Liberty is often categorized into types: economic freedom, political freedom, freedom of conscience, etc. One who seeks to promote freedom and liberty must consistently promote all types of liberty, so long as those freedoms do not infringe on the liberties of others. I consider moral freedom one of those liberties that must be protected.
For that we come to what is called vice. “Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property,” says nineteenth century libertarian Lysander Spooner in his essay “Vices Are Not Crimes“. Statists, conservatives and liberals, who use the state to promote their ends, will often support laws against vice. What vices have been prohibited have changed over time and change from one political arena to another. For example, drinking alcohol, considered a vice by many, including myself, was once prohibited in the United States in the early twentieth century, but not any longer. Smoking and chewing tobacco are not currently illegal, but smoking marijuana is. In some places in the U.S., smoking marijuana prescribed by a physician is legal. And in a few places in the U.S., prostitution is legal. The federalist nature of the United States has created this inconsistency. As his title states, it is Spooner’s argument that vices are not crimes.
Since vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property, crimes, then, must be defined as “those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.” The biggest difference between crime and vice is “that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another.” He goes on, “no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice towards others.” And unless this clear distinction of vices and crimes be “made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.”
How so? After explaining that judging the difference between virtue and vice, that is those actions that lead men to either happiness or unhappiness, and their degrees is “the profoundest and most complex study to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed,” Spooner examines how each of us escapes the state of ignorance that we are born into by acquiring for ourselves knowledge. “To learn it, he must be at liberty to try all experiments that commend themselves to his judgment.” Some succeed, and because so, are called virtues, and others fail, called vices. “He gathers wisdom as much from his failures as from his successes; from his so-called vices, as from his so-called virtues. Both are necessary to his acquisition of that knowledge – of his own nature, and of the world around him, and of their adaptations or non-adaptations to each other – which shall show him how happiness is acquired, and pain avoided. And, unless he can be permitted to try these experiments to his own satisfaction, he is retrained from the acquisition of knowledge, and, consequently, from pursuing the great purpose and duty of his life.”
It is written in the Declaration of Independence that men are endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Though others can claim they know how to achieve happiness, only the right “to inquire, investigate, reason, try experiments, judge, and ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice” can guarantee to someone their right in pursuing happiness. “If this great right is not to be left free and open to all, then each man’s whole right, as a reasoning human being… is denied him.”
Spooner’s essay goes on to examine what right men have to force their own determinations of happiness on others, the utter impossibility of enforcing laws against vice impartially without quickly throwing everyone into prison, the legitimate and proper roles of government including only those delegated to it by individuals who do not have the right to punish vice themselves, the “attempts of parents to make their children virtuous” and the resulting ignorance, weakness, and viciousness that such attempts, in practice, produce, and also that of vice in relation to poverty and the commission of crime. It is obvious that liberty cannot be attained while their remains public laws prohibiting the indulgence of vice.
The argument I would put forward is defining harm. I believe that my daughter has a right to virtue. I believe that her rights are therefore violated when someone degrades themselves in her sight, hearing, etc… Society is defiled by individual ills (or vices if you must) and I believe that society has the right (not collectively but individually) to be free from that defilement and those ills.
Were this not so decency laws would be unconstitutional or at least in error in your estimation.(the church firmly supports them by the way)
What if I decided to expose myself to your family? To post a pornographic image on my property across from and facing yours? Your argument does nothing to allow prosecution, policing, nor enforcement of this nor other similar lewd conduct.
I am not afraid of the slippery slope in which all would supposedly be locked up. I think we not only have the right, but duty also to enforce God’s laws for mankind, lest the Kingdom of Heaven never land upon our soil, and the cause and purposes of Zion be frustrated.
I would argue that the Prophets have clearly felt the same or they would not have supported such laws as were instituted in all church settlements right up the the present day (*). They are obviously bound by law and have only relented when forced by that rule of law.
Obviously such rule of law requires righteous lawmakers and it is our failure in this respect that frightens us into forbidding such a thing. Perhaps that is why Brigham Young spoke so strongly against term limits and President Benson spoke so firmly about electing righteous men. Honestly though, can we not find 548 (100+435+12+1) righteous men (out of the millions of L.D.S. U.S. men of age, let alone the 100 Million men of age in the U.S.) to fill the 3 branches of government necessary to hold the balance of power against the devil? What if those men were called to run by the prophet (well indirectly they have been) and included the prophet (wishful thinking)? Would you fear their power and authority then?
