It has become popular to defend several policies in American life with the principle of Liberty. Some people want to be free to choose abortion, free to marry someone of the same gender, free to use drugs without fear of legal consequences. Any who oppose them are decried as enemies of Freedom, that great American virtue. I agree with the framers of the constitution that the role of government should be to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
In saying that though, I do have a few caveats. I do not believe in complete freedom for everyone to do as they please. That is anarchy and leads to a society of survival of the fittest and strongest, which means repression of the weak. If individual freedoms were not constrained there could be no law against murder, rape, abuse, and robbery. I do not think the framers meant that when they spoke of the "blessings of liberty". They knew that laws that restrict freedom must be created to protect the rights of others. But, what should be the basis of these laws? If we are going to restrict freedom, we really need to think through the process and be careful and deliberate. We need to bring into the light our values and prejudices which guide our thinking so that we can evaluate them because they form the criteria from which we will judge the soundness of any law we create.
Therefore, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to define your values and show how they lead to your stances on the hot topics of our day (the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, decency laws, pulling the food tube on Terry Schiavo, the war on Terrorism, and euthinasia).
Think about when one value trumps another value. Some values are: Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Justice, Mercy, Beneficence, Honesty, Openness, Protection, etc. I'll give my answers later. Enjoy this intellectual exercise! Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Some people want to be free to choose abortion, free to marry someone of the same gender, free to use drugs without fear of legal consequences
I'm not American, but I can see that you're being somewhat selective in your choice of freedoms you've listed here. You have not mentioned freedom to use guns, freedom from taxes and freedoms of property, for example. These things also commonly employ the liberty argument to support themselves.
It's very clear, unfortunately, that you have an agenda.
I do not believe in complete Liberty, either. Logically and reasonably, I think very few people do.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
You aren't talking about liberty, you are talking about security. Liberty is the freedom to do or forbear an action.
If someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Your money or your life," that person hasn't interfered in your liberty. You still are at liberty to decide to keep your money.
Liberty isn't a political problem. The political problems are security and empowerment. In other words, we want a law that says that the person with the gun will be punished for putting me in that situation. We want a law that will secure my life and my money against the actions of robbers who employ their liberty in unbecoming ways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Therefore, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to define your values and show how they lead to your stances on the hot topics of our day (the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, decency laws, pulling the food tube on Terry Schiavo, the war on Terrorism, and euthinasia).
Wow. I disagree with you -- entirely, point by point -- on what are the important issues of the day.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Teshi,
Let's add "freedom to use guns, freedom from taxes and freedoms of property". You said, "I do not believe in complete Liberty, either. Logically and reasonably, I think very few people do." OK, I am interested in just that. When, in your opinion, is it ok to make laws that restrict liberty.
Irami, I acknowledge your statement. But, in what situations, in your opinion, is it ok to set up consequences for another's behavior? Is it your view that it is only ok to set up legal consequences when a person is threatening the security and empowerment of another?
Tom, Those were my examples of hot topics (i.e., ones that are in the news that people talk about). What are your important issues of the day and how do your values affect your stance on those issues.
Everyone, I acknowledge that everyone has different values. I have mine. But, I want to hear how you choose which value will trump another, which one becomes the most important to you under what circumstances.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Therefore, your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to define your values and show how they lead to your stances on the hot topics of our day (the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, decency laws, pulling the food tube on Terry Schiavo, the war on Terrorism, and euthinasia).
Wow. I disagree with you -- entirely, point by point -- on what are the important issues of the day.
The term was "hot topics", not "important issues." There is a sizeable difference between the two. Please, please respond to what is actually posted, it's really quite annoying.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You're just going to have to cope, dh. And, again, I think the list of "hot topics" is seriously flawed, as it reflects a willingness to let certain people frame the discussion using their own wedge issues. I don't concede that willingly.
-------
My hot topics:
Expansion of eminent domain Federal vs. local jurisdiction Copyright law Importance of procedural openness in a republic Tax fairness Privately vs. publicly-funded research Accountability of public figures Offshoring of intellectual capital America's international position Role of "experts" in formulating public policy
That we don't consider these to be "hot topics" is something I find heartbreaking. (BTW, enochville, I appreciate what you're trying to do with this thread. I'm just less inclined to think that dwelling on something as ultimately irrelevant as euthanasia is a good way to get to the heart of someone's stance on liberty, which after all is ultimately not a moral value.)
[ November 03, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
Enochville started the thread. That gives him/her the right to frame the discussion using his/her own wedge issues. You're just going to have to cope, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like I said in another thread, I don't believe in inherent rights. You're going to have to prove to me that a thread's creator has a "right" to limit discussion to sell me on that one. *grin*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm not sure what values should be defined as here...
In relation to liberty... I want to be able to do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm another person. My rights end where yours begin, as it's said. I don't recognize the power of other people to determine what is good for me, although I do take recommendations.
I think all of the freedoms you mentioned and the ones that were added can be decided using the above principles.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote:Like I said in another thread, I don't believe in inherent rights.
And as I suggested in the same thread, there is no other word than "evil" suited to describe this opinion. But you have the right to it. See? I'm giving you rights even though you don't want them. You are lucky to have me to disagree with, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You are lucky to have me to disagree with, Tom.
I can't tell you how grateful I am for the quality of my opposition.
------
quote: I want to be able to do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm another person.
