Earlier quoted context omitted.
The failure to obtain a college education has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those failing to be college graduates. Failure to be a college graduate affects the ability to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, failure to be a college graduate might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or injure themselves…
We require people to get a high school education for precisely the reasons you state.
Legalize It All
291–293 of 293 posts
Re: Legalize It All
#292"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." While I enjoy the recent surge in popularity of such a movement, my primary issue with drug policy is that it is unconstituti…
Interstate commerce is the justification - that's why it's illegal to possess certain substances, but not to be under their influence. It's very difficult to make the banning of heroin unconstitutional without also making the FDA's food-safety measures much more difficult.
Re: Legalize It All
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nor does it explain the original Prohibition, a single paragraph of law that created an explosion of organized crime, reclassified a tremendous percentage of American adults as lawbreakers, and filled prisons. Prohibition is a timeless, recurring issue. I think it comes from something even more timeless: moral authoritarianism. The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. The purit…
> The urge felt by many people to force their neighbor to do things the Right Way. This is an innate aspect of society. See: murder, sexual assault, etc. Morality is a human construct. The real question is where to draw the line, and the answer isn't immediately clear, even in a court of law. I do agree with you though that moral conservatism needs to move on from the 1950s.
No, those rules are about protecting me from my neighbor. They're perfectly reasonable, both as timeless moral norms and as law.
The problems begin when I want to control my neighbor's behavior in ways that have nothing to do with protection. If I feel the need, for example, to prohibit him from having a gay relationship because it's against my religion. Or telling him that smoking one plant is fine, but if he smokes a different kind of plant I'll call men with guns over to his house to stop him.
That is what I mean by moral authoriarianism.