*”The easement became private property, allowing the church to ban protesting, smoking, sunbathing and other “offensive, indecent, obscene, lewd or disorderly speech, dress or conduct,” church officials said at the time.”
What you describe in public displays of lewdness, etc. is not what this essay is about. It’s about personal indulgence of what is considered vice. I don’t know how you can consider them the same thing. Please elaborate. Also, have you read the entire essay?
How can we know about “personal indulgence of what is considered vice” if it has not entered the public arena? Hence harm. If we don’t know about it how can we prosecute it?
Indulgence isn’t the word I would have chosen, nor do I subscribe to the modifier “considered,” since the definition of vice comes from on high and is thus not debatable. “for I am your law giver”
D&C 38:22 & D&C 45:59
How does “harm” follow “entering the public arena”? How do you define harm? I consider sport hunting a vice, but I wouldn’t try to outlaw it. There are universal considerations when it comes to vice, but there are also a plethora of things that some cultures might consider vice and not others. Have you read the entire essay?
Also, crime could follow an indulgence of vice, but then it’s the crime that should be punished, not the vice. Crime could follow anything, such as someone saying something you don’t like. Should we ban any language that might make someone angry, thus leading to them committing a crime? Some may think so, but I wouldn’t consider them friends of liberty.
Harm is easy to define. Negative causation defined by God given natural law.
It is irrelevant what different cultures think. Murders may think the practice quite lovely indeed and it does nothing to change the wrongness of the practice. Opinions have no sway on the subject and we either succeed or fail in the degree to which we correctly understand the law as given from the Lawgiver.
I think it has everything to do with it in a multi-cultural society such as our own. Why wouldn’t it? Everyone has their own conception of the Lawgiver, after all.
Then you can never have Zion.
Until the True and Living God is your sole law giver you will be forever living a telestial existence.
That is the meaning of “Every knee will bow, every tongue confess.” It is the Kingdom of God meeting the Kingdom of Heaven.
Your vision can only ever result in anarchy as every man walks after his own way.
I don’t disagree on that point. But you can’t force Zion with the sword, which is what laws against vice do. Supporting them means you support holding a sword to someone who’s trying to drink a beer, smoke a joint, or pay for sexual services. You have no right or authority to do that, therefore, you cannot delegate that authority to government.
I also don’t believe the God will force every knee to bow or tongue confess. That would violate our agency. Our torment will be self-inflicted, Mosiah 3:25.
To assert no right in this matter is to assert no right in any matter. The problem you are having is defining rights. You see only the rights you’re willing to.
No offense is ever protected by a supposed right. No wrong, no ill, is ever protected by a supposed right. That should be intuitive, but somehow you keep missing it. There is no right to do wrong. My right to virtue is equal to my right to life or property or to be secure in my person etc… No violation is ever justified.
God’s judgment is entirely based upon law. That law is available to us and ironclad, fixed and immovable. It is the definition of right. God cannot condemn any “vice” without it being eternally wrong. Nor does God reserve knowledge of law to Himself. We are not judged by a rule book which is kept from us. God’s judgment is perfect because it perfectly adheres to His perfect law, the Order of Heaven. Enoch used the same means to exalt his people, as shall we.
Once you understand that then you can progress in the matter.
In a multicultural, non-covenant, society such as our own (at least where I live, in America), “God” does not mean the same thing to everyone, neither does God’s “law”.
I feel it more accurate to say that we don’t have rights, as in we don’t have the right to initiate aggression against others. Laws against vice do just that. Looking at the concept of rights in this negative way is more accurate. “By what right do men exercise power over each other?” Only that retaliatory power that has been delegated to government can government justify it’s action.
I would say that every wrong, so long as it doesn’t initiate aggression against another person, is protected since no man has the authority to prevent it. To do so would be an unjust initiation of force. Only God can enforce such laws because only God is all knowing. So long as men are mortal, which we are, we must be free to indulge in vice. Our pursuit of happiness and obtaining knowledge depends on it. Read the essay.
Perception does not equal reality. God is who God is despite anyone’s misconception of Him. Likewise His law.
You are out of line with LDS doctrine. The church has always supported legislating morality. I am simply explaining why.
Wrong always does harm and is never really hidden, nor ever protected, notwithstanding that the power to do wrong is given to men in this probationary state. The power to escape consequence is not and any man that exercises justice correctly will not, can not be punished for doing so. He may however lose any claim on mercy if he is not willing to grant mercy to others.
