Teaching respect for the law

[Figleaf]

I think I mean the child thinking she is doing the latter, but from the point of view of the law or society, doing the former sort of inadvertently.

The trouble with this query is that it seems to personify the State and presupposes that the State has an objective. Does the State have an objective?

Personified? I don't think so. But inasmuch as it has a purpose and is somewhat directed by human choices it does have a sort of 'life'. As for objective, the state almost certainly have several concurrent objectives it is carrying out.

[Charles Anthony]

As for objective, the state almost certainly have several concurrent objectives it is carrying out.

Define them in your question and I will take them for granted.

[Figleaf]

As for objective, the state almost certainly have several concurrent objectives it is carrying out.

Define them in your question and I will take them for granted.

I don't mean to be facetious, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean there.

Objectives change from time to time, though some are persistent. For example, one primary objective of all states I can think of is the defence and retention of their sovereignty. Other grand-scale objectives are the maintenance of order and increase of wealth. Smaller and more specific objectives are too plentiful to list.

[Charles Anthony]

Without meaning it, I think I have tripped you up.

Objectives change from time to time, though some are persistent.

As such, you are defining a question that has any answer. The answer to your question can be a simple YES by virtue of the fact that you are granting the State the right to make any objective it wants -- one of which could be to force submission and indoctrination of its laws.

For example, one primary objective of all states I can think of is the defence and retention of their sovereignty. Other grand-scale objectives are the maintenance of order and increase of wealth. Smaller and more specific objectives are too plentiful to list.

I challenge you to justify ANY of those as being general objectives of a State.

[marcinmoka]

Charles, if you could be so kind as to explain the reason behind the replies directed towards myself.

Not only is that highly debatable but it is unwise to assume that everybody who submits to our democracy agrees.

I never said everyone must agree. But if this is debatable (i.e. that a functioning democracy has provisions to appeal laws through structured mechanisms), I would love to hear the other side of the story. So please, commence the debate at your convenience.

Is that how you discern between a dictatorship and a democracy?

I could go on a long, theoretical spiel about the distinctions from a semantic, as well as historical perspective should you like. But for the sake of brevity, it's a start.

I challenge you to justify ANY of those as being general objectives of a State.

Charles, "da guvern-ment ain't out ta get ya" They are here to protect both me and you. Sure there a few bad apples here and there, but few and far in between.

If your pessimism is directed towards Canada, well, I hear Bogota, and Kabul are both lovely this time of year.

For the most part, we have inteligent, honest people ensuring our safety. Those are the sole objectives of the state. To "justify" said claim, I urge you to take a peek outside at the world:

What organs guarantee our safety and prosperity;

- military

- intelligence

- police / fire services

- judicial system

- educational system

I dissaprove of too much state interference, especially when it's in the domain of commerce or more personal matters which do not threaten security in any way shape or form, but in the end, that is their sole raison d'etre seeing as we are a democracy. It's rare I agree with figleaf, but he has a point, it is the primary grand scale objective.

[eXploiTeD]

No. Then it is not a democracy. If a democracy functions right, as ours, we have a fair justice system with built in mechanisms to prevent utter contempt of the law. If you take away this element, than it ceases being a democracy.

That is an awful large 'if.' What happens when those "built-in mechanisms" fail? When democracy ceases to protect human rights? When the majority of a country holds or are tolerant of violent, authoritarian beliefs?

No offense, but I find your position a bit naive. There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of examples of terrible atrocities committed by democracies. Where could I begin? Dresden? Iraq? The Phillippines? Cuba? Afghanistan? Venezuela? Iran? Locking up Japanese civilians during WWII? The Civil War? Nuking Japan? The wholesale extermination of tens of millions of Natives?

The point is, the victims of these atrocities have every right to defend themselves, including the use of lethal force. Who are you to deny them that right? Democracy is only valuable insofar as it protects human rights; if it does not, it has no more authority then a tinpot dictatorship.

