![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That's a song lots of people sing even (especially?) when they think they aren't singing it.
Creating rules against something -- anything -- is one verse in that song. Social conservatives strongly believe that what is not expressly permitted in law (civil or religious) is prohibited. Some of the more radical sects of many religions will say that as flat out fact.
I sing the "it's all about me song," too, though. I'm on the other end of that fence. I believe strongly that what isn't expressly forbidden is allowed.
In truth, though, neither of the those extremes expresses how groups, communities and societies live and work together. And I know I'm sining "it's all about me" because I get pissed when the radicals on the rights start telling me what I can and can't do.
For the record, though, I'd like to restate my opinion about civil law in the US. As much as the fundamentalists would like it to be otherwise, the federal government is constitutionally restricted in it's actions against citizens. The Bill of Rights was written to protect citizens from the government (remember, the colonists were pissed at King George!) by putting limits on the power of government, not to restrict the behavior of citizens. This is the reason "separation of church and state" was interpreted by the courts as "freedom of religion" including "freedom from religion."
The "right to privacy," as an example, is not in the constitution. The reason courts rule in favor of privacy is that the government has been restricted from interfering with people EXCEPT as expressly allowed. So, de facto, we have a right to privacy. It is quite funny when the radical right cries out against "activist judges." Rulings that give MORE power to the government are the activist rulings. For instance, rulings against gay marriage would be activist rulings.
It is also why courts have given credence to such awful phrases as "community standards." A phrase the radical right tries to use all the time and that the radical left hates with a passion. If we define "community" as a small enough unit, I'm all in favor of community standards. My neighborhood, for instance, might be 300 or 400 hundred people who are kinky bisexual pagans with a strong bent for communalism. But neither side would permit defining community in terms that small!
Neither side really wants strict constitutional interpretation by the federal bench. The radical right AND the radical left want to increase the authority of the Federal Government. BAD IDEA!
The "good" idea is to constantly restrict the authority of government. Governments should not be the keepers of morality for EITHER side. Period.
When a government becomes the keeper of a society's morals, it is "tyranny by the majority." Those of us on the liberal side of the political line look at the Republican party exactly in that light. Those on the Right see us the same way.
By their own arguments, both sets of radicals should want to limit government but they don't. They want government to enforce their standards. Anytime we want government to control social issues we are singing "It's all about me." And the more we want government to do, the louder we are singing. It's difficult to maintain personal responsibility while we are loudly singing.
Neither side has a moral high ground, in my view of morals, while carrying that tune.
Does that mean I want anarchy? Hell no! I'm in there with everyone else singing loudly for the things I want. :) I'm just aware that I'm a greedy bastard and I won't wail about fairness if I don't get what I want. Sometime or another in the last few years, I grew up. That doesn't meant that there isn't a lost boy in me who still likes to sing "It's all about me."
It's not about me. But it's not about YOU either. :)
Creating rules against something -- anything -- is one verse in that song. Social conservatives strongly believe that what is not expressly permitted in law (civil or religious) is prohibited. Some of the more radical sects of many religions will say that as flat out fact.
I sing the "it's all about me song," too, though. I'm on the other end of that fence. I believe strongly that what isn't expressly forbidden is allowed.
In truth, though, neither of the those extremes expresses how groups, communities and societies live and work together. And I know I'm sining "it's all about me" because I get pissed when the radicals on the rights start telling me what I can and can't do.
For the record, though, I'd like to restate my opinion about civil law in the US. As much as the fundamentalists would like it to be otherwise, the federal government is constitutionally restricted in it's actions against citizens. The Bill of Rights was written to protect citizens from the government (remember, the colonists were pissed at King George!) by putting limits on the power of government, not to restrict the behavior of citizens. This is the reason "separation of church and state" was interpreted by the courts as "freedom of religion" including "freedom from religion."
The "right to privacy," as an example, is not in the constitution. The reason courts rule in favor of privacy is that the government has been restricted from interfering with people EXCEPT as expressly allowed. So, de facto, we have a right to privacy. It is quite funny when the radical right cries out against "activist judges." Rulings that give MORE power to the government are the activist rulings. For instance, rulings against gay marriage would be activist rulings.
It is also why courts have given credence to such awful phrases as "community standards." A phrase the radical right tries to use all the time and that the radical left hates with a passion. If we define "community" as a small enough unit, I'm all in favor of community standards. My neighborhood, for instance, might be 300 or 400 hundred people who are kinky bisexual pagans with a strong bent for communalism. But neither side would permit defining community in terms that small!
Neither side really wants strict constitutional interpretation by the federal bench. The radical right AND the radical left want to increase the authority of the Federal Government. BAD IDEA!
The "good" idea is to constantly restrict the authority of government. Governments should not be the keepers of morality for EITHER side. Period.
When a government becomes the keeper of a society's morals, it is "tyranny by the majority." Those of us on the liberal side of the political line look at the Republican party exactly in that light. Those on the Right see us the same way.
By their own arguments, both sets of radicals should want to limit government but they don't. They want government to enforce their standards. Anytime we want government to control social issues we are singing "It's all about me." And the more we want government to do, the louder we are singing. It's difficult to maintain personal responsibility while we are loudly singing.
Neither side has a moral high ground, in my view of morals, while carrying that tune.
Does that mean I want anarchy? Hell no! I'm in there with everyone else singing loudly for the things I want. :) I'm just aware that I'm a greedy bastard and I won't wail about fairness if I don't get what I want. Sometime or another in the last few years, I grew up. That doesn't meant that there isn't a lost boy in me who still likes to sing "It's all about me."
It's not about me. But it's not about YOU either. :)