> Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense.

This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges without admitting fault are without sin, because obviously it was all legal.

If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.

This whole thing is nothing more than just world fallacy.

Instead of looking at individual circumstances, people falsely assume (backwards logic) that bad things could have only happened to bad people (e.g. convictions) are dead set on revising their view of an event (well, if it happened, they must have deserved it!)

> If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.

And illegal, but moral.

I think people are more against criminals, because they go against the rules of society. The norms and rules of society are more important and mean more than most of the actual crimes. Me stealing $5 from someone is not going to do much harm, but people will want to punished not for the crime necessarily, instead for breaking the rules that bind us together and make us civil.

The only thing that separates savages from the civil are the laws and rules of a society, if you break those rules you are not just doing the moral harm in breaking the rule, but doing harm against the society as a whole.

The rules of society can be absolutely abhorrent. A savage act that is legal doesnt become anymore civilized by being the majority opinion of society.

> The only thing that separates savages from the civil are the laws and rules of a society, if you break those rules you are not just doing the moral harm in breaking the rule, but doing harm against the society as a whole.

Nonsense! You're making exactly the mistake of confusing laws with morals, but many laws are deeply immoral, even when they reflect the "rules and norms" of a society.

Homosexuality used to be criminalized. Interracial sexual relations used to be criminalized. Contraception used to be criminalized. In all these case, that was based on the "rules and norms" of society. Has moving on from those "rules and norms" harmed our society? Have the individuals prosecuted under those laws harmed our society? I dare say no.

> 'Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense.'

yes, people do take that mental shortcut from time to time, but it's because the legal system is supposed to reflect our collective moral code. when it doesn't, we should fix the legal code to match.

but listening to the kavanaugh hearing yesterday, it looks like things will get worse before they get better. kavanaugh was unfortunately partisan in his rebuttal, but the appalling part is that no one--especially not politicians--is discussing partisanship as a legitimate reason for disqualification. no matter your politics, you do not want partisanship in the courts.

> "I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government"

this is too simplistically ideological. are you really completely against patriotism? while schools do contribute to teaching deference, it's because communities believe in living together harmoniously and benefit from such social norms.

what we really need is to apply better incentives to the legal system, which has long been insulated from popular influence due to the danger of partisanship mentioned above. as in the current medical system, lawyers make more money from increased amounts of conflict and more complicated laws. we need to flip that around so that the legal system makes a living form simplifying the legal system and reducing conflict.

and more to the point, we need to realize that there is no "law-abiding citizen". we all break the law from time to time and it doesn't mean we're all criminals. if anything, we need to address rampant cheating in schools, because that's disturbingly accepted shortcut to success. let's hold each other to a higher, more honorable standard.

>but the appalling part is that no one--especially not politicians--is discussing partisanship as a legitimate reason for disqualification...

In fairness, in the modern era, partisanship has been a requirement to be on the Court. Every justice on the court is either liberal or conservative. They would not have been nominated otherwise.

Don't misunderstand me, I agree that maybe partisanship shouldn't be a requirement. I'm just saying that from a pragmatic perspective, it is a requirement. You, unfortunately, can't get nominated if you are not partisan. Even if you could, you certainly would come up against stiff headwinds in the confirmation process. It's just easier to be partisan and have half of those votes on your side no matter what.

Oddly, the same exact process applies for commissioning new judges as applies for commissioning new military officers (either President or Senate subcommittee nominates, the other can veto), but you don't hear about there being any requirement of partisanship for military officers.

sure, partisanship goes into choosing the nominee, but in the past, the nominee’s politics was inferred from their rulings and other written works. but kavanaugh crossed a line into direct partisan bickering that’s unbecoming of a justice.

"are you really completely against patriotism?"

One of the founding principle of the American Republic was that the government is not the country. "We the people" and all that. Many would argue that to be a "true" American patriot one should be highly skeptical of government with skepticism increasing the farther removed it is from your local community.

but the government isn't something apart from ourselves. the government is us. the more we try to "other" it and give in to helplessness, the less effective we will be in controlling our collective destiny.

skepticism is healthy, dogmatism, not so much. yes, let's keep federal power in check (because it's too tempting to abuse and degenerate into authoritarianism), but no, let's not live in fear of it either.

I agree. Blind following of any doctrine can lead to failure and helplessness and fear are not good emotions to have all the time. But with the history of the continually increasing power and scope of government, especially the federal level, I would not say that the dogmatism of the skepticism of big government is really a bad thing. Especially if one has some skepticism of dogmatisms also.

This is why religion shouldnt ever be allowed in politics.

Look at all the political scumbags constantly talking about morals and god while laying waste to the lives of fellow humans.