Quote:I don't think you've thought that one all the way through. You do support government enforcing your morals because permissiveness is just as much an enforcement as restriction. For instance, you support the government allowing the personal use of drugs. That's is an enforcement of your morals against Oklahomie's. Just because the end result is allowance doesn't mean it's not enforcing a set of morals. Government does not exist in a vacuum, and even having no say is a form of having a say.

Legislation preventing an act is one thing, for example when the government eventually repeals roe vs wade on the grounds that the issue is a state issue according to the 10th amendment, individual states will decide what is protecting life and what is protecting woman's privacy. I'll fight like hell to push the Florida legislator that all abortion is unlawful taking of a life. However it's not a federal issue and there's no authority permitted to the federal government to over see any abortion laws UNLESS the Supreme Court unilaterally ruled that the fetus is a legal life which there stands no chance of them every doing that.


As for permissive action vs restrictive action they're not at all the same. You used the example of narcotics so I'll stick with that for now, my feelings or anyone else's feelings on narcotic use is a moot point. I'm against all narcotic laws on the ground than individual can consume whatever the choose but the consequences are up to them. I acknowledge narcotic laws could not be lifted without simultaneously ending on federal welfare funding. That's not the same as enforcing a set of morals it's allowing people to make their own choice versus government making the choice for you.

---