BellePlaine wrote:
You can't legislate morality.
It would be better to undo the advantages that we legislate to the elite (I'm thinking inflationary money) then it would be to add on to that a redistribution of wealth to the poor.
The advantage is still with the elite.
I don't get the first sentence.
If a piece of legislation has a moral component open to moral interpretation, that does not make it a moral or immoral piece of legislation. The consequences can be interpreted freely by those who wish to do so.
It would never be about legislating morality if I said "we must pass a law to more equitably distribute the products of our labors, as it is clear to anything smarter than a garden slug that the rich are greedily hoarding 'representative labor units' (money) far beyond their actual contribution to our aggregate wealth. It is immoral what they are doing."
No, I would offer this legislation based on the sensible foundation that The Survival Of Our Civilization Depends On It, and, to a more practical extent, "we will increase our aggregate wealth with the greater participation of all." This is a damn fact.
Legislating morality might be something like preventing people who love each other from marrying because one's genitalia looks suspiciously similar to other's genitalia. That has no damn business in the realm of Civilization and Societal Discourse, because there is no proof that it actually harms childbirth rates or destroys the fabric of our Nation or blah blah blah. Is it "immoral" to not let them marry? Is it "immoral" to let them marry? It does not matter. Legally, we cannot legislate road blocks to customary pursuits of citizens to share life with their chosen others. Period.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles