From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 00:13:16 GMT
Hi Sam, Platt, DMB, all
Sam said:
> I thought these were intriguing questions, so I'll throw in my two pennies
> worth (partly to see if I actually am a conservative):
...
> I'd be very interested to see how other people answer these questions -
> where do you stand, Steve?
Steve:
I hate to put myself into such categories. It's the Churchill thing about
conservatives being heartless and liberals being brainless. I don't want to
be either one. I find many liberals I know as brainless in that they don't
see the world and accept it as it really is (i.e. Recognize the need for
incentives to produce and to innovate within an economy). I find
conservatives accept the world as it is (or how they think it is), yet have
little compassion.
As far as how the MOQ has changes my politics, I would say that it has
helped me understand the role of society and it's on-going moral authority
in controlling the biological level. In that way, I've probably become more
conservative.
Sam said:
> Gay marriage: ambivalent. Generally pro the 'gay rights' agenda; I have
> theological qualms about it being 'marriage', but that requires rethinking
> the theology of marriage in the light of modern understandings just as much
> as it requires rethinking as a response to gay rights. (If the assumption of
> a direct link between marriage and child rearing is removed, how do you
> distinguish between a partnership, publicly acclaimed as life-long, which
> isn't seeking to raise children and one that is? And how do you distinguish
> between heterosexual and homosexual variants of the former? I don't think
> you can - but my views haven't settled on the second issue (plus which, I
> know from conversations that gay people have widely differing views on the
> subject, just like everybody else))
Steve:
Also generally pro "gay rights." I'm not against gay marriage.
I disagree that part of the purpose of marriage is necessarily childrearing
(The issue of gay couple adoptions could be raised here).
Platt, why are you against gay marriage? Also, do you see homosexuality as
immoral in MOQ terms?
Sam said:
> Capital punishment: strongly against - I don't believe it can be justified
> as a settled part of a criminal justice system.
Steve:
I can imagine no satisfaction in seeing someone executed even for a crime
that hurt someone I love. I'm pro-rehabilitation and anti-punishment in
general. However, I would respect a society that throws up it's hands and
says, "we don't have the wherewithal to rehabilitate this person" over one
that says, "we will make him pay!" as if he could, or "we will make an
example out of him."
Sam said:
> Abortion rights: should be legal up until the end of the first trimester,
> afterwards only if mother's life is in danger. I think it's always immoral,
> just a) it can be less immoral than the alternatives and b) the immorality
> increases over time, from nothing to everything.
Steve:
I agree. I wouldn't do it in my current situation. It would be a sin for
me. Others should be free to a point to make the choice, but society has a
stake and needs to draw a reasonable line in order to promote a respect for
human life. I'm not sure where that should be.
Sam said:
> Taxation on inherited wealth: against (it's double taxation and distorting)
Steve:
The "double taxation" and "death tax" language is distorting. Money is
taxed every time it changes hands with some exceptions--within a marriage,
for example, is not considered changing hands. I'm not convinced that money
passing from person to offspring should be given the same status. I can't
see the benefit to society (or to the dead person) in passing on large
amounts of wealth and I can see a benefit to society in discouraging it.
Sam said:
> Laisser-faire capitalism vs mixed economy. Depends upon definition of terms.
> Unrestrained free-marketry is transparently daft (nobody sane wants free
> trade in nuclear weapons), the question is how to draw the balance, and who
> has the benefit of the doubt. I've shifted more towards the laisser-faire
> position...
Steve:
I can't share Ayn Rand's vision of a true capitalism. I just can't see it
working. I think she missed the importance of society in freeing people
from biological constraints and is wrong to think that society would
continue to function without more government than she thought we needed.
Capitalism allows for the dynamic, but I think some regulation is necessary.
Thanks for asking,
Steve
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 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 00:12:57 GMT