Quote:Not "harming someone's property rights" in itself is a moral

 

Not in the same manor of morality you're trying to legislate. Making the line you can't harm someone else or there property is a reasonable line in the sand for any civilization. Once you go past that line and start trying to decide what is and isn't acceptable behavior you're setting up a ranking class on perceived morals. I believe homosexuality is immoral, but why should my beliefs be legislated for or against? what if someone thinks heterosexuality is immoral, why is one of our moral beliefs superior to the other? Same goes for substances, prostitution, pornography, and do the line. By stating the line is not harming another parties property rights, you are setting the line at not forcing someone into prostitution, not forcing someone into pornography, not forcing someone to watch any of those acts, not allowing someone to be harmed in the process of those acts. Basically i advocate a government that says you can't kill someone unless it's self defense, you can't steal, you can't destroy anyone else's property otherwise do as you will.

---