Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Michael Best" <mbest AT dasya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sil Greene [mailto:quack AT ibiblio.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:15 PM
> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> Subject: RE: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)
>
> There's a difference between a law that RESTRICTS my freedom to make a
> lifestyle choice, and a law that ALLOWS me the freedom to make a lifestyle
> choice.  It seems that the "right"'s morality is much heavier on the
> restricting than the allowing.  If you have examples of the "left"'s
> morality being restrictive, please share; I'm likely against those as
> well.

You are speaking of a law that says I CANNOT do something I want to do.  But
many laws are restrictive economically.  For example, the public school
system restricts my choices about where and how my children are educated.
The system is supposed to provide an equal level of education to all
children.  But within the system, we are not allowed to choose how we define
education or even what teaching methods to use.  We do have the choice to
use private or home schooling, but there is an economic disincentive to do
so that is built into the system.  Thus the laws and the morality behind the
laws restricts our choice in our children's education.

Is the public school system "left" or "right"?  I don't know.  But my
general idea is that most laws are restrictive at least to some people.
Let's look at the public school system again.  Laws that forced racial
integration of schools allowed blacks to attend schools they previously did
not have access to.  But it also restricted the ability of whites to choose
to send their kids to an all white school.

More recently, prayer and even the mention of God has been an issue in
schools.  Again any law that *allows* prayer also *restricts* those who do
not want their children exposed to prayer.  And a law that *restricts*
prayer is, well, obvious.

-- Michael Best