Matt,

It is certainly interesting that you should post something like this. Fast food in the eyes of many is coming to be viewed as a vice. So at what point is it ok to legislate against one particular vice and at what degree is this constitutional and principle based. Some will argue for example that pot is far less harmful than alcohol for another example. I am in no way promoting any particular perspective, it is merely a thought train I’ve been having personally.

Sean

Calling fast food a vice is akin to calling homosexuality a civil right. Both labels take advantage of a category they obviously do not belong to. Homosexuality is not on the same plane as race, nor should it follow on the coattails of racial non-discrimination efforts in the history of this country. Likewise, fast food is not a vice. Fast food may contribute to individual obesity and its attendant lack of health, but it cannot be considered a public immorality like prostitution or gambling or drugs.

Jefferson’s definition of vice seems appropriate: entirely unproductive, doing good to none, injury to many, yet so easy and so seducing in practice to men of a certain constutuion of mind that they cannot resist the temptation, be the consequences what they may.

No matter how unhealthy certain fast foods may be, the industry does not fall into this definition.

It would be nice if we could allow the market to dictate in every area regarding vices and not have to regulate any of them. Thomas Jefferson recognized that education would be the best method of keeping such activities in check in society. But he also understood, as perhaps we do, that humanity has not yet reached the point of perfection, and to that end he explained that regulation could be properly employed in order to protect such people, as in those cases of insanity, idiocy, and infancy.

Again, fast food does not fit this category.

To quote a very venerable old line . . . “You can lead a horse to water . . .” Seems like L.A. is attacking the symptoms, not the problem.

Sean,

Interesting comment. I think the danger here is that anything could be labeled as a vice. I’ve known people with a shopping vice. I’ve known people with a TV vice. I known some with a video game vice.

There could be argument for regulation of anything if enough people make it their pet project. I think the distinction here is generally that fast food won’t harm anyone beyond the original consumer; most regulated substances are connected to enough cases of damage to others that there can be substantial argument made for regulation. I don’t know that I agree with a lot of regulation, but I see the distinction. Regulating clear down to the choices that we have in food fits in perfectly with a socialist agenda.

I think eating fast-food could be considered a vice, just as much as anything else can be a vice. A vice, in my understanding is the opposite of a virtue. Overeating, especially less than ideal foods like fast foods, is definitely the opposite of the virtue of self-control. It is not intrinsically a vice. There are many people who eat it “responsibly” so to speak.

However, whether one thing is or is not a vice fails to address the real issue. The point is not about what is or is not considered a vice. The point is that the proper role of government does not include eliminating vice. That is the role of private insitutions using their power of persuasion. No amount of legislation will eliminate any item, service, or conduct that can be considered a vice for which there is a demand in society. The problem is not that the service or good is not prohibited, the problem is that there is a demand for something damaging. The only way to eliminate the demand for the undesirable good or service is education.

Unfortunately this takes time. Out society doesn’t like things that take time to be solved. They would rather look at the leaves of evil and repeated pick them up because that is so much less work and requires less time than chopping at the roots. This not only doesn’t solve the problem, but allows the problem to grow and flourish because its roots get stronger and stronger.

The problem in our society which many feel, rightly so in my opinion, is going to H - E - Double Hockey Sticks in a hand basket, is not that the government doesn’t prohibit the right things. The problem is the Brain Off Conspiracy - the collective collaboration of the ignorant, otherwise recognized as the lack of personal responsibility and a lack of recognition of individual worth and capability.

Agreed, there is no “necessary and natural” method for differentiating between fast food and other “vices”. One could make the claim that by consuming too much fast food, we destroy the usefulness of our bodies and thus we cannot produce enough to sustain our families. This could lead to an increase in crime since these individuals may now have to steal to consume more than they produce. So, in the interest of society, we should outlaw fast food. I don’t see how this argument is any different in principle from the arguments made against drugs, gambling, etc.

When force is used to prohibit an individual from acting in ways that do not violate the rights of others, this is a violation of the principle “Force destroys freedom and prosperity”.