Kat, I think most people -- even the most oppressive -- would say they believe this. The difficulty arises in the recognition of "harm."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Katarain,
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" (as its often expressed) is a tad oversimplistic I think. What about direct and indirect consequences to society and communities?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Uh, oh, I accidently kind of agreed with Tom Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It happens to the best of us sometimes. I'm sure it'll pass. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, direct and indirect consequences would be about where your nose began, wouldn't it?
Give me well-thought out and supported reasons for believing that those direct and indirect consequences exist, and I can agree. Although you'll have a difficult time with the indirect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Give me well-thought out and supported reasons for believing that those direct and indirect consequences exist, and I can agree.
I hate -- HATE -- to do this, but here's a short list:
Environmental laws Seatbelt laws Same-sex marriage Eminent domain
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Enoch mentioned drugs, so I'll use drugs. A man sells drugs to his neighbor, and single male living alone. He consumes them in his own basement, never leaving his home while under the influence. Have you, half a block away been directly harmed by this. Eventually more people come for drugs bringing crime and violence to your neighborhood. Now you & your kids are scared to go out. Neither the dealer nor the user directly harm you, yet now you live in a state of fear from drive by shootings, prostitution, and robbery.
We can split hairs and argue about this point all day, and about how flawed or not flawed this example is. I'm know you can argue from another POV. All I'm saying is that real life is never as simple as that trite platitude.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Just to demonstrate the messiness of "I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone", let's look at a few issues. Does stem cell research hurt anyone? How about abortion? Does gay marriage hurt anyone? Does pulling the feeding tube help or hurt Terry Schiavo?
I am less interested in your answers to these questions as I am in your reasons why? We define "harm" and "anyone" by our values. Is it a harm to anyone for the traditional definition of marriage to change? Your answer will be based on your values, but to uncover exactly which values often requires bringing the unconscious into consciousness. Once those values are exposed, you can evaluate them - see if they are consistent with your other values and decide whether to rethink your position or be more comfortable with the position you take. It can also increases tolerance for other's views.
So many of our values we absorbed from our environment by default without consciously evaluating them. It does us some good to analyze them and wilfully decide how much emphasis we want to put on each one.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tom, guess you have a point.
BaoQingTian, you wrote:
quote:Enoch mentioned drugs, so I'll use drugs. A man sells drugs to his neighbor, and single male living alone. He consumes them in his own basement, never leaving his home while under the influence. Have you, half a block away been directly harmed by this. Eventually more people come for drugs bringing crime and violence to your neighborhood. Now you & your kids are scared to go out. Neither the dealer nor the user directly harm you, yet now you live in a state of fear from drive by shootings, prostitution, and robbery.
Those bad results are directly a cause of the laws prohibiting drug use. If that guy in the basement had been allowed to smoke and use what he wanted and his dealer was the local pharmacist, then none of that would have happened.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Does stem cell research hurt anyone?
No.
How about abortion?
In this case, I would have to expand my original answer. I believe abortion should be legal, but I am personally strongly against it. It may hurt the person having the abortion, but remember that I said you shouldn't hurt OTHER people. I also happen to think that suicide should be legal. (In this case, there is the inevitable idea brought up that the unborn baby is another person--but given that is not a widespread belief and the baby is not yet born, I'd rather leave that to individual conscience, rather than dictated by the state.)
Does gay marriage hurt anyone?
Maybe.
Does pulling the feeding tube help or hurt Terry Schiavo?
Maybe. Terry Schiavo had a right to draw up a living will before what happened to her. She didn't. So her family fought out what should be done. That should be a lesson to all of us to make our wishes known, preferably on paper. There's no way for me to know what she really would have wanted--that's her own fault, isn't it? It's unreasonable to blame her, I know, but I only cast the same blame on every one of us for not having made a living will already.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Katarain,
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" (as its often expressed) is a tad oversimplistic I think. What about direct and indirect consequences to society and communities?
I don't think it's simplistic at all. Communities are what you call a bunch of people who share some commonality. They have no rights of their own. Their members may want them to continue unchanged forever, but it doesn't work that way.
If I have a small store, I may not like the idea of a big store coming in and my having to close my store because I can't match their prices. But that's life. There's no comparison between that and, say, someone threatening to kill me if I don't close the store. In both cases, the results may be the same, but the big store is not responsible for my having to close my store, and the thug who threatens me is.
This is an extension of the whole "do the ends justify the means" issue. Ends can never justify means. Not ever. They can make means more or less understandable, in terms of being sympathetic, but they can never change a wrong into a right.
If the town is flooding, and I steal a boat to save my life, it's understandable, and justifiable to an extent. That extent does not extend to making my theft of the boat anything other than theft.
And it's the same for your "indirect consequences". If I open a Home Depot and it puts your little hardware store out of business, I have done nothing wrong, despite the effect on you. If I threaten you with harm, I have done something wrong. Same results, different ways of getting there.
I don't see your objection to the "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" definition of rights. That principle is true because I'm entitled not to get punched in the nose. A community isn't entitled to avoid the "indirect consequences" you're talking about.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Katarain, Thank you for responding to those questions, but, if you don't mind, I'd like to challenge you to go a little deeper. I'll ask you some questions to pull out your values. You didn't give me anything to work with in regards to the stem cell and gay marriage questions, so I go to your abortion response.
I think your parenthetical statement is most revealing: (In this case, there is the inevitable idea brought up that the unborn baby is another person--but given that is not a widespread belief and the baby is not yet born, I'd rather leave that to individual conscience, rather than dictated by the state.)
