Morality should be legislated

Pro makes an interesting response to my argument. However, he makes some claims that I need to address. "All I mean by "morality should be legislated" is that beliefs about what is right and wrong should be legislated." This statement by pro clarifies nothing. Recall that pro defined morality as beliefs about right and wrong. Therefore, he is not telling us any new information by replacing the word morality with its definition. This is a tautology. The justification for government is that people constantly use force against each other, and that there must be some protection from this abuse of force. Crafting a government based on the NAP is not legislating morality but protecting rights. Reason and libertarianism provide an objective standard for the role of government. Pro's assertion that the "inner compass of general humanity" is the standard by which government should be run provides a subjective, extremely and deliberately vague means of determining the proper role of government. Pro has failed to provided an objective justification for the existence of a government, much less that government must dictate morality to its citizens, as pro must show. The NAP does not provide a complete definition of morality, as I have explained, and an act violating it is not necessarily more or less immoral than any other immoral act. For example, stealing a dollar may not necessarily be more immoral than cheating on one's wife, but only stealing would fall under government's proper power. Pro gives us a very telling example which I will use to illustrate the crux of the debate and debunk pro's position. "Today homosexuality is legal not because people have decided not to legislate morality but because they have decided homosexuality is not really wrong." Pro has essentially implied that if homosexuality were wrong, it should be illegal. However, as homosexuality is not in violation of the nonaggression principle, it should be legal regardless of whether it is right or wrong. I, for one, believe homosexual acts are morally wrong, but I have admitted they should not be illegal. Homosexuality is legal (in some places) because of two factors: some people have decided it's not wrong, and some have decided not to legislate morality. Now, I want to clear up any misconceptions about evolution. By not banning the teaching of evolution, I am not enforcing my morality on others. It's that simple. Pro claims, "In some instances (banning the teaching of evolution) may be fair, in some instances it may be unfair." This harkens back to my point about pro having no objective standard. It is absolutely unfair for the government to ban the teaching of evolution. This is an objective, not a subjective, statement. Pro cannot say whether it is fair or unfair because he lacks an objective standard for government. He is like a Sophist from the time of Socrates, not being able to come to an objective conclusion based on sound reasoning from first principles. [1] Morality is not a system of beliefs about what should or should not be legal, but what is right and wrong, by definition. Being morally wrong does not qualify something to be illegal, and beliefs should not be dictated by the government. Deciding what should be legal is not a matter of "legislating the majority's morality against the minority's morality," but of using completely objective reason by methods I describe in the first round. Sources 1- http://www.iep.utm.edu...