Ah, yes. One great indication of just how far this country has to go to live by principle. People can’t even tell the difference between prostitution and fast food indulgence.

“On the next ‘Miami Vice’ Crocket and Tubbs break up an evil fast food ring.

“‘Hey! Put down those fries. Step away from the ketchup dispenser and nobody gets hurt!’”

Jason, be careful that your emotional attachment to a particular idea does not inhibit your ability to have a rational discussion. Remember what you are always reminding people, “Claim, data, warrant.” You appear to me to make a claim that there is a difference in principle between legally prohibiting prostitution and legally prohibitting fast food indulgence. Where is your data? Where is your warrant?

It’s not that I can’t tell the difference between the two. There is a big difference. But it is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle. They are both taking a natural human appetite and abusing it. In order to have a rational discussion, we must identify a principle, not merely a religious strategy. Your two Miami Vice parodies were humorous, but they were not a rational argument. They demonstrated the absurdity of a law against fast-food, which I already agree with, but they said nothing about a law against prostitution.

Agency implies stewardship. The consequences for prostitution can and usually do have more severe detrimental effect to one’s human life value, and consequently on the rest of society, than fast food indulgence, but in principle, they are both an abuse of natural and necessary human appetites.

Collective action has no unique moral authority. Even if the majority are in the moral right, it does not give them the authority to dictate moral choices for others. The people who know that fast food indulgence is detrimental to one’s health have no more moral authority in their position than those who know that prostitution is detrimental to all involved. On what principle does one have the right to legislate against prostitution and not against fast food indulgence? Yes, prostitution is a blight on society and causes many societal problems, but as we regularly promote in the Free Capitalist Project, the proper role of government is not to prevent societal problems or bad things from happening, it is to protect rights. You do not have an inalienable right to have a society free from the ills of prostitution. Each individual has the right to not have their life, liberty or property infringed upon.

If there is a demand for prostitution, it will not be eliminated by a law, neither will a law against fast food indulgence, when there is a demand for it. If you want to rid society of prostitution, you will not accomplish it by making it illegal. Making something illegal does a couple of things, as demonstrated with the abolition of alcohol. It does have the immediate effect of reducing the frequency of the problem, but it also magnifies the detrimental effects of the times when it does happen. With the prohibition of alcohol, the practice of drinking alcohol became more rare, but when it happened it’s detrimental effects were more severe. Because people who wanted to drink alcohol only did so in secret and with a fear of getting caught, they usually drank more than they would if they were “socially drinking” as they call it today, and thus they got more inebriated. The alcohol was of poorer quality because the prohibition did not allow the market to regulate the quality. It was often of higher alcoholic content, and thust more detrimental to one’s health, and the facilities where it was made were less sanitary. Gangs in big cities became more violent in their crimes because gangs (or mobs) were almost always associated with boot-legging and the participants were thus almost always stone drunk, removing any remnant of conscience they still had.

If you want to rid society of prostitution, you will best accomplish it by educating people about the principles involved and encouraging them to act in their own rational self-interest and avoid it. The same is true about fast food indulgence.

I may keep my children away from prostitution by forbidding it, but there is then a chance that one of my children will have a falling out with their opinionated father and participate in prostitution simply to spite me. If I help them understand how prostitution is harmful to them but leave it up to them to choose, they will freely choose to avoid it, and even if we have a falling out, there is no question of doing something to spite me. They were not avoiding it because of my preference, but because of their own. The same strategy can be used on fast food indulgence … though my own credibility may be a little hampered when it comes to teaching about fast food indulgence.

I didn’t state there wasn’t a difference between fast food and other vices (drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc). My statement was that it is a violation of principle for government to outlaw a certain action simply because it is a “vice”. The only moral and just cause of government is to protect rights. If an action does not directly violate a right, then force should not be used to prevent its occurance. It will only be through persuassion and adherance to principle that we will solve the problem of the recreational use of drugs as well as the non-sparingly consumption of meat (over eatting of fast food?).

