The Natural Right And Duty Of A Government To Legislate Morality

Cites not otherwise credited to others are from David Hines in our debate on the forum at Renew America.

The fact of the Bill of Rights is proof that the Founders were leery of
granting government such potentially limitless authority.

The government as an organization is an artificial person. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to legislate the morality of that artificial person.

Frankly, I've read Hobbes, Locke, et al, and appeals to authority don't impress me nearly as much as a well-considered and logically consistent position.

That display a flaw in your method of gathering evidence and proving a case. When in court both sides will call up expert witnesses to prove their case. If you disregard those witnesses then you are weakening the evidence that is presented. In logic you give premises then make a conclusion from those premises. You state you disregard those premises because they are appeals to authority. That unsound. A sound method would be to prove the authority was wrong, not serious, or similar fallacy. You have not done that.

This is my appeal to authority to prove that the Declaration and Constitution do in fact advocate the legislation of morality by the government. The below excerpt is from Thomas Jefferson papers. That is the same Thomas Jefferson that had a large hand in scripting the Declaration of Independence.

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his "Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government," and of Sidney in his "Discourses on government," may be considered
as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United
States, and that on the distinctive principles of the government of our State,
and of that of the United States, the best guides are to be found in, 1. The
Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these States. 2.
The book known by the title of "The Federalist," being an authority to which
appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as
evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted
the Constitution of the United States, on questions as to its genuine meaning.
3. The Resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia in 1799 on the subject of
the alien and sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense
of the people of the United States. 4. The valedictory address of President
Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. And that in the
branch of the school of law, which is to treat on the subject of civil polity,
these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.

This is from chapter 2 of The Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke.

“Sec. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world 'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do. “

This is from the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed,

You will notice that the John Locke’s ideals on the role of government were made the law of the land by the Declaration of Independence. I am confident that it is absurd to consider that The U.S. Constitution is destructive of those ends. I am convinced it was designed to further the federal government’s duty to secure our rights from ourselves and others.

To prove a historic case you appeal to authorities to prove your hypothesis. I have done that here. To prove my logic is faulty you need to prove that the examples I gave are not authorities on the subject, that I am misinterpreting their intentions, or that their arguments are faulty, that the connections between the documents I propose are incorrect. Another premise I have made that I did not address directly is that the Declaration declares John Locke’s theories as true and self evident.

Kerwin, I'm missing your logical consistency. If God granted free will, why is
it the purview of humans to deny it? If God is God, how could He make such a
bonehead mistake?

Making a law does not take away a person’s free will as they always have the ability to disobey the law. What it does is discourage certain behavior and grants the government permission to render justice. If the law is correctly used then it secures the rights of the People. The ideal of a republic form of government is that the people decide which rights are secured and to what degree the government secures those rights.

With this port deal, it seems to matter not what We the People think. Government
is on autopilot, and will act as it pleases no matter what its nominal bosses
say.

The government is out of control only because the people allow it to continue out of control. The Declaration of Independence and John Locke declares that we always have the right to rebel. The Second Amendment of the Constitution can be interpreted to justify rebellion. That is why the government seeks to deprive us of the right to bear arms. We could choose to riot as the Muslims our over the bigoted attack on their religion. Since we sit hear and allow the government to bully us we are not acting to bring them in control. Do you know of a petition to stop the port deal? Where are the peaceful protests? I have not even seen conservatives interested in making changes that they have put aside their differences and acted together as a whole. A house divided can not triumph.

It is impossible to have it both ways. Either we are free and responsible for
our actions, or we are slaves or serfs, with government responsible for our
actions. You tell me you opt for the slavery, because it enables to enforcement
of morality. It's okay with me if you choose to abdicate your own responsibility
and consequently your liberty, but not when you choose to abdicate mine for
me.

The law of morality is only for those that are slaves to immorality. I would rather the government enslaved them to morality than allow them to deprive themselves or others of their natural rights. Those who behave in a moral fashion have nothing to fear from the law of morality and are not slaves to it because they are not lawbreakers.

Thomas Carlyle: "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual folly."
(I hope I remembered that right.) Apparently you do. Your foolish humans, by
virtue of acting within a collective, are somehow immune from the folly to which
the flesh is heir. That seems to me to be misplaced faith -- faith in human
collectives rather than faith in God.

A Republican form of government is not perfect but it seems reasonable to assume it is the best form of government since it allows the people to look out for their own rights. Hopefully the people cleave to Christian morality and show mercy to minorities. It is obvious that that is not the case in the United States at this time.