Your phrase, "given that is not a widespread belief" indicates that at least to some extent, you value the opinion of the majority when it comes to making law.
Your statement, "and the baby is not yet born" possibly indicates that you value babies outside the womb more than babies inside the womb.
And your preference to "leave that to individual conscience, rather than dictated by the state" demonstrates a value on individual conscience above societal rule.
Because I have stayed close to your words, you may not think much has been revealed, but what I want you to see is that you could have seen this issue in some other way, but you have your views on this issue because of the values you hold. Whereas some people value what they believe to be God's word more than the opinion of the majority, you value the opinion of the majority more when it comes to making law. In other words, for you the voice of the majority trumps what some people to be the voice of God. I am accepting of that as your value ranking; please do not read any judgment in my words.
Now, you can ask yourself the questions, "Am I ok with that value ranking? Why or why not?" "Will the voice of the majority always win out in my opinion for every hot topic that comes up? Why or why not?" "When I think about it, it is not really the voice of the majority I am using, it is my perception of what is the voice of the majority. I didn't conduct a scientific survey to find out if it is the voice of the majority. Am I ok using what I only perceive to be the voice of the majority to dictate the positions I take on issues?" Etc.
This is what I mean by articulating the values on which you decide whether or not we should have laws that dictate consequences for certain actions.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Give me well-thought out and supported reasons for believing that those direct and indirect consequences exist, and I can agree.
I hate -- HATE -- to do this, but here's a short list:
Environmental laws Seatbelt laws Same-sex marriage Eminent domain
Could you explain? Leave aside environmental laws for now. I'd be happy to get back to those, but they're different in kind from the others.
Seatbelt laws. If a minor is in a car without a seatbelt, I can see that the driver should be held responsible if anything happens to that minor. Other than that, what earthly justification can there be for seatbelt laws?
The common one is that we all pay the financial cost of fixing people who drive without seatbelts and get hurt. And that's true. But the solution isn't to have seatbelt laws. It's to refuse the financial cost of fixing adults who drive or ride without seatbelts and get hurt.
Same-sex marriage. On what basis should the government be in charge of what marriage is? On what basis is government even involved in the issue? So the government has insinuated itself into the business of marriage. That's the cause of this even being a question. The solution is to fix the problem. Not to extend the problem further.
Eminent domain. For the purpose of police, army and courts? Maybe. It's iffy, but okay. But to raise tax revenues, as in the recent Supreme Court ruling? There's no moral justification in the world for such a thing.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Your phrase, "given that is not a widespread belief" indicates that at least to some extent, you value the opinion of the majority when it comes to making law.
But I don't value the majority--ESPECIALLY when they infringe on the minority. Abortion is a tough issue because while I find it morally wrong, there is not enough scientific evidence that a baby constitutes a human life. Given the lack of evidence, I believe it is in the best interest of the country to keep it legal. Not only to prevent harm caused in illegal abortions but because to rule otherwise would put my religious and moral beliefs above the religious beliefs of other people. There are pro-life people, however, who have come up with acceptable (at least to them) reasons apart from religion for the illegalization of abortion, but for me, those reasons aren't enough. I don't feel comfortable legislating morality and religion. I believe it is wrong.
quote:Your statement, "and the baby is not yet born" possibly indicates that you value babies outside the womb more than babies inside the womb.
Personally, I believe that an unborn baby is a human life and abortion is wrong--so I do not value it less than born babies. However, for the reasons I gave above, I am not in favor of forcing my belief on others--as it is irrevocably tied to my religious beliefs.
quote:And your preference to "leave that to individual conscience, rather than dictated by the state" demonstrates a value on individual conscience above societal rule.
Again, my reasons for that are stated above. I most definitely value individual conscience above society rule. Freedom of religion is one of the most precious to me values, and I would not take it away from someone else. Even if I disagreed.
quote:"Am I ok with that value ranking? Why or why not?"
With the corrections made above, then yes. Why? I'm not sure what to add except what I've already said about valuing freedom of religion.
quote:"Will the voice of the majority always win out in my opinion for every hot topic that comes up? Why or why not?"
Most definitely not. As I explained above, I do not think the majority is always right. Most of the time, I think the majority is made up of a bunch of idiots.
quote:"When I think about it, it is not really the voice of the majority I am using, it is my perception of what is the voice of the majority. I didn't conduct a scientific survey to find out if it is the voice of the majority. Am I ok using what I only perceive to be the voice of the majority to dictate the positions I take on issues?"
That's quite a leap. I don't do that. The positions I take on issues are based on my own beliefs, values, judgements, and knowledge. They change often--and sometimes I take no position if I feel uninformed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Could you explain? Leave aside environmental laws for now. I'd be happy to get back to those, but they're different in kind from the others.
Oh, I agree. I keep telling people I'm almost a libertarian. But they're all examples of situations in which the definition of "harm" really, really matters.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Katarain, Thank you for going through this exercise with me and thank you for not getting offended. I am only using your words and the reasons you gave to generate hypotheses about what your underlying values are. Only you will know for sure which of your values are governing your position on an issue.
I think "abortion is a tough issue" for you because although you find it morally wrong you are overriding that value with a higher one in feeling that others should be free to choose. So protecting the freedom of others to choose what they will do wins out. Now, I assume that protecting the freedom of others to act for themselves would not win out if we were talking about their freedom to kill a newly born baby. You wouldn't have a problem restricting their right to do as they please then, no matter what their religious belief was. So, what values do you use to explain the difference?
