CodyTalks at the...
140 conference smalltown 2011

"We Teach Them to Drive"

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

CodyTalks Radio Show
Sundays at 7a.m. CST - Wednesdays at 10:30a.m. CST

Hot topics going on in your area

Read more
CodyTalks Radio Show

CodyTalks at the...
140 conference NYC 2011

"How the Internet is like a Small Town"
...Twitter is coffee shop of the world... the whole world can now know about the good or bad thing you did just like it's always happened at the small town coffee shop.

Read more
CodyTalks Public Speaking

We have to stop legislating our morals/beliefs/ethics/personal opinion... Right!?

Who really believes the title of this post? Raise your hand, no I am serious raise your hand right now, right where you are at! Did you do it? Your weird if you actually did it.


I truly believe this, I think, unless someone presents me a specific example, but I can't think of any.


I personally believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, thats my belief, but I have zero right (none, nada, zip) to tell someone else they should believe that way.

I personally hate second hand smoke and we all know there are health risks to it, but as long as smoking is legal, we have no right to tell private property owners they can't allow it on there property.

I personally think prostitution is absurd and would much rather it didn't exist, but sex is legal and giving someone money is legal but if you do those things one right after the other it's illegal??

I personally would hate it if Barney dropped the F-bomb... But how can saying a word possibly be against the law. Let the system handle it, parents wouldn't let their kids watch Barney and it would fail, right.

If I had absolutely no interest in owning a gun, it would be easier for me to think they should outlawed, is that a fair assumption?

I personally think that legalizing marijuana would create some problems, but sitting in your house smoking dope should not be against the law!

I personally think the BCS systems sucks, ok... I am right about this one, we gotta make a change there.

I personally think that gambling CAN lead to problems, but the Government has no right to tell me what to do with any of my money except paying reasonable taxes. I should be able to run a poker game or a Bookie operation as a business.

I personally think Strip Clubs CAN lead to problems and present undesirable situations, but how can that be illegal?

Stem cell research???? I don't even really get it but why are we not pursuing this full bore again?

Euthanasia???? Do we have the right to dictate that as illegal if the person is of a sound mind? (no, we don't)

Evolution, I 100% believe God created the world but we have to teach the facts in school. The facts are that things have evolved, We can not teach in school that "God did not create the Earth" that is a theory. Theories should be openly discussed, but not taught as fact.



I personally think we over-legislate things to the point that a large percentage of the citizens of our country have quit being responsible for their decisions.

I am all for educating people to the bad effects of some of these things which in turn might decrease participation and make them a non-issue. I am also completely in favor of making any action that creates a legitimate victim illegal. Be care with that last sentence! Owning a gun or smoking dope or gambling or prostitution or owning a car or owning a pencil that can be stuck in someone's eye, does not create a victim. Sticking the pencil in someone else's eye creates a victim. We should most definitely educate people about the dangers of sticking a pencil in your own eye. Thats called parenting.


Just so you know I don't sit and dwell on this all the damn time, this article on whatsuphutch prompt me to ponder all this. It has 83 comments as of right now, pretty good discussion really.

8 comments:

  1. Can I just repost my post from WUH? Unfortunately we have become a litigious society and we have to protect the dumb from themselves. Talk about evolution! If we let the stupid people learn from their stupid mistakes maybe they would evolve themselves out of existence. Wishful thinking, I know. I love that our society lets us each have different beliefs and we all have the right to choose. That is the whole basis for our democracy, right? Then stop trying to legislate me into believing you are right and I am wrong. Let me choose and pay the consequences (or reap the benefits) of my choices. I like to call them "common sense" laws. Like having to put "Caution: this coffee is freakin' hot" on a cup of coffee you just ordered from McDonald's so your dumb ass knows not to spill it on your skin or it will burn. Did you order iced coffee? Where is the confusion coming in? Again, protecting the stupid people from themselves! I could rant all day about it but I've done that at WUH already. Funny how there wasn't a huge response after that...Glad to see I wasn't the only one realizing the argument was getting nowhere. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Josie,

    I agree except the we have to protect the dumb from themselves.

    We have to STOP legislating this!!!

    It is awesome that McDonalds put a warning on their cups, they should!!! They just shouldn't be required to.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just don’t get the anger and heartburn regarding reasonable governmental regulation. This sort of radical libertarianism is scary. You argue that we should only have laws for actions that “create a legitimate victim.” By your argument, there would be no need for ANY preventative or prophylactic law or regulation…no need to have traffic laws until the driver plows into someone while running a red light, b/c otherwise there is no victim. No need for regulations requiring inspections at a meat packing plant unless someone actually dies from e-coli. No need to ban heroin until someone ODs.

