Originally posted by Bigotboy I think you are making a minor mistake in language in your arguments. Laws, per se, do not stop activity; it is the enforcement of laws that restrict activity.
I fail to see any distinction, here. Of course laws are useless without enforcement. I was not suggesting otherwise. What I was suggesting is that the reason we have laws (and enforce them) is not because we are ALL criminals, but because a few of us are criminals and we don't know who among us is until they have already done their harm. Laws and their enforcement are used to deter those people, by punishing them for they behavior when they are discovered. Most people don't need a law, or the threat that a law implies, to keep them from committing murder. They have no desire to murder anyone, and wouldn't do so even if there were no law against it. This is what I was trying to point out.
Originally posted by Bigotboy Beyond that small distiction, in the U.S. we have laws against pulling the arms off of living people, UNLESS they are in utero, and then they can be maimed with impunity by an approved doctor.
Well, at the present time, a fetus is not legally considered a "living person" until the 22 -24 week of gestation. After that point it would be considered a crime to pull their arms off, just as it would be to pull the arms off anyone else. Before that 22-24 week point in gestation, a fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb (unassisted), and so is not legally considered to be an independant human being, but is instead still considered to be part of the mother's body. It would still be a crime to pull it's arms off, just as it would be a crime to assault the mother's body in any other way. Unless you are her doctor, and she has consented to having a part of her body assaulted in such a way.
I'm not saying that I agree with all of this, I am just explaining how the current laws work and what their reasoning is. Though I still fail to see what any of this has to do with our previous discussion. Perhaps you're just presenting some new ideas to discuss, which is certainly ok, and appreciated.
Originally posted by Bigotboy It is illegal for me to go to my neighbor and threaten him with force if he does not give me money to help with my doctor bills. Yet it is OK for the Government to do the exact same thing. It is still stealing, but we cloth it in the name of caring for the less fortunate, and "the government" is doing it, not a particular person.
Well, of course their take on this is that you have given them your permission to take your money by electing them, and giving them the power to represent you in those sorts of decisions. However, I agree with you that the "taxation without representation" issue could certainly be revisited, here, and a case could be made for our current method's lack of constitutionality.
Originally posted by Bigotboy So we still allow these immoral acts to take place but we come up with a way to assuage our conscience.
This is certainly true. But you shouldn't confuse morality with legality. These are two VERY different systems of thought with two very different intents and functions in our society. A lot of Christians unfortunately seem not to be able to recognize or appreciate the difference between these two.
Originally posted by Bigotboy We act like a global game of Survivor, where we make pacts with one group against another group, doing things to the other group that we would not allow in our group.
Yes, but all of existence involves this kind of competitive struggle. Mankind did not create the universe, and is not responsable for the fact that it works ths way.
Originally posted by Bigotboy If you could, name a behavior that has not increased when a restriction has been removed against it. (Of course I am talking about an enforced restriction.)
The definition of the word "restriction" implies that whatever is being "restricted" will spread out once the restrictions holding it back are removed. You are asking a "loaded" question. But again I fail to see the relavance to the issue at hand. If we made any behavior currently being restricted by law, unrestricted by law tomorrow, of course that behavior will increase. But that does not mean that the percentage of criminals in society will increase. It only means that the criminals already among us will feel free to express their criminal natures more fully.