I would have to disagree. If our argument is that the left shouldn't be able to tell us how to live our lives and spend taxpayer (aka our) money as they want, then the same argument applies to us. We shouldn't be able to tell them how to live their lives. We SHOULD be able to install consequences for bad decisions (i.e. You don't want to get a job? Fine, but we're only giving you welfare for two years total in your lifetime OR You want to smoke pot? Fine, but businesses don't have to hire you). I don't see how one negates the other.
My view is "Don't tell me how to live or spend my money, I won't tell you how to live or spend your money. Government is just there to provide the playing field, not pick the winners."
Government shouldn't be in the morals business. After all, my morals and sense of ethics probably differ from somebody else's, at least in certain areas. They're also difficult to quantify and define. And yet the government is in the morals business, rather selectively:
• Abortion – permitted. Reprehensible by any measure, the government does not prohibit a woman from killing the baby inside her. Pro-lifers are outraged that the government permits this, even demanding that the government have an obligation to protect the unborn. Pro-choicers are outraged that the government interferes at all with their bodily functions. Choicers believe that having a baby is a bodily function whereas Lifers believe that the gift of pregnancy is a blessing from God.
• Marriage – morally defined as a union between a man and woman, the definition has been altered by social liberals who don’t think that two men “marrying†each other doesn’t drag down society at large. Ultimately, I believe that practice does. Government in many states now permits same-sex “marriage.†Apparently civil unions aren’t enough – same-sex “marriage†advocates have to invade the sanctity of marriage, that social and religious contract historically made between a man and woman.
• Drug use – notwithstanding the fact that alcohol, a legal drug, has much more of a negative impact on our society than does recreational drug use, government prohibits certain substances that alter reality. That brake helps provide at least a measure of a moral compass. Decisions to violate the law currently have consequences beyond employment and our prisons are filled with examples of violators. So what went wrong? A demand exists, despite the law, and a market will meet that demand, irrespective of consequences. Should a society cave into a “demand†made by those who use illicit drugs? Purely for a tax benefit? Should a society turn a blind eye to illicit drug use, preferring to have business leaders prohibit a practice that, if that prohibition is violated, leads to the end of employment?
• Safety and food purity - about 100 years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote a book called “The Jungle†which spotlighted the Chicago meatpacking industry. Horrific, incredibly unsafe work practices and filthy food processing centers were common. Government decided to have a role in protecting the public health when it enacted federal laws and agencies.
All of these comments above are jumbled and less than coherent, for the simple reason that there is no magic answer to this very sticky issue and difference between social liberals and social conservatives.
Bottom line: I don’t need government to provide me my moral compass. But I’d be less than honest if I said that a practice that has been determined as illegal does not affect my participation in that practice. It does. I avoid illegal behavior because I don't want the ramifications of that illegal behavior. That transcends a decision made by an employer, a doctor, or any other single person. The law speaks loudly to me.
Young people in particular need some help in this area. They don’t get all that they need from their parents, clergy, other adults. There is a role for government to play. We differ in how pervasive that role is.
