Judging a woman's appearance? You sexist bigot! — Thorongil

Woman or not, a terrorist is still a terrorist.

None are free to coerce. — Agustino

SO the principle behind liberalism, that one ought not force the choices of another, is acceptable to you.

Then am I right in thinking that for you it is the application of that principle that causes grief; that in practice coercion of one sort or another is inevitable?

Regarding who has the right to determine what a woman does with her own body, you wrote...

...if she wants to have that abortion with my money, I think I have full rights to tell her what to do with her body...

Interesting. I'm guessing that by "my money" you're referring to your personal taxes.

Is that right?

But is being on friendly terms with others what is required to get things done? I dare say that at the highest levels of politics, most people there can be manipulated based on their own selfish desires and greed, such that even if they don't like you, you can get them to do what you want so long as you dangle the carrot. — Agustino

Being on friendly terms to get things done is not a prerequisite, but its reverse, not being on bad terms with everyone is.

I think the system in the US invites that moneyd interest are better represented than others and as a result the system doesn't lead to fair and just results. This is a problem in most modern democracies to some extent but not an issue of democracy per se. I don't think it's a character flaw but a systemic one and those that "play" the game best will float to the top. So you have a system that rewards cronyism and nepotism but can you blame people for playing in accordance with the rules?

Precisely, democracy fails as a system, it's a bad political system. — Agustino

But that's not the conclusion I would reach. I said we have trouble with it but then it's an imperfect world and I'm not expecting perfect solutions. It's a constant (and should be a constant) debate where the balance between our obligations to society and our personal freedom is. For instance, one of the most important discussions to be had, politically speaking, is about positive and negative freedom. The US has a very strong emphasis on negative freedom; e.g. non-interference from the State (and others) in people's choices. I think it misses an important point that some people simply don't have choices; dead-poor people don't choose to starve. So what about the State's role to create opportunities for its members? We consider it natural that within the family unit we create opportunities for each other to flourish, friends too, maybe our neighbours but it pretty much ends there. It's pretty much normal to take care of each other at that level. Not so much at the state or national level, which is why we have so much trouble working together. One side is racist, the other are pansy leftists, one side are immoral conservatives, the other immoral progressives.

Now, if I look within my own family my brother is a bit of a xenophobe bordering on racist, my mum is conservative on cultural matters and I'm a pansy leftist progressive. We still get along and take care of each other because they're not only the failings I mentioned (and I'm not just the failings they might see either).

So democracy is complicated by abstraction away from natural relationships. You can compensate for that but it requires less elected positions and instead appointees from society (much like jury duty).

SO the principle behind liberalism, that one ought not force the choices of another, is acceptable to you. — Banno

No, not quite. One ought not to coerce someone to take a particular choice by physical force or the like. But this isn't to say there can't be pressure one way or another, or that a particular choice can't be made difficult by society.

Then am I right in thinking that for you it is the application of that principle that causes grief; that in practice coercion of one sort or another is inevitable? — Banno

I don't think coercion is inevitable. It wouldn't be inevitable if everyone wasn't selfish and adhered by the principle of not doing anything that would harm others. But many people don't - hence coercion becomes inevitable.

Is that right? — creativesoul

Yes.

So you would not be in favour of coercing a man to have a vasectomy, for example, if that was decided to be the best way to ease rampant population growth? You would not be in favour of forcing folk to avoid pork, if that was off the menu for the majority.

Or is it that there is no clear way to settle such issues?

So you would not be in favour of coercing a man to have a vasectomy, for example, if that was decided to be the best way to ease rampant population growth? — Banno

No, of course not, why would I be? :s

You would not be in favour of forcing folk to avoid pork, if that was off the menu for the majority. — Banno

I don't understand this example. No, I wouldn't be in favor of legally forcing people to avoid pork, but I wouldn't have a problem with a community deciding that they don't eat pork and hence nobody selling pork there.

And if someone had a lesion, an ulcer, and others said that it was a good and important thing, not to be cut out, that would not be grounds for denying that someone an operation to remove the lesion?

