From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 22:13:03 BST
> msh 7-16-05:
> Ok, then I've misunderstood you. My apologies. Which part of this
> paragraph is wrong? Are you agreeing with me that government should
> regulate the behavior of its citizens when such behavior is shown to
> be destructive of society?
Sure, like capturing and punishing those who aided and abetted the
British terrorists. Thankfully by blowing themselves up, those who set off
the bombs saved society the trouble of hunting them down and bringing them
to justice. Biological forces that threaten society must be met
forcefully. The problem, as Pirsig points, out is that a lot of
intellectuals have taken biology's side -- like those who sympathize with
terrorists.
> platt 7-16-05:
> Taxes are a government intrusion into private lives backed by force.
> If you don't believe it, don't pay them and see what happens. Then
> write to tell us.
>
> msh 7-16-05:
> But you say below that it's ok to collect taxes for public services,
> if those taxes have been approved by a vote. Or have I
> misunderstood you, again? So what do you mean when you say "Taxes
> are a government intrusion into private lives backed by force?"
Exactly what I said. Whether voted for or not is irrelevant. Somehow the
ultimate nature of government -- legalized force -- escapes you.
> msh 7-16-05:
> This is a Platteral Shift. Let's assume you have the opportunity to
> vote on a referendum which calls for a shifting of tax funds from non-
> life-saving police work to a service which provides life-saving drugs to
> people who need them and can't afford them.
>
> What would be your MOQ-based moral justification for voting against
> such a referendum?
What is non-life-saving police work? (In my book, protecting property is
life saving.) Who determines who needs drugs and can't afford them?
> platt 7-16-05:
> Now if you want to impose Hillary care on U.S. citizens so they have
> to wait for weeks to get basic medical care, why don't you just come
> out an say so?
>
> Next you'll being saying the MOQ justifies a minimum guaranteed
> income for everybody. Geez.
>
> msh 7-16-05:
> I'll leave these remarks for the record. These comments are meant to
> disparage my argument without addressing it, and to evade honest
> discussion. I will ignore them.
You keep talking about "the record" as if our dialogue was talking place
on floor of the U.S. Senate. I can hear Ted Kennedy now: "Just for the
record, let it be shown . . . blah, blah, blah." What's the point of
"the record"?
Furthermore, you keep tossing up hypotheticals, but when it comes to
issues that have actually been proposed, you duck and run. Seems to me if
you're really interested in a moral society, you'll take a stand on
genuine proposals.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 16 2005 - 23:14:26 BST