Ammon, thank you for your warning. It goes well heeded between two friends. Though emotions play a role in everyone’s actions, it is important to allow the rational mind to control those actions.

Claim, data, and warrant have been seriously lacking in all of the comments attached to this article, that’s for sure. I recognize that the comment format doesn’t always lend itself very well to the claim, data, warrant process so necessary in creating a rational and valid argument. I debated seriously whether I waste any more time on this topic because of the irrationality of such comments as, “Agreed, there is no “necessary and natural” method for differentiating between fast food and other ‘vices’.” This is plain deception. My Miami Vice comment was intended to expose that. And for the sake of hopefully clarifying a few things, I add some more commentary now. Ammon, my impression of your response is that you misunderstood my intent in that comment. No matter, I’m happy with any claim, data, warrant anyone is willing to give. I expect it to come from all sides.

Your assessment of my intent is slightly off in that, no, I am not discussing anything regarding the actions of the government. Rather, it’s the definition of “vice” that I am concerned with. My claim is that only by perverting the meaning of vice can we ever include the eating of fast food as a vice. I will provide my data and warrant in a moment.

My Miami Vice was not intended to be a rational argument; rather, it was an attempt to dramatize the absurdity of previous comments made on this string. The irrationality of eating fast food being a vice has been supported by the tyranny of popular opinion, otherwise known as collective action. It is irrelevant how many people “agree” that eating fast food is a vice. That behavior is nowhere near the same as the likes of prostitution or pornography, etc. To lump it together with them is a mystical insult to intelligence. Further, statements like, “I agree…” reveal not a discussion of facts and sincere pursuits of truth, but simply an opinion fest that invites the steamroller of collective action into our discussion.

My intent has NEVER been to justify the governmental prohibition of prostitution or other vices. That is irrelevant to this discussion, but as is the nature of nearly every discussion board I have ever read, commentary after a story leads to off-topic ridiculosities that have nothing to do with the story. (Focus is one of my strengths from that “Now Discover Your Strengths” book.) If someone wants to write a rational article about the proper role of government regarding prostitution and other vices, have at it. But here, on the coattails of this fast food story, is not the place for that discussion.

Read an earlier statement of mine in which I said, “Calling fast food a vice is akin to calling homosexuality a civil right. Both labels take advantage of a category they obviously do not belong to. Homosexuality is not on the same plane as race, nor should it follow on the coattails of racial non-discrimination efforts in the history of this country. Likewise, fast food is not a vice. Fast food may contribute to individual obesity and its attendant lack of health, but it cannot be considered a public immorality like prostitution or gambling or drugs.” If this is irrational, please point it out. So far, though I am biased for sure, this comment is the only rational one of the whole bunch. That is until you posted these comments.

You claim, “…in principle, [eating fast food and prostitution] are both an abuse of natural and necessary human appetites. You provide no data and no warrant for this claim. And quite frankly, I disagree with your claim, but without the aid of data and warrant, I cannot check the premises upon which you have stated this claim. So, we’re stuck in opinion. “Yes, it is.” “No, it isn’t.” That sort of thing. I perceive that your data is somehow in the principle that agency implies stewardship, but you do not explain yourself satisfactorily enough.

Next, you use Principle 12 to support your claim that “even if the majority are in the moral right, it does not give them the authority to dictate moral choices for others.” As you use this for questioning the governmental (collective) motivation for banning fast food, I think that is warrantable. But to use this as an argument to lump the eating of fast food with vices such as prostitution lacks warrant. Remember, this discussion began with the question whether it is right for one city to ban fast food restaurants in a given area. Others have perverted the discussion to lump vices with this, but again, that is not what this discussion is about.

You wrap up your comment by explaining that education and persuasion are the best methods to shape desired behavior. This, of course, is correct. Parents should anxiously educate their children on the proper nutrition of their bodies. Parents should anxiously learn it themselves.

