JSDev Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I just had to share this. I was talking to a coworker, who is both a mormon and very liberal (odd combo). He's very inquisitive and really enjoys talking to me about my views on the state and god, so I give him a lot credit. Anyway a bit of the exchange went something like this: Me: the State only has a claim of authority over me because they are pointing a gun at me. Him: yeah but the people make the rules and we can change them any time therefore you at least can't say it's tyrannical. Me: ok, so the people approve of me going to jail for smoking pot (rhetorically speaking... I don't actually smoke pot) Him: well no, there isn't anybody who's actually for the war on drugs Me: what? wait, didn't you say we make the rules? So he conceded that point, but you could actually see him fighting off the cognitive dissonance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh F Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I wonder the order of things. I dont think the state represents the will of the people, I think the state does base its laws on normative perceptions. So like with marijuana, before we saw any decriminalization anywhere, people's attitudes towards it changed on a big level. In this way, our fleeting moral norms within society are enshrined into law by the state. In some states sodomy is still illegal, but unenforced. Jay walking in New York is illegal, but unenforced. If anything, laws are a reflection of what people will tolerate, not their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSDev Posted August 23, 2014 Author Share Posted August 23, 2014 So what you're saying is, the question should be what is the most effective means by which the law can more directly reflect the moral norms of society; that monopolistically created laws to a degree reflect those norms, but that as libertarians we should be arguing that private, market based laws are better at doing that? Sorry, I know that's putting a lot of words in your mouth, but it seems to be the point you're making. However, in the context of the conversation I was having, that would have been way too nuanced. He made a pretty direct assertion, for which I replied in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts