- This topic has 7 voices and 25 replies.
-
Posts
-
Too bad we don't stop trying to legislate morality, eh? Today Utah (!?!) was the state state to ratify the 21st Amendment.
I think it's interesting to consider the history of how the 21st Amendment came about. I think we discussed it in another thread, but if I recall the sentiments of abolitionism after the Civil War were trying to find a topic to rest upon and found it in alcoholism. But I imagine that alcoholism caused a scourge that we don't have to deal as much with nowadays with our society which has put some “shame” on public alcoholism, as well as our treatment centers to help alcoholics. Yes, it still is a black spot on society, but at the time of Carrie Nation and others I think there was a revolutionary feeling that accompanied it. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas said something about how we ought not try to promote every virtue or prohibit every vice. Prudence is required when dealing with matters of legislation and as they found out, restricting alcohol outright was not practical. Perhaps it was because in the end, it was not the alcohol which was the black mark on society, but rather the abuse of the drink which was the cause of social ills in the early 20th Century.
First it was slavery, then it was alcohol, and now it is abortion. America will always seek out issues to divide itself.
First it was slavery, then it was alcohol, and now it is abortion. America will always seek out issues to divide itself.
You forgot gun control... my personal hot button issue. I'm the NRA and I vote!
First it was slavery, then it was alcohol, and now it is abortion. America will always seek out issues to divide itself.
You forgot gun control... my personal hot button issue. I'm the NRA and I vote! Duh! I run a gun website and forgot gun control of all issues. Man I'm slipping. 🙂
Not really; guns shouldn't be an issue at all. We all have the natural right to protect our life liberty and property, the @nd is a right of the people… you and me; end of story.The only reason we have a Bill of Rights is to remind the gov't that it is their job to protect same. Given that the Federalists thought no one would ever forget this they didn't think the B of R necessary.... WRONG! Thankfully the Anti-Feds prevailed: these are such important rights they needed to be set out as a separate part of the Constitution so all can see that both Feds and Anti-Feds meant these to be observed and preserved forever and for all.
The only reason we have a Bill of Rights is to remind the gov't that it is their job to protect same.
Government seems to have a desire to make their role larger....call it "protectionist creep"....I'm thinking of the elimination of transfat foods in New York restaurants, the elimination of plastic bags at some stores in San Fran....true, these are at the local level, but I think this is where it starts before the trend begins to grow. States begin to say "look what is being done in X-ville, they're so forward looking!". Before you know it the government puts its finger in everything and then you've got a semi-socialist, bureaucratic mess.
States begin to say "look what is being done in X-ville, they're so forward looking!".
Hence we get the term "Progressive". :- (yeah, progressively communist)*Edit: Hey, this is my 500th post. Do they give out prizes here for that?
The Nanny State isn't what Locke and the rest of the folks back in the Enlightenment envisioned protecting our rights; it is the gov't that we have the right to fix or abolish when it cuts into our rights… too bad we aren't.
No we have drifted more towards the Hobbesian model I suppose.
Far too true; but more because they (the gov't) see us as wicked, bad, and nasty... or at least those the media splashes across the news pages. Gives them the idea we need protected from ourselves. Give me Locke anytime... Malthus too.
What about narcotics, then? It seems like it's related to alcohol. I watched an interesting show on the History Channel a while back the background of cocaine (discussed in another thread here) and I recall that at one point it had been put into a variety of common health products as a stimulant. They said that at one point in time, some 5% of the population was addicted to the drug. Eventually the dangers of it were realized, and it's then that the push for legislation was made to restrict and prohibit it. I believe this was in the early 20th Century, interestingly around the same time that the push for alcohol prohibition was in full force.Alcohol seems like a cousin to narcotics; while it's safe in moderate doses, it can lead to dangerous results with excessive use. Overall I think the danger posed is much more mild compared to cocaine (when not dealing with the operation of vehicles/equipment) but it's still a danger. Perhaps it's this difference in danger that has led to social acceptability toward one and apprehension toward the other.
I saw that show too; the jump on narcotics was made by the legislative body and narcotics (outside of patent medicines) were portrayed as being used by the criminal and lower classes… also the sinister foreign connection for opiates. The negative for alcohol being the social problems it created.As organized crime (and the Kennedy family :o) got into the alcohol trafficking business thinks actually got worse: The Capone and other mobs, moonshiners, bath tub gin operations all over, speakeasys... and the lot. This all required policing (insert some graft and corruption here) and the FBI. Ultimately questions about the cure being worse than the disease.Given the depression situation FDR helped push repeal as a device to buid moral as well as just common sense IMHO.
... also the sinister foreign connection for opiates.
+1I think that's the difference between drugs and liquor.