Is it because you perceive that the majority feel that it is wrong to kill a newborn, but the majority does not feel it is wrong to kill a fetus (as you alluded to in an earlier post)? Value = majority opinion
Is it because "there is not enough scientific evidence that a[n unborn] baby constitutes a human life" (as stated in your most recent post)? Value = authority of science
Or is it "to prevent harm caused in illegal abortions"? Value = prevent self-inflicted harm
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You know Kat, it's kind of sad how you immediately acknowledge and accept Tom's points, but set out to disagree with everyone else's points. I wonder if he'd posted under an alias if you would have been so quick to agree.
I'd have to disagree with you comment about making drug use legal (not that the idea of a pharmacist handing out cocaine, mirrors and razor blades isn't funny). I live in Nevada, and legalized gambling brings in all sorts of problems to communities--even though its legal. I'm sure if someone thinks about it they can come up with plenty of other examples. I was going to go with an environmental example, but avoided it for much the same reason Tom did.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
StarLisa, I don't know where your response to my post is coming from, but it is not related at all to where I was coming from. I realize I wasn't specific, but please don't assume you knew what I meant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Is it because "there is not enough scientific evidence that a[n unborn] baby constitutes a human life" (as stated in your most recent post)? Value = authority of science
I think there's another potential value here which is being overlooked that does not necessarily constitute an appeal to science (except incidentally): the assertion that human life achieves personhood at a specific time. It's perfectly possible to agree with someone else on all these value statements and yet disagree on the issue of, say, third-trimester abortion based on this assessment. And this assessment is not grounded in the "authority of science," in my experience, as much as it is in assumptions regarding the role and dispensation of the soul (if any).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but not all things. You've made a pretty inaccurate statement of me.
As for what I agreed with him about in this thread--it was about agreeing that those issues/laws had plenty of basis in people saying they caused harm in other people. I didn't say I AGREED that they were valid, but they are sticky and current issues directly related to people legislating to prevent people from causing perceived harm to other people. I'm not sure how eminent domain fit in there, but I don't doubt that somehow it does.
When he stated those things, he didn't state his feelings either way on them. All I was doing was indicating that perhaps things aren't so cut and dried, and it is very difficult to articulate and prove direct and indirect consequences of individual action--as demonstrated by the controversy surrounding those issues.
(Am I right, there, Tom?)
Why not just stick with the drug analogy, rather than switching to gambling? Usually when I talk about drug legalization, I'm talking about marijuana. I think pretty effective arguments can be made that cocaine use can be detrimental to others surrounding the user. Although, if it were controlled in how it was dispensed, and where it was used, I could be persuaded to be in favor of its legalization. As I said before, I think people should have the freedom to harm themselves--but I'm in favor of complete education beforehand. They should KNOW what cocaine could do to their bodies. None of that "I didn't know it would hurt me" stuff. Same with meth and heroin, etc. And I also only apply these rules to adults.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Could you explain? Leave aside environmental laws for now. I'd be happy to get back to those, but they're different in kind from the others.
Oh, I agree. I keep telling people I'm almost a libertarian. But they're all examples of situations in which the definition of "harm" really, really matters.
See, I don't get that. Eminent domain is either okay or not, but the amount of harm it might do doesn't enter into the question. Same-sex marriage, as I pointed out, only begs the question of harm if you accept that the government is morally correct in involving itself in the question at all. Same with seatbelt laws.
The thing that makes environmental regulations different is precisely in the fact that harm needs to be defined. The others... I don't see that any definition of harm is relevant.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
enochville, I'm not sure. How about none of the above? I think your assessment is right when you say that I value freedom of religion above what I personally believe is morally wrong.
Perhaps the distinction lies in the fact that there is no doubt anymore that the fetus is a human being once it is born. It's born. It exists. It is human life. Taking it is wrong, based not only on my religious beliefs but by society's own standards. That baby has gained its own rights and freedoms... it has its own "nose" now, you could say... Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are some libertarians who aren't motivated by remarkably limited notions of property rights, sL.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: StarLisa, I don't know where your response to my post is coming from, but it is not related at all to where I was coming from. I realize I wasn't specific, but please don't assume you knew what I meant.
Okay, then what about "direct and indirect consequences to society and communities", in your view, brings the rule of "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" into question?
You did say:
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" (as its often expressed) is a tad oversimplistic I think. What about direct and indirect consequences to society and communities?
I accept your statement that I misunderstood your intent. Could you please explain it so that I don't continue to misunderstand it?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: There are some libertarians who aren't motivated by remarkably limited notions of property rights, sL.
Um... okay. Cool for them, I guess. But this thread isn't really about what libertarians think, is it? So while your statement may be true, I'm not sure what you mean by it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: See, I don't get that. Eminent domain is either okay or not, but the amount of harm it might do doesn't enter into the question. Same-sex marriage, as I pointed out, only begs the question of harm if you accept that the government is morally correct in involving itself in the question at all. Same with seatbelt laws.
The issue at the heart of eminent domain is whether it does more harm to a society to take someone's property from them than it does to permit someone's property to lie fallow. The issue at the heart of same-sex marriage is whether it harms society to recognize the potential validity of long-term homosexual relationships. And the issue at the heart of seatbelt laws is whether the cost to society in insurance and death exceeds the cost (in liberty and legal expenses) of mandating seatbelt use.