In an authoritarian dictatorship, than one could argue a certain level of disobedience to the law. But since you are able to make such posts on the internet, I would assume you do not inhabit such conditions.

Absolutely. And that is why I said that I will teach my son to uphold certain moral obligations, and not necessarily his government, even one where he has a vote. Because that sort of thinking has done more to harm mankind than any other. That is also why I was speaking hypothetically; of course, you chose to put words in my mouth in order to further your defense.

Point being, in our society, you can't just decide willy nilly....I don't like that law because it's immoral. Your morality differs from everyone else, so it cannot form the basis of our decision making process, otherwise we face the dissolution of a functioning society.

I'm not asking for my morality to form a basis of your decision-making process. Frankly, I could care less about how you come to your decisions. The point is, certain decisions are mine, and will always be mine, and if anyone - including a democratically endorsed police force - tries to take them away in an obvious and gross manner, I will use whatever force is necessary to defend myself.

For instance, let's say, for whatever reason, Canada requires a military draft. Drafts are a form of slavery; they may be legal, and even democratic, but they are nonetheless a direct and obvious infringement upon my civil liberties. If I refuse to report to the draft office, and police show up to ensure I do, it is within my rights to do what is necessary to get away.

[marcinmoka]

That is an awful large 'if.' What happens when those "built-in mechanisms" fail?

I see you re-read my post, as I answered this in the next paragraph. "if" something like this happens, than it fails to be a democracy.

Notice how in all the examples you provided, the "moral" aspect of the law eventually triumphed, usually as a result of these mechanisms coming into play. In other words, they were corrected as much as they could. As for dictatorships where mechanisms do not exist, I will not argue one must abide by all the rules, since there is NO OTHER OPTION. But what I am referring to is law in a democratic society.

Democracy is only valuable insofar as it protects human rights;

And these human rights are governed (i.e enforced) by a legal system.

And that is why I said that I will teach my son to uphold certain moral obligations,

And this is my point. You will teach your son, and I will teach mine, and everyone will teach their children to abide by their own personal moral codes. And what will happen? The legal system will dissolve and society will cease to be stable, since morality is subjective. What's morally good for some, is evil for others.

The point is, certain decisions are mine, and will always be mine, and if anyone

Like it or not, but this is the same principle upon which many criminal gangs operate. And the last thing I would want to see is their proliferation in society, seeing as it would hardly be of benefit to the rest of us.

[Charles Anthony]

Like it or not, but this is the same principle upon which many criminal gangs operate. And the last thing I would want to see is their proliferation in society, seeing as it would hardly be of benefit to the rest of us.

Like it or not, but that is the same principle upon which many democracies operate.

Charles, if you could be so kind as to explain the reason behind the replies directed towards myself.

Gladly but only if you are willing to clarify a particular aspect of your point of view below.

I dissaprove of too much state interference, especially when it's in the domain of commerce or more personal matters which do not threaten security in any way shape or form,

Why do you disapprove of too much state interference in those instances?

Do you recognize that there is actually state interference in those instances you list?

How much state interference do YOU recognize as morally acceptable?

Do you recognize that not everybody in a "democracy" agrees with you?

If you can not address those three questions above, I see no reason for us to talk past eachother because your previous differentiation between a dictatorship and a democracy is lacking.

[marcinmoka]

The point is, certain decisions are mine, and will always be mine, and if anyone - including a democratically endorsed police force - tries to take them away in an obvious and gross manner, I will use whatever force is necessary to defend myself.

Charles, do you believe that this is how democracies operate? That the wishes of the individual control the laws of the majority? Are you serious? Did you even read this quote?

Gladly but only if you are willing to clarify a particular aspect of your point of view below.

I was going to say, you first, but heck, why not.

Why do you disapprove of too much state interference in those instances?