    We live in a society based on the rule of law. I appreciate REASONABLE government regulations (reasonableness, of course is in the eye of the beholder, but that is why we have representative democracy) and enjoy the comfort and security that that I am unlikely to get sick from the food I eat, die from the air I breathe, take my life into my own hands when I cross the street, see my property value plummet when a strip club opens up across the street from my house in a residential neighborhood. I appreciate that kids are required to go to school until a certain age, that it is illegal is to deny a person a job based on their race or sex, etc. And I don’t mind not reeking of smoke after I hit happy hour...there is no inalienable right to smoke anywhere you want.

    Sure I disagree with some law and regulations, but I certainly do not believe that we are overly or unnecessarily regulated or litigious.

    Oh and this McDonald’s cup thing, this example is not a law, but merely a voluntary way for McDonalds to hopefully avoid large tort damages.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave,

    If I communicated poorly I am sorry but the traffic law thing and your strip club property demise statement are completely off track with my point.

    I am completely in favor of regulating things. We have to set guidelines for things that people do/own.

    But we don't ban cars because people get killed by them right. We provide regulations that force people to use them correctly or suffer consequences. Why aren't the people saying "Why would anyone ever need an assault rifle?" also saying "Why would anyone ever need a car that will go faster than the speed limit?" With some of them it's because of a personal opinion that they don't like guns. People driving too fast and kill people every single day, but no one that I know off is trying to ban cars or even ones that go 150 mph. Same thing on Strip Clubs... I am all for regulating them and where they go based on the effect they have on the property around them. But I couldn't set up a strip behind my house which is more than a half a mile from any other structure.

    Both of those arguments you gave create victims... If someone speeds and has a wreck with another vehicle they would create a victim and the victim had absolutely no idea or warning that was gonna happen. There should be regulations and laws against that.

    Putting a strip club in next to my house against my will when I was there first creates a victim, there should be regulations and laws against that.

    You start out with:

    "I just don’t get the anger and heartburn regarding reasonable governmental regulation. This sort of radical libertarianism is scary."

    And those type of quotes are the problem.

    I am not angry, I am not upset, and am definitely not a true libertarian. I completely know and realize that we need government involvement in our lives. I want Government involvement. I just think that we have to legislate based on facts and creation of a victim as opposed to our personal opinion or ethics.

    If we don't Kansas is gonna get laughed at about Evolution in Schools and California will outrage the country by making Gay Marriage illegal again or we will end up wasting billions fighting for/against the ability to own a gun and we might spend billions of dollars fighting marijuana or we might have Government that forces our beliefs on other people, we might even waste tax dollars by sending police after 2 people having sex because one is gonna pay the other.

    If there isn't a victim it isn't a "Reasonable Regulation".

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess I misunderstood your hyperbole...my point, based on your statement, was that running a red light is victimless, but still requires legislation to prevent a "possible victim".

    I don't have time right now to address everything you raise (it is Friday night and I want out of here) and besides, this gun thing was addressed ad nauseum in another post, but you state that "we don't ban cars" even though they can kill. I guess related to the smoking ban argument which was the impetus for this post, the City isn't banning cigarettes, but merely placing a time and/or place restriction on them. Seems reasonable. If people don't like it, they can elect new reps to change the law. Ahhh Democracy.

    Gay rights and evolution will have to wait.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Running a stop sign can cause 2 or more vehicles paths to cross and and hitting someone creates a victim. Period so you cant run stop signs.

    Gay marriage in no way creates a victim, owning a guy in no way creates a victim, driving a car down the road in no way creates a victim, smoking in a bar, that everyone inside of chose to go into in now way creates a victim.

    The traffic rules argument is invalid, you can hurt people that have absolutely no say in the matter with a car and a gun... So we need regulations. Unless you chase someone down with cigarette and cpr the smoke into them or burn them with it you can't hurt them with it, because they can choose to not be around you.

    Honestly would the Smoking Ban seem reasonable to you if you owned a small business (Bar) that had a couple dozen people come in every night and feed your family and they smoked? Would it be reasonable to you if a whole bunch of your existing customers where going to quit frequenting your establishment because someone told you that you can no longer let them do something in there that is legal to do in other places.

    The solution to avoiding second hand smoke is to go to places that don't allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Many laws are based on morality.

    Biblical morality is largely based on putting in place positive societal structure.

