From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 17 2005 - 17:18:16 BST
Hi all,
On 17 Jul 2005 at 9:42, Platt Holden wrote:
> > 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 7-17-05:
It's boilerplate because it is simply repeating your well-known
stance on the need to seek out and destroy terrorists. Besides, I
agree that capturing and punishing the people behind the London
bombings (or any other violent criminal activity) is a legitimate use
of government resources.
> msh 7-16-05:
> Let's focus on domestic issues within our own society, shall we?
platt 7-17-05:
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.
msh 7-17-05:
No. I want to restrict it to a single hypothetical community. I'm
interested in exploring the principles behind building a moral
society. This is easier if we focus on a small community the
existing structure of which will be familiar to us.
> 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 7-17-05:
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 7-17-05:
As above, the purpose of these questions is to see if we can agree,
in principle, that some police work is non-lifesaving. Do you agree
with this, in principle? If so, would you object to shifting some of
the tax base allocated to non-lifesaving police work into a fund
which provides life-saving drugs to people who cannot afford them?
If you would object, what would be your MOQ-based moral justification
for doing so?
> 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?
platt 7-17-05:
Skewed? Only to one who love's government power like you. Definition
of government from Wikipedia:
msh 7-17-05:
I've already agreed that governments use violence in law-enforcement,
so there's really no need for your Wikipedia definition. My point is
that government, in a moral society, will do a lot more than just
enforce laws. Do you agree?
> 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 7-17-05:
For the morality of biological vice, see Pirsig.
msh 7-17-05:
We're trying to decide if some police work is non-lifesaving, not
whether or not it's moral to hire a prostitute.
platt continuing:
Running red lights and other vehicle violations are life-endangering,
msh 7-17-05:
I mentioned parking tickets, not moving violations.
platt continuing:
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.")
msh 7-17-05:
The motorist who runs endangers life; the police who pursue someone
they have no reason to believe is a threat to society greatly
increase the danger. BTW, this is recognized by many police
agencies, some of which have policies for terminating such pursuits.
This is highly progressive thinking, IMO, and is to be commended.
I'll leave your disparaging comments about "liberals," whoever they
are, to the record.
Now, let me repeat from above. The purpose of these examples is to
see if we can agree, in principle, that some police work is non-
lifesaving. Do you agree with this, in principle? If so, would you
object to shifting some of the tax base allocated to non-lifesaving
police work into a fund which provides life-saving drugs to people
who cannot afford them? If you would object, what would be the MOQ-
based moral justification for doing so?
> 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.
msh 7-17-05:
Sure, irrational, as if the life-saving drugs you care so much about
aren't property.
msh 7-17-05:
What is the point of this comment? I don't see it.
> 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.
platt 7-17-05:
Let's say you spell out the details. It's your hypothetical.
msh 7-17-05:
Complete details are not necessary in arriving at general
principles. Let me repeat from above, again, in case the last two
times have slipped under your radar
Do you agree, in principle, that some police work is non-lifesaving.
If so, would you object to shifting some of the tax base allocated
to non-lifesaving police work into a fund which provides life-saving
drugs to people who cannot afford them? If you would object, what is
your MOQ-based moral justification for doing so?
I'll leave your next two responses, for the record.
> msh 7-16-05 on the point of keeping the record:
> 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 7-17-05:
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.
platt 7-17-05:
Considering the number of comments your proposals have engendered, I
suspect you've laid an egg.
Best to all,
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 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 - 19:22:33 BST