Creates inefficiencies. If you want the nitty gritty, le voila Intervention

Do you recognize that there is actually state interference in those instances you list?

Yes sir, but just enough to prevent chaos and anarchy.

How much state interference do YOU recognize as morally acceptable?

Who said "my morality" has anything to do with it? I definitely did not. Whereas if you would like to gauge my moral views on an issue, it would be best to present scenarios in detail, because lumping everything from healthcare, to military service, to police services, to religious freedoms, to marriage is...well....absurd.

Do you recognize that not everybody in a "democracy" agrees with you?

Of course, this is a principal of democracy. I'm just curious by nature, and want to know the reasons for which, and preferably articulated in a coherent, rational non cryptic manner.

(Mind you, your quasi socratic method isn't too bad since it challenges me to defend my view points, but now it's your turn. Cheers)

[marcinmoka]

The ultra lite definition:

DICTATORSHIP

Government by a single person or group of people who are in no way held responsible to the general population. Their discretion in using the powers and resources of the state is unrestrained by any fixed legal or constitutional rules.

DEMOCRACY

a form of government in which the majority hold the power, either by voting for measures directly or by voting for representatives who vote for them.

[Charles Anthony]

Charles, do you believe that this is how democracies operate? That the wishes of the individual control the laws of the majority? Are you serious? Did you even read this quote?

Yes, I am serious. The only salient feature that distinguishes "democracies" is that there is an organized method of switching leadership and it is peaceful. The ultimate control placed upon the majority of individuals is the same.

Creates inefficiencies. If you want the nitty gritty, le voila Intervention

Good. I can work with that and thankfully it makes my end of the discussion easier.

Yes sir, but just enough to prevent chaos and anarchy.

-- to prevent anarchy, I agree.

-- to prevent chaos, maybe but I am not convinced of that.

Who said "my morality" has anything to do with it? I definitely did not.

You most definitely did. You just made a moral judgment call above by demanding government-created inefficiencies in some cases but not others to prevent chaos and anarchy.

Why should chaos or anarchy be prevented?

Of course, this is a principal of democracy. I'm just curious by nature, and want to know the reasons for which, and preferably articulated in a coherent, rational non cryptic manner.

I am going to cut to the chase:

1) I do not believe anybody has the right to impose their will upon anybody else -- unless in self-defense.

2) I believe everybody has the right to own and defend a patch of land.

3) I believe in an absolute free market resulting from 1) and 2) above.

(Mind you, your quasi socratic method isn't too bad since it challenges me to defend my view points, but now it's your turn. Cheers)

Hmm.... you give me more intellectual credit than anybody else in this whole forum! Thanks!

[Catchme]

Having the right to impose your will upon others, in cases of self defense is a very broad point of view, I have been finding. And have come to the conclusion, it would only be acceptable if it was a direct immediate situation. Other than that, any actions against others in society for a perceived threat, no matter by how many, is wrong and a serious threat to that democracy.

[marcinmoka]

I am going to cut to the chase:

1) I do not believe anybody has the right to impose their will upon anybody else -- unless in self-defense.

2) I believe everybody has the right to own and defend a patch of land.

3) I believe in an absolute free market resulting from 1) and 2) above.

So, in political terms, you are somewhere between a libertarian and (closet) anarchist, correct?

The only salient feature that distinguishes "democracies" is that there is an organized method of switching leadership and it is peaceful. The ultimate control placed upon the majority of individuals is the same.

So you believe that there are "powers that be" which control us i.e "ultimate control". Please feel free to explain, who are these powers?

You most definitely did. You just made a moral judgment call above by demanding government-created inefficiencies in some cases but not others to prevent chaos and anarchy

Please define morality? (If you care to see mine, dig up my post or go my homepage and scroll down.)

Mind you I find morality to be non existent in laws stating we must drive on the right hand side of the road. Do you? There is nothing inherently good, or inherently evil about choosing to drive on one side of the road over another.