And if someone had a lesion, an ulcer, and others said that it was a good and important thing, not to be cut out, that would not be grounds for denying that someone an operation to remove the lesion? — Banno

No, doctors shouldn't be forced to perform the operation. What should be seen is that there is no discrimination - in other words that if a particular doctor doesn't perform the operation, then he or she doesn't do it on anyone.

Furthermore, the ulcer thing is very different than an abortion, since nobody is harmed when removing an ulcer, but a life is destroyed in an abortion.

No, doctors shouldn't be forced to perform the operation. What should be seen is that there is no discrimination - in other words that if a particular doctor doesn't perform the operation, then he or she doesn't do it on anyone. — Agustino

Oh, sure. Consistency is important.

But if a doctor were willing to perform the operation on the ulcer, under what circumstances should the operation be allowed to go ahead? Only if no one object? If a majority of the community do not object? Only if the family of the patient do not object?

Who has a say?

But if a doctor were willing to perform the ulcer, under what circumstances should the operation be allowed to go ahead? — Banno

If the doctor and the patient are willing that is sufficient. Same for abortion. But the doctor shouldn't be forced by the community to give abortions when requested of him. That would be minimal requests to say the least.

Fine.

So what stands is that people are entitled to decide what happens to their own body, against the objections of others.

Another example: homosexuality is fine for consenting adults.

You can agree that persons can do as they wish without necessarily agreeing that what they wish to do is fine.

True. So- Homosexuality should not be prevented if it is between consenting adults?

homosexuality is fine for consenting adults. — Banno

Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people.

Also it depends what you mean by homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with feeling attracted to the opposite sex, it's having sexual intercourse and being intimate with the opposite sex that is morally wrong.

However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people. — Agustino

So the UK law regarding gay marriage is fine? The Church of England is forbidden from performing same-sex marriage and all other religious institutions must opt-in of their own accord.

So the UK law regarding gay marriage is fine? — Michael

I have no idea what the UK law is.

Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. — Agustino

So they ought not be coerced to abstain from sexual intercourse, if they so choose?

I have no idea what the UK law is. — Agustino

I just explained it?

So they ought not be coerced to abstain from sexual intercourse, if they so choose? — Banno

Well, to begin with, it's not even feasible to coerce them to abstain from sexual intercourse... how would that even be achieved?

And no, they shouldn't be coerced, of course not. How would they even be doing something moral if they were coerced to do it? A coerced moral action becomes amoral.

I just explained it? — Michael

The Church of England is forbidden from performing same-sex marriage and all other religious institutions must opt-in of their own accord. — Michael

Well presumably the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church would also not perform same-sex marriages. Other institutions should be free to make whatever decision they want.

Well presumably the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church would also not perform same-sex marriages. — Agustino

They're free to opt-in. Only the Church of England is forbidden.

Other institutions should be free to make whatever decision they want.

Religious institutions, yes. Non-religious register offices, no.

They're free to opt-in. — Michael

Yep, but they wouldn't.

OK; pedophilia, then, which involves coercion of a child, would be unacceptable?

OK; pedophilia, then, which involves coercion of a child, would be unacceptable? — Banno

Yes, that should be prevented by law.

I'm asking these questions in order to get a feel for the extent of what freedoms are allowable.

You must be aware that what is deemed to be one's freedom is very often exactly that which harms another. — Agustino

SO you would not suggest that, say, because homosexuality considered is distasteful, it ought be banned? Nor that because it is for you immoral, it ought be banned?

I'm asking these questions in order to get a feel for the extent of what freedoms are allowable. — Banno

If it harms another, it's not allowable. Even abortion should perhaps not be allowable for this reason, but at minimum physicians shouldn't be forced to perform it if they have a problem with it, nor should taxpayers be forced to finance it.

SO you would not suggest that, say, because homosexuality considered is distasteful, it ought be banned? — Banno

No, it shouldn't be legally banned.

Nor that because it is for you immoral, it ought be banned? — Banno

Same answer.