Thomas Timmerman wrote:
> And my point was that this position, in and of itself, is a value
> judgment which you wish to impose on everyone else. I would bet
> that there are others who have a value system in which accepting
> personal responsibility would extend to protecting oneself from
> others. But you wish to give this responsibility to the State. I happen
> to agree with you to a large extent, but I think people who
> use the "harm to others" criterion for laws fail to realize that
> they are also trying to impose a value system on others. They
> just believe that theirs is more noble and beyond argument than
> others. But, that's what those wacky fundamentalists think too.
On the contrary--the limitation I listed (that harming the person or
property of a non-consenting individual should be the limit of State
intervention into the private lives of the citizens) is, far from imposing
a value system, the ONLY limitation that does NOT do so.
Unless you are arguing that one individual's value system is superior to
someone else's (a patent absurdity), then you cannot reasonably argue that
preventing people from violating the rights of others to adhere to that
value system personally is, itself, imposing a value system on others. By
protecting people from unwanted harm (and violating their rights to adhere
to their own values personally IS a way of harming them, clearly) you
simply recognize that all people have the same rights. If that's imposing
my value system, then I'll accept the accusation--but if THAT is the
imposition of a value system, so are prohibitions on murder, rape,
robbery--or the rules you impose in your classroom concerning plagiarism,
for that matter.
The role of the State is to interfere with private behavior ONLY when no
other option exists--and the minimum level of interference is clearly to
prevent them from harming others and nothing else. A government which
failed to do that would have no value to its citizens at all, and a
government which exceeds that limit corresponding imposes its own value
system on the citizens affected.
Incidentally, your comment about "wacky fundamentalists" was a bit
extreme. While I don't happen to share their beliefs, and I _strongly_
oppose their attempt to impose their values on me or on others who don't
share them, I still respect their devotion and commitment to their faith,
and putting them down as "wacky fundamentalists" is, to me, a rather
offensive way of dismissing what is a large number of very sincere
individuals.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College
Jackson, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds will be the love
you leave behind when you're gone. --Fred Small, Everything Possible "