While this law leads us to the same ends (instituting a law, so as to prevent chaos, so as to reduce fatalities), this arbitrary decision was devoid of all morality, and regardless of your personal morality, must be respected. And to take a page out of Hart, we can use morality to evaluate the law, but it was not based on morality [even though the Christian tradition believes the "right" to be good (side of God), and "left" to be evil (side of Satan)].

[Figleaf]

Without meaning it, I think I have tripped you up.

Objectives change from time to time, though some are persistent.

As such, you are defining a question that has any answer. The answer to your question can be a simple YES by virtue of the fact that you are granting the State the right to make any objective it wants -- one of which could be to force submission and indoctrination of its laws.

In democratic states, the state should be making or taking only those objectives that accord with the good of the people as they themselves broadly see it. In totalitarians states these strictures may not apply. In either case, it seems to me that the state may perceive an interest in not raising children who are inculcated against it. In the case of democracies, this is arguably legitimate, isn't it? And in the case of both kinds of societies, is in the childrens' interest to be inculcated against it?

For example, one primary objective of all states I can think of is the defence and retention of their sovereignty. Other grand-scale objectives are the maintenance of order and increase of wealth. Smaller and more specific objectives are too plentiful to list.

I challenge you to justify ANY of those as being general objectives of a State.

Okay, let's leave aside totalitarian states whose legitimacy would fail on numerous grounds anyway and discuss democratic states, like Canada. The objective of maintaining sovereignty is a default position -- if the populace wants a government, then to meet that want the government will have to sustain itself.

Maintaining order and increasing wealth are objectives that I presume citizens would find desireable, and that they may ask government to carry out.

[Figleaf]

Why should chaos or anarchy be prevented?

Well, obviously you apply different meanings for each of those respectively. So...

Anarchy does not need to be prevented, as it does not exist and cannot exist. It's a theoretical notion without applicability in the real world -- a thought experiment, sort of like irrational numbers, or a stone too heavy for god to lift.

Chaos should be prevented because it would stand in the way of most common human wants.

[sharkman]

I've been staying out of this thread because I thought the premise a fool's errand but I couldn't quite put my finger on why.

In our culture, respect for the law is a learned behaviour just as most other learned behaviours. And where do children get most of their education on society from today? Pop culture, that's where. TV, movies, and video games. Perhaps you see my point. Respect for the law, and by extension authority, is at an all time low in these mediums. Since children spend the majority of their day occupied with these mediums, they are taught to respect no one and demand whatever their little heart fancies.

My wife is a school teacher, and time and time again, when she catches little Johnny cheating on a test, the parents defend the child and assume the teacher somehow is wrong. Then they bargain for another chance. When this behaviour (which the parents no doubt got from pop culture themselves as children) is modelled in front of the child, they have no chance.

[Charles Anthony]

SharkMan,

I disagree. One of us might have the cart ahead of the horse. I believe that pop culture, the media, whatever are all consequences as opposed to causes of social behavior.

I believe this thread is important because I believe respect for the law is a derivative of a child's upbringing -- in other words, the parents. How a parent scolds a child, how a parent behaves to other children (read: favoritism and shunning) or adults, and so on are part of what creates a child as a social entity.

Respect for the law, and by extension authority, is at an all time low in these mediums. Since children spend the majority of their day occupied with these mediums, they are taught to respect no one and demand whatever their little heart fancies.

Maybe part of that is natural and the pendulum is swinging.

More properly, you should say: "Respect for State law, and by extension State authority, is at an all time low in these mediums too." I just saw a television program that had a parent dealing drugs with children who publicly humiliate a hypocritical drug-taking city counsellor. The children also want to help run the family business. A local D.E.A. officer is also in cahoots.

Chaos should be prevented because it would stand in the way of most common human wants.

I agree.

In democratic states, the state should be making or taking only those objectives that accord with the good of the people as they themselves broadly see it. In totalitarians states these strictures may not apply.