    Which is why I always debate that every issue should be looked at individually but any agenda to "do away" with positive societal structure because it has it's roots in the Bible is wrong.

    I know the talking point. The whole separation of church and state thing. It's BS. Or more aptly, propaganda.

    To cover the main points in passing, there were many laws setting state religions in the early days of this country. What the founding fathers wanted to make clear was that tithing to the church was not a form of taxation for all citizens. They never intended to have religious morality separate from government.

    Moving forward in time, LBJ was meeting with stiff opposition from the local churches when he was running for re-election for Senate (before he became President). He "solved" this little election problem for himself by inserting into the IRS code a penalty for churches who preached politics from the pulpit. That's all it's ever been, a tax penalty for combining "church and state".

    Before LBJ decided to rig the election in his favor, it was common, at least in the south, to combine politics and religion. Churches lobbied for laws that reflected Biblical morality.

    As a side note, they have returned to it during the past few months and it's something I'm following as I come across it. Churches are moving back into politics.

    As a reference point, think Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He preached a whole lot of political activism from his pulpit.

    Times changed though and a couple of generations, maybe three now, have been taught to "accept" others as they are and to not impose morality through legislation.

    I was taught it all my life. I believe it wholeheartedly. Preached it without thought. After all, I was "open-minded", the politics I followed told me I was, the media told me I was, the school system told me I was...it was pretty much an easy slam-dunk of approval when I followed the "acceptance" doctrine.

    Then one day a few years ago, while I was defending the War in Iraq, an anti-war person told me I didn't even know what the word "acceptance" meant and I should look it up.

    I did. They were right. I didn't even know what it meant.

    I "thought" it meant that everyone followed their own path and we all accepted that freedom was accepting that each person had their own path. It didn't matter if you were gay, straight, married, single, black, white, purple or green...it was all good. After all, we were the great melting pot that is America and one of our basic rights is freedom to pursue your own path.

    But that's not what "acceptance" means at all. "Acceptance" means you believe that other people believe is "true", that you "favor" what they believe. In fact, it means that you "believe as they do".

    It's impossible to "believe" as other people do because then you give up your own freedom. It's impossible to "favor" all viewpoints because viewpoints contradict each other.

    That's when I realized the sad truth. Perpetuating the culture of "acceptance" of all viewpoints had been indoctrinated into me and gave me an easy and thoughtless response to the tough questions in life. It also left out in the cold any group which was labeled as "working to legislate morality".

    Moving further down the line, I heard about NAMBLA for the first time. I know, I know, jI never claimed to be up on most of reality, I just learn as I go along.

    As I researched NAMBLA, I realized that I very definitely believed there is a "right" and a "wrong". That response in me just hadn't been triggered on a societal level before. My redneck roots I 'spose. My family is nothing if not colorful.

    But they don't mess with kids and never would.

    I talked to more folks and found that in history (again, learning as I go along) there were flourishing cultures of their time in which it was common for adult men to have boys who traveled with them for sexual purposes.

    What NAMBLA pushes for has been seen in history as "accepted" behavior and a societal more.

    Wrapping up my point. My threshold for legislating morality is way down the line but when it comes to brass tacks, I believe that we're much better off following the "moral code" of protecting young boys from adult men who want to remove societal laws and "taboos" so they can openly have young children as sex partners.

    I believe it's morally wrong to steal a child's innocence and that it is morally wrong for someone in stronger position in society to "prey" on those weaker in society.

    So I have to vote for continuing the tradition of legislating morality and my morality at that.

    I do think we have to stand up and protect kids, the elderly, the mentally and physically handicapped. I believe those things because I believe it's immoral to use others for your own personal gain.

    Embryonic stem cell research has been embraced as a political agenda in recent years to try and show a societal positive going hand-in-hand with abortion.

    If you read on the topic for a little bit, you'll find there is much greater success with nasal stem cell research. Stem cells taken from the person's own body, cultured and then re-inserted to deal with whatever disease they suffer from.

    Embryonic stem cell research has a very, very, very big drawback that those who push it never or rarely seem to mention. Because you are using someone else's "cells" in the treatment, the patient who receives them has to take a wide array of anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives, just as heart transplant patients do, so their bodies won't reject the injected stem cells.

    That's completely avoided with nasal stem cell research because you can use the person's own cells from inside their nose.

    I don't think anyone is against nasal stem cell research but there are, IMHO, real scientific reasons to be against embryonic stem cell research.

    As I said, it's been politicized instead of being presented medically.

    ReplyDelete

I love the discussion in the comments.. so... GO FOR IT!

Other CodyTalks posts you may like