Now, you can make the argument that government shouldn't even be trying to resolve these issues. But if you concede that they're issues at all, I think it's only fair to start from the premises usually accepted by the people on either side of the debate(s), few of whom appear to have seriously considered that the government should not play a role in them. (Note that this is actually an excellent position to take if you want to advocate against government involvement, because it makes it easier to convince people that governments attempting to tread a middle ground through this sort of conceptual minefield often wind up in Catch-22s of various sorts.)
You can insist that society does not exist, and therefore that harm to society is a completely baseless concept. But this prevents you from engaging in fruitful conversation people who do believe in societies.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:You can insist that society does not exist, and therefore that harm to society is a completely baseless concept. But this prevents you from engaging in fruitful conversation people who do believe in societies.
If you don't believe in societies, what constitutes a fruitful conversation?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's a question I'm ill-equipped to answer. But I speculate that it might be a conversation in which all parties achieve some level of satisfaction.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Perhaps the distinction lies in the fact that there is no doubt anymore that the fetus is a human being once it is born. It's born. It exists. It is human life. Taking it is wrong, based not only on my religious beliefs but by society's own standards. That baby has gained its own rights and freedoms... it has its own "nose" now, you could say...
Katarain, I don't want to be a bother, but I am going to press a little more. You feel passionately about people being free to act according to their own conscience (not be forced to live by your or anyone else's standards), yet, you also feel passionately that it is very wrong to take the life of a human being. There are situations in which these two values come into conflict(death sentence, euthanasia, abortion). I feel that it is important for all of us to really look at how we make choices between competing values.
For you the rule of thumb might be, "When one is unsure about whether an entity is human life, err on the side of allowing people to act according to their conscience." That is a fine rule of thumb. But, before we leave it, let's make sure we are comfortable with what we mean by it.
When would situations exist where there would be some uncertainty about the existance of human life? Why does the definition have some uncertainty in it? Where is the definition so that we can examine it? (Oh, what was that, there is no definitive answer? There are several answers depending on who you talk to? Well, how do I decide? Philosophically, religiously, scientifically, majority rules?)
Well, maybe instead of uncertainty what I actually mean is when there is disagreement about whether an entity is human life. So, the rule of thumb should read, "When society disagrees about whether an entity is human life, err on the side of allowing people to act according to their conscience." Am I comfortable with using the disagreement of my peers to decide which of my values trump the other in this case?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooh. A second excuse to quote Augustine on Hatrack today!
In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas,
In essentials unity, In doubtful things liberty, But in all things love.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:When, in your opinion, is it ok to make laws that restrict liberty.
I cannot answer with absolutes. Each case has to be looked at individually and in detail. I'd basically have to create an entire legal and civil code as well as a bill of rights and freedoms to answer the question and I'm a bit tired for that right now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seatbelt laws. If a minor is in a car without a seatbelt, I can see that the driver should be held responsible if anything happens to that minor. Other than that, what earthly justification can there be for seatbelt laws?
The common one is that we all pay the financial cost of fixing people who drive without seatbelts and get hurt. And that's true. But the solution isn't to have seatbelt laws. It's to refuse the financial cost of fixing adults who drive or ride without seatbelts and get hurt.
Suppose, though, that the driver has insurance; he's still taking up a valuable and scarce resource, namely, the time of doctors and ambulance crews.
Then there's an issue of psychological harm to the other guy in the accident. Suppose the beltless driver is not actually at fault; then the other guy may be made a killer instead of just a hurter, if that's a word. Injurer?
On another subject, I don't quite understand your objection to the word 'community'. Sure, they aren't legal entitities or moral, but I don't think anyone was using them as such; it's just a convenient shorthand for 'a bunch of people in the immediate area, whom we haven't identified yet', which is a bit of a mouthful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Communities are most definitely legal entities, and I think they're moral entities as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dh:
quote:Like I said in another thread, I don't believe in inherent rights.
And as I suggested in the same thread, there is no other word than "evil" suited to describe this opinion. But you have the right to it. See? I'm giving you rights even though you don't want them. You are lucky to have me to disagree with, Tom.
Tom wasn't objecting to recognising rights; he was just saying that there's no higher power that does so. Rights are a human construction as much as traffic laws are.
Actually, I'm not completely sure I agree with that last statement, because rights are often based in a sense of justice; and a sense of justice within the tribe is, to a certain extent, instinctive in primates. Which is not to say that I think rights have any existence outside of human agreements; I just don't think the agreements are completely arbitrary. You would probably have some difficulty getting people to agree on a right to steal.
EDIT : Ack, I forgot the main point I wanted to make. Whatever you think of rights as Platonic ideals, can we at least agree that for all practical purposes, they do not exist unless enforced by humans?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Communities are most definitely legal entities, and I think they're moral entities as well.
Let me rephrase : "Shouldn't be legal entities because they aren't moral entities." I was talking to a strong libertarian, and using a bit of shorthand to get my point across. Before you jump on me, I'm not entirely convinced, myself, that they shouldn't be moral entities either - there's such a thing as emergent effects, after all. But a priori, I see no reason to consider a community as anything but a large number of individuals.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You can insist that society does not exist, and therefore that harm to society is a completely baseless concept. But this prevents you from engaging in fruitful conversation people who do believe in societies.
I didn't say society doesn't exist. I said, and say, that society isn't anything but its individual members. It possesses no rights or perogatives that any of its members do not already possess.
