Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

No, Prohibition was the culmination of the longstanding Temperance Movement in the U.S. It wasn't an overnight thing by any means.

I know that.  But it didn't suddenly make everyone who didn't agree with the Temperance Movement (which turned out to be quite a lot of people) suddenly think it was morally wrong.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Nikov]

Unless said people thought it was morally wrong to break the laws of a lawfully elected government, then they did suddenly think it was morally wrong when it became illegal.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It appeared, at least to me, that the temperance movement (and by extention Prohibition) were founded on moralism. The whole concept of alchohol bringing ruin to society, and that we could be a greater and more moral nation without, slowly gained popularity untill it could be passed as an amendment. Of course, this all fell apart when a criminal empire founded on illegal alchohol sprung up almost overnight.

Thus, there would be three "factions" of viewing Prohibition. Those who loved it because they thought it would make the nation better, those who loved it because they could make extreme amounts of money on the new alchohol black market, and those who hated it because they wanted a freaking drink. Only one of those would be founded on the view that drinking alchohol was wrong, although they very well may have been the largest.

[Aqizzar]

There was a book published recently about the history of the Prohibition movement - it was really a coalition of a lot of disparate movements.  For instance, the League of Women Voters and such, on top of largely believing in the morality of the issue, also saw signing onto the Prohibition train as a good path to political relevancy and respect.  It's not conniving or anything, but it's more complicated than just moralistic or material interest.

Unless said people thought it was morally wrong to break the laws of a lawfully elected government, then they did suddenly think it was morally wrong when it became illegal.

Yes, it would be hilarious if anyone really thought like that, wouldn't it?  My government, right or wrong, if they say it's the law, then moral it must be.

[Nikov]

It would be truely riotous to imagine that a man with property doesn't need to fear it being stolen by his fellow citizens because there is a law against it, or that his right to property be taken away through mob democracy. Rights and social contracts, what an antiquated notion.

[Earthquake Damage]

It would be truely riotous to imagine that a man with property doesn't need to fear it being stolen by his fellow citizens because there is a law against it, or that his right to property be taken away through mob democracy. Rights and social contracts, what an antiquated notion.

So the law can provide protection.  That says nothing of the relationship between law and morality.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Generally, people don't do those things. Most people agree stealing is wrong, and you won't have to worry about it unless you live in a high-crime area. He's not saying that no one follows the law, but that only the most naive of us honestly believe that the government always passes good laws, or constantly acts in the favor of the people.

[Leafsnail]

Unless said people thought it was morally wrong to break the laws of a lawfully elected government, then they did suddenly think it was morally wrong when it became illegal.

I'd have to think that would be a tiny minority, unless there's some kind of evidence otherwise.  I mean

It would be truely riotous to imagine that a man with property doesn't need to fear it being stolen by his fellow citizens because there is a law against it, or that his right to property be taken away through mob democracy

Let's say the government decided that they would use mob democracy to take your property.  Would they be "right" in doing this?

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Aqizzar]

Not to be taken Literally.

Honestly, I was just responding to it because of the audacity of the statement.  I can see why he enjoys saying the blatantly outrageous.

[Nikov]

Of course not. But if you only hold obeying the law as a convenience and not a moral duty, then what if you determine a law is immoral? What if you see a rich man and think only through greed and self-interest did that rich man take money from the community to line his pockets? Then you have a moral reason to take back what he stole, and if breaking the law doesn't violate your sense of morality, then its simply a question of how badly you want to punish the rich man for his wrongdoing compared to the chances you'll be punished for breaking an injust law.

Ever read the Communist Manifesto? Its an appeal to morality in the face of immoral law imposed by immoral government.

[Earthquake Damage]

I guess it becomes a question of which is more desirable:  order or justice.

[Nikov]

Order. Without it, you have only the mob.