Finally, Ammon, my Miami Vice post was not specifically directed toward you. However, inasmuch as it apparently called you out, I suggest that perhaps there is something of a truth in it. But truthfully, my comment was to out another sickness prevalent in this discussion—the overflowing scourge of collective action in that sheer numbers in agreement do not make an item true. Again, I posted earlier what I thought was the most rational (claim, data, warrant) discussion in this thread and it gets ignored for ignorant statements like, “I agree that there is no necessary and natural difference between prostitution and eating fast food.” Jeremy, with all due respect, my friend, you are deceived. There is a world of difference between the two. If you do not see it, begin by checking your premises.

Eating fast food is not a vice. To prove this, I wish to set down my premises in the open. This website and my actions here are dedicated to teaching the principles of prosperity as currently outlined by the FreeCapitalist Project and earlier espoused by the Founding Fathers. This country has drifted a long way from the tradition of those Founders, and that has been the cause of most of the calamitous problems of our nation. If we ever hope to truly sanction and complete their earlier revolution, we must first get square with what their vision of life in America was. Once we accomplish that then we can talk about whether there have been any new, better ideas come about in the subsequent 85,000 days.

Noah Webster, one of those in the Founding Generation, collected the first English dictionary in 1828. Its pages reveal much of the language as the Founders would have used it in their day. He defines vice:

In ethics: any voluntary action or course of conduct which deviates from the rules of moral rectitude, or from the plain rules of propriety; any moral unfitness of conduct, either from defect of duty, or from the transgression of known principles of rectitude. Vice differs from crime, in being less enormous. We never call murder or robbery a vice; but every act of intemperance, all falsehood, duplicity, deception, lewdness and the like, is a vice. The excessive indulgence of passions and appetites which in themselves are innocent, is a vice. The smoking of tobacco and the taking of snuff, may in certain cases be innocent and even useful, but these practices may be carried to such an excess as to become vices. This word is also used to denote a habit of transgressing; as a life of vice. Vice is rarely a solitary invader; it usually brings with it a frightful train of followers.

Using this as our premise, let us explore eating fast food as a possible vice.

1. Does the voluntary act of eating fast food deviate from the rules of moral rectitude? No, it does not. Eating is not a moral act. Morality, again as explained by our founding generation relates to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. Eating is the act of sustaining one’s life and therefore does not qualify as a vice under this first sentence.

2. Does eating fast food deviate from the plain rules of propriety? Again, not in the moral sense. Eating some fast food may deviate from the plain rules of proper nutrition, but this is not the same as what Webster is talking about on a moral plane.

3. Does eating fast food constitute moral unfitness of conduct from defect of duty? No. Again, see the morality statement in #1. Now, there has been some talk about “indulgence” of eating fast food. I challenge that what is meant by this statement is the “over-indulgence” of eating in fast food. The over-indulgence of eating fast food may indeed lead to defect of duty due to health reasons. That will be handled in a later paragraph. Here, the mere eating of or indulgence of fast food does not lead to a defect in duty.

4. How about constituting moral unfitness of conduct from the transgression of known principles of rectitude? Rectitude regards rightness of principle or practice; uprightness of mind; exact conformity to truth, or to the rules prescribed for moral conduct, either by divine or human laws. EATING fast food or any type of food still does not fall into this category.

5. Can we call eating fast food an act of intemperance? No, intemperance refers to the want of moderation or due restraint. Simply eating at a fast food restaurant does not reveal the want of moderation or due restraint. On the other hand, every visit to a prostitute does exhibit this want of due restraint.

6. Is eating fast food a falsehood? No.

7. is eating fast food duplicitous? Again, no.

8. Is the eating of fast food deception? No. Now, those who would make a defender for a word, beware here, I am not talking about the sale of fast food? I am talking about the act of eating fast food. This is not deception. It is merely stuffing something into one’s mouth, chewing it up (hopefully), and swallowing. This is not deception.

