From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 07:00:20 BST
Hey Platt,
P
> I see what you mean. Thanks to your explanations, I'm beginning to waiver
> on my stand that individual privacy has nothing to do with intellectual
> values.
R
Happy I could help shake the foundations with you, even if just a little.
P
Further, I suspect Pirsig would agree with the Court's decision
> revoking the Texas sodomy law.
R
I think so too.
P
It still bothers me, and will continue to
> bother me, for six individuals, on grounds that appear to be little more
> than personal bias, to kill an entire state's moral code.
R
Check my latest post to Johnny on this one and don't sweat it too much, the
Federalism Five have got your back
P
As Justice
> Scalia pointed out in his dissenting opinion, "Countless judicial
> decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient
> proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual
> behavior is 'immoral and unacceptable' constitutes a rational basis for
> regulation."
R
I'm not sure he's right though. Now, I don't dispute there have been
countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments that relied on the
proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior
is 'immoral and unacceptable' was an ADEQUATE basis for regulation. But as
far as I know, there was only one judicial opinion that ever said is was a
RATIONAL basis... Bowers v. Hardwick. The difference is huge of course and I
think the MoQ explains it better than the Court did in Lawrence. The MoQ
shows us that the proposition that "morality is rational" is actually sort
of backwards. Morals and values aren't rational. On the contrary, the MoQ
reveals that 'rationality' is a species of value... a stable intellectual
pattern of values. That is, the MoQ would say it's not that "morality is
rational" it's that "rationality is moral"...it's not that "a moral is law
is rational", it's that a "a rational law is moral". Which is, I think,
exactly what the Court is thinking when it says that a state law that
deprives one of life, liberty, or property (the really important things)
must have a 'rational basis'. They were saying that if the state wants to
take away someone's life, someone's freedom, or someone's home, they have to
be able to explain why in terms of 4th level values.
P
> You've persuaded me. Your Bill of Rights argument was the clincher. If I
> ever never a good lawyer, can I call on you? :-)
R
I'm quite flattered, but I'm really only doing landlord/tenant stuff these
days, so unless you're renting I probably wouldn't have much to offer ;-)
take care
rick
Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly; devils fall because of
their gravity. - G. K. Chesterton
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 06:58:52 BST