From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 13:57:38 BST
> 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.
So now whenever someone repeats their stance on some subject, it's OK to
denigrate it by calling it "boilerplate." Very high quality philosophical
inquiry wouldn't you say?
> 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?
Behind everything government does for good or ill is a law or regulation
backed by force. Agree?
> I'll leave your disparaging comments about "liberals," whoever they
> are, to the record.
Just following you lead in using "liberal" as shorthand for those with a
an easily identified political agenda.
> 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?
And as I've pointed out before, the devil is in the details. Otherwise,
you're asking, in principle, "If pigs could fly . . ."
> 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.
That drugs are property.
> 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
For the record, a boilerplate question. For the record, my boilerplate
answer, "If pigs could fly . . ."
While we're on the subject of medical care, you should take a look at this
morning's headline on the front page of the NYTimes saying "New York
Medicaid Fraud May Reach Into Billions." You may want to also read the
article as I may find it necessary to refer to it in future discussions.
Also, you might want to answer this question: What moral principle in the
MOQ makes it your neighbor's responsibility to pay for your health costs?
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 : Mon Jul 18 2005 - 13:58:17 BST