9. Is fast food eating an act of lewdness? No. Eating fast food is not a vice.

10. Is the eating of fast food included in the excessive indulgence (or over-indulgence) of passions? Still the answer is no. But let’s explore the excessive indulgence of eating fast food. The definition that best fits our discussion here is the feeling of the mind, or the sensible effect of impression; excitement, perturbation or agitation of mind; as desire, fear, hope, joy, grief, love, hatred. The eloquence of the orator is employed to move the passions. Basically, the emotions. So, is eating fast food considered an excessive indulgence of passions? Far from it. Eating fast food is simply eating, even if one absolutely loves a particular food, such as when I just loved to eat Arby’s Horsey Sauce. That still did not qualify as an overindulgence of the passions. Some movies and literature, however, could very well fit into this category. But that is a discussion for another day.

11. Can eating fast food be considered the excessive indulgence of appetites? Many here will say, “See, eating fast food is a vice because it can lead to the excessive indulgence of appetites.” But wait. What is appetite? Webster does indeed define it as a desire of food or drink; a painful sensation occasioned by hunger or thirst. But is that really what he is talking about here? In context, no. We only make that connection because we have forgotten in our progressive, intentional destruction of language over the decades that appetite has a completely different meaning: The natural desire of pleasure or good; the desire of gratification, either of the body or of the mind. Appetites are passions directed to general objects, as the appetite for fame, glory or riches; in distinction from passions directed to some particular objects, which retain their proper name, as the passion of love, envy or gratitude. Passion does not exist without an object; natural appetites exist first, and are then directed to objects. So, looked at in this frame of mind, eating fast food does not gratify the passion for fame, glory or riches, etc. I suppose that someone could say that the over-eating of fast food could be driven by such appetites, like for fame perhaps of being in a movie such as Super-size Me. But come on, this is not rational. Nor is it germane to our topic.

12. Finally, and perhaps the closest we can come to calling the eating of fast food a vice relates to Mr. Webster’s example of tobacco use. He says, “…these practices may be carried to such an excess as to become vices.” Unfortunately, he ends his statement there. It would be a curious thing to learn in what respect, morally, tobacco use would have become excessive to the extent to be considered a vice. Perhaps it is the filthiness of it, all the smoke, all the spit. I don’t know. Before I am willing to lump the eating of fast food in with the use of tobacco, I must learn more. Based upon the other vices, I would challenge there is a moral aspect of it that I am missing.

According to Noah Webster’s definition, a set of criteria can be used to objectively determine whether something is a vice. Apply these elements to prostitution, drunkenness, swearing, pornography, gambling, immodesty, and I’m sure you will see that, morally, eating fast food, even perhaps the over-eating of fast food, simply does not rationally fit. To call it a vice is simply unconscionable.

In closing, let me just say, standing alone, the sale of and the eating of fast food is not worthy of government’s heavy hand. It is not the government’s proper role to dictate where these legitimate business should open their doors. And do not attempt to attach the vices to the coattails of this discussion.

Jason,

The intent of my posts was NOT to debate whether there is a moral difference in an individual choosing to eat fast food as opposed to participate in other vices. I am not deceived in this regard.

Everybody on this thread appeared to understand that using the city government, or any government for that matter, to stop people from eatting fast food is a violation of principle. So, I decided to take on the first action item (”1. Look at some of the ordinances passed by your city council. Do they generally tend to promote individual freedom or limit it?”) and show that it is likewise a violation of principle for government to pass ordinances against this other behavior.

“Miami Vice” was about a government agency. Whether “Miami Vice” was out to stop people from using drugs or stop people from eatting fast food, both limit individual freedom.

Action item #2 states - “Pick an ordinance that has been in place for a long time. Does the ordinance really make any difference in the city?” My posts were dedicated to showing that laws/ordinances against partipation in vices, many of which have been in place for a long time now, are a violation of principle.

Jeremy, Please understand, these are two different items. If you want to have a conversation about whether vices should be banned by a government, find a story and write an article and let’s work on getting it published. Then we can explore those premises on their own merits and quit attaching them to fast food like apples and oranges.