Two things:

1) acting upon any conception of "the good of the people" is done by individuals

2) it would be wise to examine why such objectives may not apply in totalitarian states; I would say because of level of power and control

In either case, it seems to me that the state may perceive an interest in not raising children who are inculcated against it. In the case of democracies, this is arguably legitimate, isn't it? And in the case of both kinds of societies, is in the childrens' interest to be inculcated against it?

This is a restatement of the Original Premise of the thread. Beneath it all, it assumes that a state is distinct from the individuals that comprise it.

I maintain that when we say The State all we are doing is personifying organized coercion of many individuals. We are putting a human form to something that does not exist. It is analogous to us reducing green-house gas emissions as a ritual sacrifice because a wise voodoo doctor told us it would appease the ancient god who controls climate change.

Ultimately, rightly or wrongly, statehood and government are just a sublime power-grab between individuals.

Okay, let's leave aside totalitarian states whose legitimacy would fail on numerous grounds anyway and discuss democratic states, like Canada. The objective of maintaining sovereignty is a default position -- if the populace wants a government, then to meet that want the government will have to sustain itself.

I disagree.

[First, I think it is important to understand why totalitarian states are illegitimate. Certainly, that is probably best for a different thread but the connection might undermine your position if it can not be proven or even if more and more people do not believe there is a difference.]

Second and more to your point, if more and more people think of government services as I do, it might be rational to consider that statist authority can gradually become powerless. I believe what you said "if the populace wants a government" is very important because ultimately, the power and the authority of a state is supported and can be undermined by the populace. I like reminding people that voter turn out over the past several years is not rising.

This:

Maintaining order and increasing wealth are objectives that I presume citizens would find desireable, and that they may ask government to carry out.

sounds like a concession.

I agree with you. However, look at two things:

1) citizens may not agree with the method of how government carries these "objectives" out -- they may believe that a laissez-faire mode achieves that result best

2) citizens may not agree with those "objectives" at all

What if we observed that the overwhelming majority of citizens find free health-care to be desirable? We could probably agree that we should expect them to make that an "objective" of government. However, health care is not free.

My point is that attributing "objectives" to a government really amounts to a reshuffling of responsibility from one individual to an other.

Now, back to the principle of the Opening Post: let me ignore whether there is an objective for a moment.

Is there an incentive or a practical method for representatives of "The State" to enforce such an objective if citizens simply

begrudgingly obey or teach obedience out of prudence? I think not.

So, in political terms, you are somewhere between a libertarian and (closet) anarchist, correct?

Shhh! Please do not tell anybody.

So you believe that there are "powers that be" which control us i.e "ultimate control". Please feel free to explain, who are these powers?

Of course there are people with more power than other people: law enforcement agents.

Please define morality? (If you care to see mine, dig up my post or go my homepage and scroll down.)

My definition of morality starts by stepping out of the dictionary: a method of determining right from wrong among human behavior.

Now, I have to define and distinguish both right and wrong.

right -- a respect for freedom

wrong -- a violation of freedom

Mind you I find morality to be non existent in laws stating we must drive on the right hand side of the road. Do you? There is nothing inherently good, or inherently evil about choosing to drive on one side of the road over another.

I agree.

While this law leads us to the same ends (instituting a law, so as to prevent chaos, so as to reduce fatalities), this arbitrary decision was devoid of all morality, and regardless of your personal morality, must be respected.

Let me just say this:

- whoever owns the road dictates who is permitted upon it.

- you would not expect a "democracy" to decide how you should shovel your drive-way.

And to take a page out of Hart, we can use morality to evaluate the law, but it was not based on morality [even though the Christian tradition believes the "right" to be good (side of God), and "left" to be evil (side of Satan)].

H.L.A.? I have never read any of his stuff. I wonder how he defines morality.

Also, I see nothing inherently wrong with different laws.

