Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 04:14:35 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Who's been asked to Leave?"

    > 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?

    platt 7-16-05:
    Sure, like capturing and punishing those who aided and abetted the
    British terrorists. <snip the boiler plate yada, yada,yada...>

    msh 7-16-05:
    Let's focus on domestic issues within our own society, shall we? In
    your opinion, is it ok to pass laws that enable the prosecution of
    drunk drivers? How about someone standing on a public corner holding
    a can of beer? How about someone in possession of drugs for personal
    use? If so, why?

    > 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?"

    platt 7-16-05:
    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:
    If people in a society have voted for taxes, how is collecting taxes
    an intrusion into private lives? This is like saying that someone
    who has been invited into a home is an intruder. Or, are you saying
    that people who didn't vote for the taxes are under no moral
    obligation to pay them?

    In a moral society, a truly representative government will use force
    to prevent or punish illegal behavior only when necessary. But I
    don't see this legalized use of force as the ultimate nature of
    government. Governments do all kinds of things other than provide
    the muscle for law enforcement; they create infrastructure and
    provide emergency services for example. So your understanding of
    government as "legalized force" seems terribly over-simplified, if
    not irrational. Can you elaborate on why you have this skewed view
    of government?

    > 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?

    platt 7-16-05:
    What is non-life-saving police work?

    msh 7-16-05:
    This is needless diversion from the hypothetical question I've asked.
    However, examples of non-life-saving police work might include the
    issuance of parking tickets; just about everything in any major
    city's vice squad; high speed pursuit of motorists who fail to stop
    when there is no reason to believe that the motorist is a threat to
    life (this particular activity qualifies not only as non-life-saving
    but life-endangering); traffic control, which can be handled far less
    expensively by other government employees. Etc.

    platt 7-16-05:
    (In my book, protecting property is life saving.)

    msh 7-16-05:
    Of this I have no doubt. However, such a belief is irrational, as
    can be verified by observing the actions of police and fire services
    who routinely save lives before property.

    platt 7-16-05:
    Who determines who needs drugs and can't afford them?

    msh 7-16-05:
    Doctors, and bank and employment records.

    But this is all meaningless diversion. Let's say the referendum
    spells out all the details to your satisfaction. You now have the
    opportunity to vote on this 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. Would you support such a referendum? If not, what would be
    your MOQ-based moral justification for voting against it?

     
    > 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.
     
    platt 7-16-05:
    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"?

    msh 7-16-05:
    The point is to make available, to anyone interested, the true course
    of this debate. So people new to the list, or people who have
    googled and found one of our exchanges, can go back and review the
    full conversation, and decide for themselves just who is ducking and
    running.

    platt 7-16-05:
    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.

    msh 7-16-05:
    I've proposed a number of societal changes, and have offered evidence
    and argument in favor of them. These are available to anyone who
    reviews the record, just as they are available to you.

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
    --
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com

    "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
    why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
    understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle

    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 : Sun Jul 17 2005 - 06:55:24 BST