Sorry about this. I am having some problems with my internet connection, so I could not reply directly, and I needed to save the text somewhere else. So, without further ado ...

> Uh. Ok. If you say so.

My point was a joke about the power of the Prime Minister in Canada.
> 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 don't think so. You could create a legal system that was non-moral in its basis and assumptions, with its one precept "laws should be made to allow and preserve the most free and well-functioning society". That's fine, and I see that I have misconstrued what you have said.
But these particular issues that you brought as examples, the murder and theft examples, are clearly moral questions. Even if we assume (as I can) that there are such things as non-moral rights, you cannot by a twist of semantics divorce the moral context from your examples. Whatever the non-moral basis you would want for a legal system, the current system was designed, at least on the two issues in question, because the moral question had already been decided, and the majority of people thought that murder was wrong, morally, and that theft was wrong, morally. Most modern talk, and almost all ancient talk, about rights has been moral talk. When women fought for the right to vote, and it was eventually granted, it was not a non-moral issue. The injustice of women's lack of sufferage was centered on the disparity between men, who were considered persons, and persons were eligable voters, and women, who were considered persons, and lacked the same voting right as men. And that is a case that seems quite non-moral. Other cases are more clearly so. I stand by my contention that they are moral issues. I see by your argument that it is possible to talk about rights in a non-moral way as categories only used in a legal context. But the assumption has always been that rights are things that persons and creatures have, and they are nearly always moral ones.
> 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.

This is fine given your assumptions. I have some moral assumptions, so I cannot agree completely, though I do agree that good government is non-intrusive government. Also, how do you define harm in a non-moral context?

> 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.

I agree that that is the government's purpose. The "rights" we have agreed upon, though they are necessary for a free and functioning society, have historically been thought of as moral rights. You don't need to discuss such rights in a moral way; divorced from moral context and used only to the practical end, they work. Many of these so-called 'rights', however, have nothing like agreed-upon status, even by a simple half plus one majority. And many of the people who do agree with most of them, like myself, agree with them not because they function to produce a free and functioning society, but because they are deserved moral rights.
Also, I did not say that because something is immoral it should be illegal; I said that something grossly immoral should be illegal. There is an implied distinction there. Don't overstate the case. I will try to keep from throwing you in jail for swearing at your computer, however, if only because I want someone to debate with.
Your position seems to be actually quite close to that of Kant, without the morality. I am more unoriginal; I just pass off Kant's work as my own.
> 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.

Fine. I don't want theocracy in the sense that you talk about it either. I would like theocracy, that is, rule by God, but only if it were really God ruling, not me or anyone else in His stead.
There are two major positions regarding morality for the major western monotheistic groups, by the way (major monotheistic groups being Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). The first is divine voluntarism, which you describe, under which the rightness or wrongness of an act derives from God's commandment about it. Stealing is wrong because God says it's wrong; almsgiving is good because God says it's good. The second is that some acts are right, and some wrong, in virtue of their rightness or wrongness. Acts are right or wrong independently of any particular moral agent's thoughts about them, including God's. For believers in the second moral schema, who are also Jews, Christians, or Muslims, it just so happens that God, in His omniscience, always knows what is right, so one can trust his judgements. It seems that most american believers are divine voluntarists, but that is by no means the only acceptable position.

I think, actually, that we would agree a great deal more about what laws should be passed than you seem to. Our strongest disagreement is about the basis for those laws. I think that the strongest and best basis for law is a moral basis. I want gross moral wrongs to be criminalized; you cannot fault me for it being my own morality. If I did not believe the moral precepts I was proposing, then of course I would not argue for them. But your system is far from objective; you make assumptions, mainly, that things that hinder a free and functioning society should be illegal, which may or may not agree with ends that other people would desire. We can talk all day about how I am trying to "legislate my own private morality", but it seems that I could say the same of you, substituting "non-moral precepts" for "morality". The moral precepts I would have enshrined in law are not nearly so extensive and intrusive as you portray, especially considering that I have only mentioned four:
Murder should be illegal.
Theft should be illegal.
Producing child pornography should be illegal.
Viewing child pornography should be illegal.
Thus far, we seem to disagree on the last for sure.
"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 see that you are in any kind of position to comment, considering the paucity of my response. How would you know what you were disagreeing with?

Frum