You say it prevents me from engaging in fruitful conversation with people who "believe in societies". On the contrary. I think there is a series burden of proof which falls on the shoulders of anyone who wants to claim some spontaneous generation of perogatives for a group of individuals that the individuals themselves do not possess.
You can just say, "Well, I think there is such a thing, so we can't have a fruitful discussion unless you think so as well", or you can try and fulfill that burden of proof.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Seatbelt laws. If a minor is in a car without a seatbelt, I can see that the driver should be held responsible if anything happens to that minor. Other than that, what earthly justification can there be for seatbelt laws?
The common one is that we all pay the financial cost of fixing people who drive without seatbelts and get hurt. And that's true. But the solution isn't to have seatbelt laws. It's to refuse the financial cost of fixing adults who drive or ride without seatbelts and get hurt.
Suppose, though, that the driver has insurance; he's still taking up a valuable and scarce resource, namely, the time of doctors and ambulance crews.
Those aren't resources. They get paid for that. You might as well say that my going to the grocery store harms everyone else who might have wanted the exact item I took off the shelf, or that by standing in line, I'm taking up a valuable and scarce resource, namely, the time of cashiers. And believe me, at the local grocery store I go to, that's quite a scarce "resource".
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Then there's an issue of psychological harm to the other guy in the accident. Suppose the beltless driver is not actually at fault; then the other guy may be made a killer instead of just a hurter, if that's a word. Injurer?
And this is whose responsibility? Things happen, you know?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: On another subject, I don't quite understand your objection to the word 'community'. Sure, they aren't legal entitities or moral, but I don't think anyone was using them as such; it's just a convenient shorthand for 'a bunch of people in the immediate area, whom we haven't identified yet', which is a bit of a mouthful.
I think you're wrong about that. Unfortunately. There are definitely people here who seem to think that a community or a society has rights, perogatives, powers, authority, what have you, that the individuals it's comprised of do not have and never did have.
It's the whole critical mass thing. If you and I and Tom are walking down the street, and we see a rich person and a poor person, we aren't entitled to define the five of us in this picture as some sort of society, even though the three of us are a majority, and we aren't entitled thereby to take a third of the rich guy's money and distribute it to the poor guy (keeping some for ourselves to pay ourselves for our trouble, of course).
But some people have a mystical belief that what isn't legitimate for the five people in that little vignette is completely legitimate for a city. Or a state. Or a country.
Now... ask them what the critical number is, and you'll get a lot of obfuscation. What you won't get is an answer, and that's because there is none. What I described above is not a legitimate way for human beings to interact, and it doesn't matter how many of them there are. It's still bullying.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Communities are most definitely legal entities, and I think they're moral entities as well.
See, KoM?
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
enochville, I think anarchy would be more along the lines of no leader(s). I've noticed that America has a long history of using the constitution to literally get whatever freedom they want. It seems to work. Some groups may argue against homosexuality and other things but they don't really have the right to influence politics. They sure can do so within their own organizatiosn though, which is fine. I think any freedoms people refrain from ecercising shgould be personal and based on their own beliefs.
I really love the US constitution. I think the reason american cultural revolutions have been so influential in other parts of the world is not because the US infiltrates other cultures besides your own. I think it's because Americans just have the best constitution int he world and the rest of the world wants to do use the same logic to get their own freedoms.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by King of Men: It's the whole critical mass thing. If you and I and Tom are walking down the street, and we see a rich person and a poor person, we aren't entitled to define the five of us in this picture as some sort of society, even though the three of us are a majority, and we aren't entitled thereby to take a third of the rich guy's money and distribute it to the poor guy (keeping some for ourselves to pay ourselves for our trouble, of course).
Actually, if the rich guy agrees that he belongs to our community, I don't see why not. And here I think there can be such a thing as tacit consent : If the rich guy is, let's say, dependent on my car to get to work every day, then I think we can make a reasonable claim that he is tacitly agreeing to be part of our community. He's certainly reaping the benefits.
The car, obviously, is an analogy to the more usual infrastructure, and I think that makes a good critical mass measurement : A community is a sufficient amount of people that they need some specialisation to maintain their infrastructure. Say maybe a thousand, if their technology is at the subsistence farming level. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "enough people that they can meaningfully be said to have a common infrastructure." Does that satisfy your requirement of a critical mass?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
As promised, I will attempt to present my positions on the hot topics and how my values and reasoning got me there. I had hoped more of you had done the same so that we might compare and I might learn something from your reasoning. I think most of us share the same values. I think we only differ in how we apply them.
I'll start with abortion, since I questioned Katarain on this topic. Similar to her, I desire to protect the opportunity for all people to act according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of legal reprisal in most cases. That is usually referred to as Liberty, although I acknowledge the correctness of Irami's first post.
I also value the preservation of Life and feel that no person should be deprived of their life by the actions of another in most cases. When I weigh the opportunity of a woman to have an abortion according to her conscience against the preservation of a child's life, I value the opportunity to live more than the opportunity to kill, therefore, I support the setting up of obstacles and legal consequences to prevent the woman from acting according to her conscience and have an abortion.
Most people can understand my reasoning if we were talking about a newborn. I would have acted to prevent Abraham from offering Isaac as a sacrifice had I lived in his time, knew what he was doing, and did not agree that God had commanded him to do it. Where I differ from others is in my thinking of an unborn embryo or fetus as a person who has a life worth protecting. My postion comes from two values: I value the word of God as I understand it, which for me states that human embryos and fetuses are human life; and two, I believe that if I consent to allow someone else to kill a person, or do not at least attempt to prevent the killing of that baby, I am condemned before God and have acted against my conscience.