Your premise, as I see it Jason, is at least partially that vice means only and exactly what Noah Webster said it meant 94 years ago, and altering or reinterpretting that definition is unconsionable. (i.e. you said, “To call it [referring to eating fast food] a vice is simply unconscionable.”) This is a faulty premise, but arguing about the definition of vice and whether or not eating fast food falls under that definition misses the whole point of the issue.

Look at the reason for the moratorium quoted in Matt’s article : “A proliferation of such eateries and above average rates of obesity.” This implies that those who support the moratorium see the amount of fast food stores, and the rate of obesity in today’s society, as an immorality that should be eliminated by government. In other words, even according to the definition of Noah Webster, they see eating fast food in such a way that, to them, it is a vice, or it “deviate[s] from the rules of moral rectitude.” They also believe erroneously, like many today do, that eliminating vice is a proper role of government.

The definitions of words are judicial arguments, because words have no intrinsic meaning. We get nowhere towards understanding and spreading truth and morality making these arguments and we end up with “Yes it is!”, “No it isn’t!” etc. ad nauseum.

There is no principle which defines vice for us. It gets us nowhere to say that vice cannot be understood differently today than the way it was understood in 1812, or in such a way as to include the eating of fast food. Instead let’s say, “Fine, we’ll call eating fast food a vice for the sake of argument.” Then we can deliberate about whether it is the proper role of government to eliminate vice. That is the argument they are making, let’s address it.

Do I have the right to eliminate vice from anyone else’s life but my own? No. Do I, as an individual, have the right to forcibly keep another individual from [insert any immoral practice here]? No, I would be exercising tyranny, and force destroys freedom and prosperity. If I don’t have the right to do it as an individual, I don’t have the right to do it through government. Both of these arguments are based off of the premise that individual freedom and prosperity are the aim of all individuals. If that becomes a point of contention, then we have more important things to worry about than fast food, or the definition of vice.

I’m not sure I believe the word “vice” means ONLY what Noah Webster reported. My point with that is simply that as we seek to restore the constitution we must go back to understand the way our Founders viewed these principles and intended to implement them. Our nation has been in a veritable freefall for the past 100 years, at least, maybe longer. Among others, two aspects of society have contributed to this decline: the destruction of our language (not evolution, but real destruction) and a common sense of me-too-ism. For example, words have been so distorted over the past century, especially since WWII. Part of the destruction of our language is intended to get us so far away from understanding the constitution that the ever ubiquitous “they” can then simply take it all away without any of us knowing it.

Me-too-ism (A=A; therefore B=A) can best be seen in the civil rights movements. It took our nation nearly 200 years to figure out the racial issue (some would say we still haven’t figured it out, but at least officially it seems figured out). Well, today we have a number of different camps that have nothing to do with civil rights trying to claim a similar status as the black civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s. I mentioned earlier, for example, the homosexual movement. The current movement is to include this as a civil right and ride the coattails of the “real” civil right of formally recognizing that “all men created equal” means “all men of any race.”

These two, me-too-ism and the destruction of language seem to work in tandem to distort our principles.

So, let’s assume for a moment, that my opposition here also includes the city council and the newspaper reporter. That the concept of here being argued is indeed the inclusion of obesity as a vice. This changes nothing in my previous posting. I still argue that through the destruction of the language and the me-too-ism leads to a distortion of what a vice really is. The city council is dead-flat wrong to assume that obesity is anywhere near the same plane as prostitution, pornography, gambling, drunkenness, and the likes. They have distorted the word vice into a term that means, “these behaviors should be outlawed because society would be better without them.” Vice is not vice because is is bad for society. Vice is vice because it is immoral. It is a character thing. Vice is vice because it destroys the human being, the individual. Obesity, on the other hand does not destroy the individual. Granted a number of different illnesses could accompany obesity, but being a heavy person is not a moral flaw. If I am mistaken in my arguments in the way you have indicated, then all I see is my “battle” goes beyond the people in the discussion on this website, which I intend to do anyway.

