From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 14:42:57 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?
>
> platt 7-16-05:
> Sure, like capturing and punishing those who aided and abetted the
> British terrorists. <snip the boiler plate yada, yada,yada...>
So now when I make a point with a specific example, it's boilerplate. When
you do the same it's profound philosophical insight.
> msh 7-16-05:
> Let's focus on domestic issues within our own society, shall we?
Talk about lateral shifts. I thought we were discussing what makes for a
moral society. Now you want to restrict it to just the U.S.
> 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?
Now you pull another lateral shift, this time asking for moral
justification for specific laws and regulations, and endless list
obviously employed as a smokescreen to avoid talking about the
philosophical underpinnings of a moral society. I mean, why not ask about
the moral justification for dog catching, jay-walking, public fornication,
etc., etc.?
> msh 7-16-05:
> 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?
Skewed? Only to one who love's government power like you. Definition of
government from Wikipedia:
"One approach is to define government as the dominant decision-making
arm of the state, and define the latter on the basis of the control it has
over violence and the use of force within its territory. Specifically, the
state (and by extension the government) has been considered by some
to be the entity that holds a monopoly on legitimate use of violence within
its territory. This view has been taken by the political economist Max
Weber and subsequent political philosophers."
> 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.
For the morality of biological vice, see Pirsig. Running red lights and
other vehicle violations are life-endangering, as is a perp who speeds
trying to elude a legitimate police order. (Interesting you put the blame
for life-endangerment on the police, not the perp. I'll never understand
liberals who love government intrusion into the lives of law-abiding
private citizens but hate "pigs.")
> 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.
Sure, irrational, as if the life-saving drugs you care so much about
aren't 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.
Not at all. It goes to the heart of privacy issues which must be taken
into account in a moral society, unless you think privacy is irrelevant in
your government "uber alles" philosophy..
> Let's say the referendum
> spells out all the details to your satisfaction.
Let's say you spell out the details. It's your hypothetical.
> 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?
> 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.
What is the MOQ-based moral justification for anybody caring?
> 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.
Considering the number of comments your proposals have engendered, I
suspect you've laid an egg.
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 : Sun Jul 17 2005 - 14:47:57 BST