The idea that we can have laws seperate from morality is irrational.

If there is no moral principle justifying the use of power that is inherent in law, then that law by definition is tyrannical and should be opposed.

To put it another way, you cannot legislate anything but morality. The real question is whose morality is being legislated

Bastiat's "The Law" provides a perspective on this that is just as relevant today as it was in 1850, when he wrote it: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

James, why do we have laws against rape? Surely it is because rape harms innocent people and we consider harming innocent people to be wrong. So our prohibition of rape is based on a moral conviction and nothing else.

On the basis of your article it would appear that you must believe that there should be no law against rape. Is that really so?

If someone were to rape your wife/partner/daughter/mother would you stand by your claim that "we should let go and whatever happens, happens"?

Would you say in relation to the rapist, "the individual will make the choice which is right for them, and they will coome away from the experience positive and enlightened"?

Opposition to abortion is based on a moral view - that abortion is wrong because it harms the unborn child in that their life is taken. This is just like the moral opposition to rape in that it is wrong because it harms someone else.

Having a law against abortion is just as valid as a law against rape.

It seems to me that the underlying messgae here is 'less government intervention'. Let the individual decide.

This is pure Libertarianism.
Where everyone is free to do what ever they want to do whatever the cost.

GP & Coyote
I cannot believe you are serious. Let's deal with Coyote first.
Quote "This is pure Libertarianism.
Where everyone is free to do what ever they want to do whatever the cost." Completely wrong. What you are describing is known as "libertinism". Libertarianism is where you are free to accept the consequences of your own actions.

GP
The articles whole point is that the best basis for law is 'reason" not morality. Try reading the link provided by Winston Smith. One thing to think about. You compare abortion to rape. if that was so then it follows that the abortionst & the woman seeking the abortion should both suffer a jail sentence. Just like a rapist when he is caught. Does that seem like justice to you

Quote:

"Whether we are talking about RU486, abortion, or other things which are the subject of formal regulation, it is time to trust individuals to make the right choices. Controlling individuals through formal rules will not get us there.

Trust develops from just letting people make the decisions. As a matter of human nature, individuals who are trusted want to be trustworthy, and this leads to a society which really functions properly. What becomes of formal laws? Aborted."

Unquote

Well then, if any law that deals with 'moral choices' should be aborted (excepting of course those involving those incapable of giving informed consent) we should abort all laws dealing with incest, so long as all the people involved are over 18....

Is that really what is being said here?

So Mr McConvill, you would have no legal difficulty with your children screwing each other? Or perhaps your mother having sex with your brother? I am sure that some families would argue that they are making 'right choices' in this regard.

What about teachers and students, so long as the students are over the age of consent? Or at your university, I figure that you would argue that staff and students should be able to shag each other to their hearts' content. Anything else would mean that they are not worthy of trust.