Morality should be legislated

As he is making a positive claim, the burden of proof is on him. However, as he has kindly invited me to go right ahead, I will save a little time later by explaining my case. The first obvious question that one must ask in a topic such as this one is "What should the government do? " In other words, by what objective criteria ought we judge whether the government should legislate a given item? The answer depends on the natural rights of man. To start with, we have a few definitions. I define a non-aggressor as one who does not violate the person or property rights of others through physical force or threat of physical force. Secondly, I will define a government as an entity possessing, or claiming to possess, a monopoly or near monopoly on the use of force. Secondly, I define the non aggression principle (hereafter NAP) as the following: "The initiation of physical force or the threat of doing so against a person or his property is morally wrong. " From this simple, guiding principle, the entire ideology of libertarianism/classical liberalism is derived. Third, I will define "libertarianism" as "the political philosophy consistent with the NAP. " Finally, I define society as "The aggregate of people living together in a community," a slightly shortened version of the Oxford dictionary definition. However, to attempt to derive this position without demonstrating or at least providing justification for the truth of its fundamental principle would commit the fallacy of begging the question. Although the concept of not taking people's property or hurting their person is intuitive, intuition has led mankind to all sorts of illogical or reprehensible behaviours ranging from communism to geocentricism. Consider a very fundamental question; who is entitled to the ownership of a person? Intuitively, the person himself would own his person. There are essentially two alternatives: that one class of persons owns another, or that everyone is owned by society. I won't spend much time on the former option of class ownership as I highly doubt this audience believes in the divine right of kings or any other such nonsense. Instead, I will address the question of whether each individual is owned by society as a whole. This implies that if "n" number of people live in a society, everyone owns a "1/n"th share of everyone else. In other words, the ownership of an individual is divided evenly among members of a society. However, it is illogical to suggest that others have a more legitimate claim on your person than you have on your own. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that an individual owns everyone except himself. Therefore, the only logical answer to this question is that each individual is entitled to the ownership of his person. Obviously, if each person is entitled to the fundamental right of self-ownership, then we have solved the problem of initiating violent force against a person. That would clearly violate this right, and must therefore be wrong. However, my opponent may rightfully object that we have not yet proven to satisfaction the question of fundamental property rights. We will now show that property rights are a direct consequence of self ownership. If I own my own person, than it follows that I own my labour. If I own my own labour, than it follows that I own the fruits of my labour, and this we call property. Property is created by mixing labour with resources, and by doing so, so long as the resources are not the property of another person. Therefore, if I possess ownership of my property, it is morally wrong to initiate force, or to threaten the initiation of force, against my property. This completes our justification of the NAP. However, there is one very significant question left: what should we do to those who violate this principle? The only satisfactory answer is to retaliate with force. Those who ignore reason in favor of force must face forceful consequences. This is where government comes in. If individuals are unable to maintain the NAP on their own because they are outgunned, a state is necessary to monopolize force and minimize the use of aggressive force. This is the justification for having a state in the first place. Now, morality is somewhat different from our exercise. Some activities widely considered immoral, such as cheating on a spouse or verbal bullying, do not fall under the realm of government as these actions do not violate the NAP. Whilst some immoral actions, such as murder and rape, do fall under the NAP and therefore the proper jurisdiction of government, government's job is not to dictate morality to its citizens. That's all for now. Good luck to pro.