[aimhigh]

I can see how the liberal legislate their morality with every pay check, where my hard earned dollars are deducted to pay for their guilt relieving programs.

[WOSG]

Good essay, refuting the slogan/lie that you "cannot legislate morality", a myth I've had to refute even here on FR!

[Irontank]

Interesting article.

My only thoughts are (1) liberalism (or what should be called neoliberalism as it has little in common with classic liberalism) is a flawed political philosophy, filled with contradictions, (2) libertarianism is generally similar to classic liberalism...which recognizes certain natural God-given rights in every person including the right to keep one's property and do with it as one wishes, the right to be left alone to do whatever one wants (including engaging in homosexuality, consume pornography, drugs, etc.) so long as doing so does not infringe on anyone else's freedom and freedom of conscience and the right to worship or not worship as one wishes.

I don't know that this is legislating morality...I think it is legislating to accomplish the only thing that a Lockean political philosopher beleives the state has the moral authority to do...protect man's God-given rights.

[TrailofTears]

Every law is a legislation of someone's morality. It is called a Social Contract.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

anticonservative fallacy

I nominate the term novelty fallacy for the phenomenon in question.

What is actually going on is that the liberal or libertarian is arguing from the presumption that what they advocate is good simply because it is different from what is traditional. That is a fallacy on two grounds:

1. old ways of doing things work, to a relatively well-know degree, and
2. most social ideas probably have already been tried; the liberal/libertarian's "new" idea may have been tried in the distant past, and found wanting.

As argument, presumption rightly belongs to retaining tradition rather than abandoning it. Traditions should only be modified when the potential gain outweighs the potential risk.

The "novelty fallacy" is simply the negation of the "look before you leap" caution. Those who argue for change without counting the cost by taking arguments in favor of tradition seriously enough to rebut them on a solid logical basis are simply egoists in love with the first idea that comes into their heads which is different - simply because they think it new and can claim ownership of it. It is really the "not invented here" fallacy. If it's a tradition, they can't claim to have invented it, and don't own it.

[P_A_I]

The author admits:

Not all moral principles ought to be enforced by the power of government,

Exactly why we've outlined a BOR's in our Constitution, rights which are not to be infringed upon by any level of government in the USA.

but almost everything government does is based on some moral principle or other.

Yes indeed, and that's why we must be ever vigilant against attempts by majorities to 'legislate moralities' that infringe upon individual rights.

It is fatuous, then, to hold that "we shouldn't legislate morality," if this means that controversial moral principles shouldn't guide public policy.

It doesn't mean that, -- as long as the "controversial moral principles" are not infringements on individual rights, or repugnant in any other way to the principles of our Constitution.

And almost every moral principle is controversial to a significant extent.

That's why it's so hard to amend the Constitution. -- Look what happened in our last great bout of "legislating morality" - booze prohibition.. It was a total disaster for liberty & the republic.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Of course all laws are based on somebody's idea of morality. The very purpose of the government is to "legislate morality."

Libertarians also want to legislate morality, they just haven't been taught right from wrong.