[sharkman]

Charles, do you think that pop culture, TV movies and video games, have no influence on kids compared to their parents? That's what you appear to believe, although you don't directly address it.

Children spend hours a day absorbed in these mediums, which BTW also teach that parents are not cool. Kids to not spend nearly as much time with their parents. I believe the winner of influence is the one the child is immersed in more.

How a parent scolds a child and treats otherr children is a factor, but if the child spends 3 hours a day immersed in pop culture and 1 hour a day with their parents, which will have more influence on the child?

[Charles Anthony]

I can appreciate that "a village raises a child blah blah blah" is an influence.

Kids to not spend nearly as much time with their parents. I believe the winner of influence is the one the child is immersed in more.

I disagree because a child starts in life dependent on a parent for its most basic needs. A parent is the first person to convey (or fail to convey?) an appreciation of consequences to actions.

Parents hold the first concept of social authority in a child's life. Television, pop music and hoola-hoops are not going to feed, bathe, clothe, shelter or love a child.

[marcinmoka]

right -- a respect for freedom

wrong -- a violation of freedom

Okay fair enough.

Let's put this in a situational context.

- Do you feel that stopping at a red light is a violation of your freedom (i.e. wrong).

- If you were bent on taking part in an honour killing, and the "victim", due to cultural circumstances, does not wish to bring her family more "shame" by informing the authorities, and the state intervenes to stop this act, would yo consider it a violation of YOUR freedom.

- If you choose to say, sell explosives or RPG's out of the back of your car to the higgest bidder, and the state intervenes in your commercial transactions, is that wrong?

It seems we always claim we don't need the government......until our house is on fire, or our roads are no longer drivable, or our life is in danger, or we were treated unfairly. In other words, when the times are good, fegetabouhdem' , but when they turn sour, we come whimpering back for more.

[Charles Anthony]

Okay fair enough.

Let's put this in a situational context.

Let me put it where it belongs.

[sharkman]

I can appreciate that "a village raises a child blah blah blah" is an influence.

Kids to not spend nearly as much time with their parents. I believe the winner of influence is the one the child is immersed in more.

I disagree because a child starts in life dependent on a parent for its most basic needs. A parent is the first person to convey (or fail to convey?) an appreciation of consequences to actions.

Parents hold the first concept of social authority in a child's life. Television, pop music and hoola-hoops are not going to feed, bathe, clothe, shelter or love a child.

This is not the village concept. Pop culture doesn't have to do any of those things you mentioned to influence a child. This concept I am supporting is why advertising works, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Haven't you seen kids in the store insisting that they get such and such a toy or seen what goes on their christmas lists? When the commercials are over on TV, the influence doesn't simply stop until the next set of commercials.

[Charles Anthony]

Haven't you seen kids in the store insisting that they get such and such a toy or seen what goes on their christmas lists?

Yes. However, a television set has never turned itself off nor told me I am watching too much junk nor kicked me in the ass nor sent me to bed without my supper nor bought me any junk for Christmas.

[eXploiTeD]

I see you re-read my post, as I answered this in the next paragraph. "if" something like this happens, than it fails to be a democracy.

Incorrect. Democracy is rule by the people... that says nothing about what decisions are made, or how they are carried out. If 75% of the population decides they hate Jewish people, and they enact laws that ban it's practice, that is both legal and democratic.

Notice how in all the examples you provided, the "moral" aspect of the law eventually triumphed, usually as a result of these mechanisms coming into play. In other words, they were corrected as much as they could. As for dictatorships where mechanisms do not exist, I will not argue one must abide by all the rules, since there is NO OTHER OPTION. But what I am referring to is law in a democratic society.

And when the law of a democratic society becomes corrupt or hateful, I will instruct my children to disobey it, even when all of their friends disagree with them.

Your attempt to define democracy as basically any government that respects human rights and allows the vote is 100% incorrect. It is any government that rules according to the wishes of it's people, regardless of what those wishes might be.

