The rights I speak of are not moral rights. They're not generally moral questions, even, except in an extreme sense. They're rights that are protected because to not protect them would create a non-functioning society. You can't have people going around killing other people on a whim. You can't have people going around beating the crap out of other people just because they feel like it. It's not really a moral question--I have a "right" to not get beat up every day by random strangers only because to not have that right would result in a barbaric and non-functioning society.

I feel that anything beyond these basic precepts is going too far, however. If there is no harm to anyone by an action, it should not be illegal. There's no reason for the government to butt in and say "You can't do that" if I'm not disrupting society in some way. Streaking is illegal because to have random people running through the streets naked would be a distraction and possibly cause accidents and such. However, if it suddenly became the norm for everyone to be nude in public, streaking would no longer need to be illegal. In fact, it'd be the norm, and perhaps wearing clothes would be illegal.

>So, your distinction, and your desire to avoid
>"any kind of theocracy" is a false one; the
>debates about who should say what is immoral and
>what is moral will and must continue, because they
>will directly influence the law.

You're falsely simplifing the issue here. First, I don't believe all talk of "rights" and such are inherently moral issues, as I've already explained. I think it's primarily talk of creating a functioning society. There are many ways to do this, but I am of the opinion that the one that requires the least amount of government intervention is the best one. The government really has no business telling me I can't, for instance, swear at my comptuer in the privacy of my own home, even though you might think that swearing is immoral and should be illegal. The government's sole purpose is to protect my rights--and by "rights" I mean specifically the rights we have already agreed upon as being the ones necessary for a free and functioning society, those being primarily life, liberty, and property. Anything beyond that is none of the government's business.

When I say "theocracy", I mean just that--government by religion. The Taliban were a theocracy. The religious right in this country tries very hard to avoid the appearance of being or wanting to be a theocracy. But when you get right down to it, they (and you, by your own admission) want to legislate their own version of morality. Some of it I would agree with. A lot of it I wouldn't. MOST of it I think is none of the government's damn business in the first place. I don't want anyone passing a law saying I can't do something and having their primary reason for this to be "God says it's wrong". I don't care *which* God or what religion it is, I don't want that in any form.

-- Dave