Now, there is a danger in allowing these people to distort obesity into a vice. Fast food chains are legitimate industries, no matter how bad the food is, no matter how fat they make their customers. A governmental agency has no moral authority to limit/prohibit/ban legitimate businesses. Prostitution is NOT a legitimate business. No matter how much we squawk about government not having the right or authority to limit/regulate/ban vices, government is not going to legitimize prostitution on a wide scale (sure in certain cities in Nevada, etc, but I’m talking about entirely throughout the country). The general consensus about vice, from the founders to today, is that vice should indeed be limited/regulated/banned.

So, if we allow over-indulgence of fast food eating to be called a vice, we now lose fast-food eating to the realms of prostitution and other legitimate vices. Our nation will become more regulated and less free.

This is why I say it is critical to keep the line hard drawn. Keep our vigilance on keeping “them” from including obesity as a vice and keep a legitimate business idea (fast food) from being banned. Win that battle. Then we can take up other battles like whether legitimate vices should be outlawed. I hope that makes sense.

A couple of things.

Morality is not so easy to define for everyone. Morality is, at the most basic level, a value judgement. Value udgements are by nature subjective, and require an answer to the question, valuable to whom. This is one of the many reasons why Principle 1 is so essential. If God is the author of prosperity, then his value judgments are all that matters, if you want prosperity. However, if someone does not recognize and accept this standard of values, no amount of prohibition will persuade them to change their point of view, which is what we want to accomplish, isn’t it?

I recognize through much experience, that there is a danger in making claims as outlandish and anti-social as saying that prostitution should not be outlawed. I think there are a couple of members of my own family who question whether I support abortion, pornography, polygamy, prostitution, and gay marriage because I don’t think the government should do as much as the collective action of “general consensus” thinks it should to prohibit/limit/regulate them. All of these things, according to my own value judgements, which I strive to keep in line with the value judgements of God, are repulsive and heinous things. The mere fact that the discussion is even relevant to our society is an indictment of our society and the depravity to which it has sunk.

I think the reason the founders didn’t necessarily see a problem with prohibiting vice is because they were so strongly hoping and seeking to create a moral people, according to the morality defined by what God values.

One last thing: “General consensus about vice” is collective action and therefore does not determine the truth about the issue.

Add to your comments that perspective determines action (Principle #4) and you have a pretty good explanation of why some may see morals as a value judgment. Granted, people value things differently, because of their various positions for perspective. I do not, however, accept that morals are a value judgment in the same way as we generally use the question: “Valuable to whom?” This question fits perfectly when determining property value: a house, a candy bar, a luxury car, etc. But morals follow eternal principles and are non-negotiable and, therefore, objective rather than subjective.

You have said correctly that God is the author of prosperity. He wrote the plan. And a person prospers only according to the adherence to that plan, whether he believes it or not. “Some things are true whether you believe them or not.” I would argue that all things that are true are true whether we believe them or not.

Someone who does not recognize those truths has no excuse for his failure to prosper. The principles do not care and that person is deceiving himself.

Several weeks ago I took the approach in a FCD article to discuss the stewardship levels of home owners who do not cut their grass short enough for the city’s liking. The city wanted to fine these heinous criminals and eventually throw them in jail for their misdeeds. The obvious approach was to discuss the blatant out-of-bounds behavior by the city council. However, what became more apparent to me as I read and prepared this article was the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” I, like you, Ammon, look around at our society and I watch how we are sliding down the slope of wickedness, and I observe how our governments are tightening the grips of tyranny around us. I say to myself, “Is it any wonder we are losing our freedoms? We have given them up as we become more vicious. The governmental manifestation of these tyrannies is but a mere symptom of the real sickness that lies within each human breast.”

You’ve mentioned general consensus and collective action. I will grant that just because the majority of a people wish to take a certain path does not make that path right. However, you have claimed that, “general consensus…is collective action and therefore does not determine the truth about the issue.” It is not by nature of the collective action that makes general consensus right or wrong. A million self-deceived people are wrong regardless of their agreement. However, one self-deceived individual is equally wrong. Furthermore, collective action can often be right on a given topic, if that collective action follows the principle more closely than does one single individual.