Some may ask why should my personal belief in God's word come before someone else's belief in what constitutes life. One, it is my ability to act according to my conscience against the woman's ability to act according to her conscience. Well, someone will say, your conscience only dictates that you should TRY to prevent the killing of the baby. You can act according to your conscience at the same time that she acts according to hers, because at least you tried, right? I agree, and that is why I am willing to abide by the law and accept the will of the people on this issue. But, the people have never been able to make their will known, and to act according to my conscience I must continually try to persuade the will of the people to outlaw the ending of the unborn babies' lives.
Second, unlike suicide, if I am right, the woman will be forcing her opinion of when life begins on another (her child) by the shedding of that child's blood. If I am wrong, and the embryo is just a bunch of cells, then I have unjustly taken away a woman's ability to act according to her conscience, but if I am right she will be unjustly taking away the life of another individual. I am comfortable with my choice to ban abortion except in special circumstances, because the potential injury done to others is much less severe with this choice than the other.
One more value comes into play at least for some people. They posit that banning abortions would result in the serious injury if not death of women who try to perform abortions in unsafe ways. I have great compassion for women, I do not want them to suffer, but I do not feel that it is the responsibility of government to make sure people can kill others safely without injurying themselves. I do feel, however, that we should do all that is possible to protect the woman and child from the abuse of others, make sure that unwanted children are adopted into good homes, make sure that the woman does not lose opportunities at work due to her pregnancy, that they get proper health care, etc.
Now, I should clarify that I believe, "that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion". I believe this because I feel that this is the word of God. To demonstrate how these exceptions fit in with my values would be another lengthy discussion. But, I shall go through it if requested.
My positions on the other hot topics will be forthcoming in future posts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Would you have tried to prevent Abraham from killing Isaac if you did know that God had commanded it?
Posted by Cali-Angel-Cat (Member # 8799) on :
I think one of my issues would be for the disabled to be able to enjoy the same freedoms that the normal people do.
I had a child, and the state used my medical history as the ultimate grounds for why she was not returned to me. Childern Services felt that my disablity interfered with my ability to care for my daughter and felt that it was unfare for me to have to rely on things like ADC and other state facilities for help.
They even went so far as to tell me that if I asked family for help, namely my biological mom, who at one time used drugs and drank, they'd cut my rights.
I am a firm believer that disabled people deserve the chance to experience the same things those without disabilites do, like have a family, ect.
Yes, I realize that there are some that are so severely disabled that they cannot partake of these things, but does the state really have the right to dictate what someone that is disabled can or cannot do?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Here is my position on same sex marriage:
I value protecting the opportunity for people to be able to act according to their own conscience without fear of governmental reprisal in most circumstances. I also value an equal treatment under the law in most cases. I cannot justify withholding partner insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, alimony, custody claims, tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc., from one segment of the population who have an enduring committed relationship and are only kept from making it a legal contract by the laws of the land. Therefore, homosexuals should be given the opportunity to enter into a legal contract where they get the same legal benefits and liabilities that heterosexuals do.
However, I also value the ability of religious societies to be able act according to their conscience without government interference for the most part. Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it. They may try and put it in their books, but the real definition hasn't changed, for God recognizes none such. And His commandments based on marriage only apply to those who are married His way. I don't think the government should have ever adopted that the term marriage, but hindsight is 20/20. So, let's correct it now and refer to partner benefits in the law books and let religions alone decide who can marry, but government decide who can enter into these legal partner contracts.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
King of Men asked: "Would you have tried to prevent Abraham from killing Isaac if you did know that God had commanded it?"
No, I would not. My absolute highest value, that trumps all my other values consistently is to do the will of my Father in Heaven. This is because his perspective is so much greater than mine. What I perceive as wrong may be right in certain circumstances and I trust God's perspective and judgment more than my own. I, of course, must be convinced that it really is God's will and not just a delusion. But, I believe that it is possible to know that for sure.
Cali-Angel-Cat: I think you should have been given the opportunity to raise your child. We should not be a Minority Report society where we judge people before they actually commit a crime. If, however, after you had your child for a while, it became evident that abuse was taking place through neglect, a social worker should be called in to see if a plan can be made to help you meet your child's needs. If neglect continues, however, I do feel the government should protect the child and place the child in someone else's care. The bottom line is I think you should have had the opportunity to take care of your child first. You may have done a great job and everyone would be happy.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
I agree with enochville. I've never heard this argument done so well. marriage is not a matter of politics, it's for individual religions to make any recommended on. Those who challenge other religions should only do so in cases where that religion is commiting crimes on a mass scale. E.g. Sex offenses, murders, and encouraging suicides.
That's what the laws for anyway, isn;t it, to prevent and stop unneccessary arguments between the people?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it.
I'm okay with homosexual partner contracts not being called marriage as long as heterosexual partner contracts are also not called marriage. Is that your meaning?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
TomDavidson: I mean that the word marriage would no longer be a legal term, heterosexual and homosexual unions would both be known as partner contracts in the law, or some other such phrase. However, in society we could still talk about people who were united by a religious organization as married.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Then what about religions that do not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples when performing marriage ceremonies? If a homosexual couple was united by a religious organization that believes in homosexual marriage, they could call themselves married, but an agnostic homosexual couple who has their ceremony done by a Justice of the Peace could not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My general principles concerning when liberty should be constrained:
Liberty should be constrained as little as possible.