I won’t go round and round with you any more, but I do sincerely hope that you will awaken to the beauty God has for us in giving us His law for the purpose of exalting man.
You must be okay with forcing others to conform to your conception of right and wrong by the sword. As long as you recognize and accept that, great.
I have no problem with the Church supporting laws against vice because I believe the Church is the only true Church of God. But not everyone does, nor do I want to be forced to submit to laws promoted by other faiths, like Islam. Do you?
D&C 38:22
“Wherefore, hear my voice and follow me, and you shall be a free people, and ye shall have no laws but my laws when I come, for I am your lawgiver, and what can stay my hand? ”
I just have to be okay with Christ as my lawgiver. Are you seriously asking whether or not I am okay with that?
I have never advocated my conception, only His.
And I believe only Christ has the authority to enforce his laws. I can imagine those of other faiths enforcing the laws of their god, but that would be unjust, and I hope you would oppose such, as would I.
Lysander Spooner is a favorite of mine, and I have enjoyed reading this article several times before.
Because there is a God, we must necessarily presuppose certain laws that universally exist and apply in our life. Moral and scientific laws are universal and must necessarily follow the existence a God. Political philosophers have argued for thousands of years how these moral and scientific laws relate to each other and how man can reasonably bridge these together under a human (positive) law.
Hugh Nibley, in the “Ancient Law of Liberty,” explains how governments have, however, usurped God’s power to rule in matters of morality and the heart by forcing virtue and morality on the people in the name of God and goodness. While I agree with Nibley that it is no position of government to regulate morality in society, it is difficult to explain how ours laws (i.e. those laws against murder, theft, rape, etc.) are not based on a moral code. I believe the founders found this balance and specifically gave to government — through the Constitution — the duty to only make positive law as based on natural law’s criteria for justice only and specifically in the areas of ‘life, liberty, and property’. This allowed a Constitutional Republic to event exist. While natural law encompasses the whole of morality, it is not just for man to make positive law in every aspect of natural law — some things must be left for God alone to decide and rule.
First of all, it is very, very, very arguable whether the Church has ALWAYS advocated ‘legislating morality’ — we must be careful to not make such over-exaggerations. There has been a very real shift in Church policy in the last 25 years where the Church has more strongly advocated the legislation of morality, but it has been anything but consistent in this. We can all look back to President Grant’s promotion of prohibition, but one event does not establish a trend. I actually posted on this very issue here: http://libertarianthink.blogspot.com/2009/12/natural-law-positivism-civil.html Furthermore, the many quotes by Elder Oaks concerning what he states is an ‘illogical assumption’ that government cannot legislate morality can be understood in the following paragraphs.
Not all vices — if any — are to be necessarily solved by the government. This is scriptural. Remember Alma 4? Alma held both of the highest political and religious positions in the land: he was over the Church and he was the Chief Judge. When he saw the social inequality and vices present in the people, did he pass more laws as the Chief Judge? Did he use government as the route to change the people? Did he enforce morality? Did he make more laws? No! In fact, he gave up the political realm all-together to become a missionary. He saw greater worth in bearing down testimony that in enacting more legislation! Why? “And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just — yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto then — therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God” (Alma 31:5).
Now, why haven’t we tried this? Why is this not the route the Church has sought to take? Actually, it has been! Remember President McKay’s emphasis on ‘every member a missionary’? We use this as a cliche phrase, but the prophets used it as a decisive tool to steer society towards righteousness. Were we — as a general body and Church — faithful to the counsel? Well, Benson didn’t appear to think so. He stated: “Now part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell, because, I fear, unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights.”
If there are none sufficient to save the Constitution who overcome the natural man obstacles addressed by Benson, then what is the Church to do? If men will not be inwardly motivated to do what is right and influence their neighbor through “persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–2), then government must necessarily become the master through coercive legislation. Given this is true, Elder Christofferson’s words in last General Conference are extremely important to understanding the context of our world today: “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.” I suggest a full reading of this talk on inward moral discipline again: http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1117-34,00.html
The more wicked and immoral a society becomes, the more numerous the positive laws that must dictate the moral conscience of the people. Our Constitutional Republic was made for a religious and moral people — not so that we could know what ‘good laws’ to pass, but because we would be morally accountable and numerous laws would not be required. The fact that we have such a movement towards pushing so many ‘moral laws’ signifies our drift away from inner-morality and a Constitutional Republic towards an oppressive Socialist Democracy.