Moreover, the use of specific words to convey an idea only holds meaning when it is collective action. One man creating his own meaning for words contrary to the will of a collective is merely a tyrant who wishes to impose his will upon others simply because he refuses to communicate effectively. However, one man who can effectively communicate his ideas regarding the meanings of words will build that consensus and then can move the world in a gently persuasive manner.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Yes, morals are objective, while the valuation of material things is subjective.

God values certain things because they will, according to principle, lead his children to eternal salvation. The principles which determine how to obtain eternal salvation are eternal truths and therefore, morals are objectively true and unchanging. They are not his whim, but what he desires according to his own rational self-interest.

I think it is very important what you said about collective action. A majority saying something has no bearing on the truth of an issue. It is merely that. A wise man will look at what the majority says, and consider it carefully because, as King Mosiah pointed out in the Book of Mormon, “it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right;”

But this is only as pertaining to his own choices. It does not justified in using government to make anyone else follow the “voice of the people.”

I’ve got more to say on this, but my lunch hour is only so long.

Jason,

You stated the following in the previous post -

“Fast food chains are legitimate industries, no matter how bad the food is, no matter how fat they make their customers. A governmental agency has no moral authority to limit/prohibit/ban legitimate businesses. Prostitution is NOT a legitimate business. No matter how much we squawk about government not having the right or authority to limit/regulate/ban vices, government is not going to legitimize prostitution on a wide scale (sure in certain cities in Nevada, etc, but I’m talking about entirely throughout the country). The general consensus about vice, from the founders to today, is that vice should indeed be limited/regulated/banned”.

From this, I ascertain that you believe whereas government is not justified in banning “legitimate” businesses, it may be principled for government to ban businesses that are not “legitimate”. So, based upon the principle “Perspective Determine Action”, I challenge you to define the “necessary & natural” differentiation between a legitimate and illegitimate business. A “general consensus” of the people is not a valid principle.

If you were to define “legitimate” business as one that does not violate individual rights whereas an “illegitimate” business does violate rights, then it would be principled for government to ban “illegitimate” business. However, I have not seen a principled argument for why government should outlaw “illegitimate” businesses for any other definition.

LOL

“If you were to define “legitimate” business as one that does not violate individual rights whereas an “illegitimate” business does violate rights, then it would be principled for government to ban “illegitimate” business. However, I have not seen a principled argument for why government should outlaw “illegitimate” businesses for any other definition.”

According to that definition of legitimate, government should ban itself … right? :-p

Jeremy, you read into the message things you should not. I have said nothing about what I believe regarding vices (whether they should be regulated or not). It appears to me that you have an agenda that you wish to push that is unrelated to the issue at hand.

You have removed my words from their context and have misconstrued their meaning. This is a form of deception. If you read my statements again, you will recognize that they are a commentary of the way things are in this country. I am telling you to pick your battles. You will not make the government loosen their grip on the vices by incorporating the eating of fast food into their ranks. This will only tighten that grip around the throat of the people. You will be more successful in disqualifying things as vices than you will in lumping other things in and saying, “therefore, no vice should be prohibited.”

Whether you consider “general consensus” a valid principle does not negate the fact that the only way to achieve anything in a non-tyrannical society is through consensus, convincing others of your point of view. Is that a principle? It sure is. People are assets and exchange creates wealth, let alone other non-enumerated principles that we never talk about. If policy is implemented without consensus, it is called tyranny, even if it is the right policy.

Jason has a good point, which is ignored by many of the patriotic sheep. Just because you are morally, philosophically or ethically correct does not change reality. If you don’t have a consensus about what is right, it matters very little. Consensus does not determine what is right, but also what is right does not determine what actually happens. Being right is not enough. We must use the most effective strategy for promoting what is right.