And these human rights are governed (i.e enforced) by a legal system.

Right. Which is not necessarily the case in a democracy, as history has shown.

And this is my point. You will teach your son, and I will teach mine, and everyone will teach their children to abide by their own personal moral codes. And what will happen? The legal system will dissolve and society will cease to be stable, since morality is subjective. What's morally good for some, is evil for others.

Absurd. For one, assuming that the State has anything to do with teaching morality is patently false. Parents already provide their children with vastly different moral codes, and yet the legal system has not dissolved, has it?

For two, while certain grey areas exist, all moral codes hold theft, murder, assault, rape, usury and fraud to be morally wrong. These are subjective standards, yes, but standards that are generally agreed upon by the vast majority of people. And it is with these standards alone that government ought to be primarily concerned.

Like it or not, but this is the same principle upon which many criminal gangs operate.

Actually, criminal gangs operate in precisely the same manner that governments do: using social coercion backed by physical violence, they decide to seize others money while pretending to provide them with certain services, i.e. "protection."

You defend this by insisting that because morality is subjective, society ought to be able to inflict upon the individual whatever it pleases, so long as most people agree with it.

To use a hypothetical, let's pretend a rich, spoiled brat is walking down the street with $500 in her purse. She intends to use this $500 to buy a pair of shoes. Passing by a bunch of homeless people, who ask her for change, she refuses to give them any money. Half-starved, the homeless decide to steal her purse. Using the money obtained in the theft, they are able to feed themselves for a month and a half.

Two things: first, while it is clear that more good came from the theft than would otherwise have occurred, it is also true that it was not the bums decision to make. In other words, unless you can provide a legitimate justification for State power over the individual, you are simply arguing that "might equals right," and that because "morality is subjective," society ought to hold precedent over the individual. This is obviously absurd, and your thinking in this matter is fuzzy and ill-defined.

[marcinmoka]

If 75% of the population decides they hate Jewish people, and they enact laws that ban it's practice, that is both legal and democratic.

What are you refering to? Hope it's not Germany (33-45). Is that how the laws came to be?

Quite a different take on history. I was under the impression that shortly after Hitler's election, a democracy was in essence, no more, since all legislative powers were esentially "handed" to the Nazi's.

And when the law of a democratic society becomes corrupt or hateful, I will instruct my children to disobey it, even when all of their friends disagree with them.

Feel free. But don't expect sympathy or support when face a face to sanctions.

It is any government that rules according to the wishes of it's people, regardless of what those wishes might be.

That is called a Mob Rule. I am refering to a democracy (see my definition) as we know in Canada, U.S, Japan, most of Europe, India, etc. You may consider Iraq a full blown democracy but I don't.

The simple act of voting (at least in my books, and most others) does not make a democracy. But if you choose to define it as such, feel free.

Which is not necessarily the case in a democracy, as history has shown.

Please show. I am curious. And remember, wrongs can happen (as I stated), the difference is that they are corrected by these "mechanisms"

For one, assuming that the State has anything to do with teaching morality is patently false

Absurd? Of course it is, since you attributed something to myself that I am a proponant against. The state teaches law, not morality.

For two, while certain grey areas exist, all moral codes hold theft, murder, assault, rape, usury and fraud to be morally wrong

Really.

THEFT - The myth of Robin Hood, (a.k.a. stealing from the rich to give to the poor) is widely accepted by socialists the world over. May Day was yersterday, and already, we have forgotten Mr. Chavez.

MURDER - Honour killings, sacrificies, war, all manifestations of different moral outlooks which DO NOT hold murder to be wrong.

RAPE - In a few (been a while since I brushed up on my anthro) pre- legal,morally based primitive societies, it is still a valid, morally correct manner of settling property disputes.

Bottom line, if these elements were all morally wrong, and we are dictated by our morality, than why do these things occur?