It is generally a greater constraint on liberty to force someone to do something than to restrict them from doing something. Obviously, exceptions exist.
Every constraint on liberty should be in furtherance of one or more identifiable legitimate aims of government.
Constraints on liberty should be applied as equally as possible.
Disparities in application of constraints of liberty should be in furtherance of one or more identifiable legitimate aims of government.
The greater the constraint on liberty, the more important the aim of government needs to be.
Certain types of disparities in constraints of freedom, such as those based on race, religion, or gender, require more important aims of government to justify them.
A threat of loss of life, liberty, or property or a threat of physical harm is a form of constraint of liberty.
A denial of a generally available government benefit is a form of constraint of liberty and requires similar justification.
Obviously, there's a lot of flexibility within this framework, mainly in defining importance of an aim of government, legitimacy of an aim of government, magnitude of a constraint on freedom, and bases of disparities.
For example, protecting citizens from physical violence is a very important aim of government. This importance of this aim supports the threats of severe deprivation of liberty and possibly of life associated with criminal laws relating to violence against the person.
There are many gray areas to be filled out before this framework can actually be used to decide if a particular constraint on liberty is justified. But I think it helps focus on what the important questions are.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
enochville, I suspect that within one generation, we'd be calling anyone in such a legal union "married," regardless of their religious affiliation.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Dagonee: I appreciate your list. Thank you!
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Update: I have changed my opinion on same sex marriage. I no longer support same sex civil unions or marriage. Although, I concede that my new position is not Constitutionally defendable.
I believe that the Lord has revealed his will for me:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
It has taken me a while to figure out how to reconcile this position with my values. But, I believe that the Lord can foresee that same sex civil unions would result in much misery for the population of this country.
My value of acting for the greater good of my brothers and sisters outweighs my respect for letting people act according to their own conscience. This is the same reasoning I use when preventing a suicide, or letting a child play in the street. The difference with these examples is it is easier for many people of diffrent religious or philosophical backgrounds to see that preventing suicide or playing in the street is acting for the greater good, but it is not so easily seen or agreed upon with preventing same sex unions. Plus, I think many of you will have a problem with my value of being my brother's keeper. But, I believe the Lord expects us at least to try.
I know my position is indefensible for many of you, but what really matters is that I am comfortable with my decision and I have carefully examined my thought-processes and how I got there.
Posted by Rusta-burger (Member # 8753) on :
So that can be regulated within religions, and that's why cynical people who don't want to believe in anything are so angry. But I still don't think it's the place of the law (outside religions) to police peoples choices. All they are is an entity for uniting all the different beliefs within a nation and securing the safety of its citizens from 1. themselves, and 2. outside forces. And they do this with the citizenry themeselves. Gay marriages has nothing to do with either.
It's like making racism illegal. Sure, you can arrest KKK members if you catch them but it's not going to get rid of them. The only thing that will get rid of them is when a large number (around them) stop agreeing with them and protecting them from the law. In cases like these, you have blacks, gays, whatever, and the group that hates them. Without the government protecting them from themselves, their just going to breed hate and kill eachother. But illegalising something is taking sides, which is not the role of the givernment.
The government is a mediator, a peacekeeper. But among a religious organization, gay communities, black americans (who have created their own church), the KKK (also have created their own church), etc. everyone has the same views. (I' not saying gay people should start their own church <grin> but they do all share the one view, at least, that gay people should be allowed the freedonms that everybody else gets. So within these organizations or "ethnic groups", they are kicked out if they don't respect those general views! (Or at least among gays they'll lose all social organization with other gay people and the "protection of the mob effect" they get from being in it.
So as long as all the different groups STOP TRYING TO CONTROL the freedoms or other groups, not that they can't make friendly sugestions, they'll all be alright. The government can keep the peace, but illegalizing ANYTHING is taking sides which is not what they should be doing if you Americans are to all be one nation.
Utah was created as a refuge for LDSs but apparently days of prosecution of other peoples beliefs in America ended and so you all became one big happy country. That's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was all about, weren't they?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, let's see :
Would kill a child if fairy tale superbeing commanded it - check. Is willing to believe in unproven, unspecified 'harm' in order to have secular law come into conformity with superstition - check. Apparently believes that internal conviction really is equivalent to 'knowing God's will' - check.
*Adds comrade enochville to list for re-education camps.*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Plus, I think many of you will have a problem with my value of being my brother's keeper.
I don't think that's the problem. I think it's that most people will resent your belief that they need to be kept.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by King of Men: It's the whole critical mass thing. If you and I and Tom are walking down the street, and we see a rich person and a poor person, we aren't entitled to define the five of us in this picture as some sort of society, even though the three of us are a majority, and we aren't entitled thereby to take a third of the rich guy's money and distribute it to the poor guy (keeping some for ourselves to pay ourselves for our trouble, of course).
Actually, if the rich guy agrees that he belongs to our community, I don't see why not. And here I think there can be such a thing as tacit consent : If the rich guy is, let's say, dependent on my car to get to work every day, then I think we can make a reasonable claim that he is tacitly agreeing to be part of our community. He's certainly reaping the benefits.
You can't posit tacit consent in the face of explicit dissent.
If a free market of nations existed, so to speak, where I could easily get up and go to one that was more respectful of the people in it, I'd do that happily.
Nor is what you're suggesting any more moral than a kid jumping into the street at a stop light and washing my windows without asking if I want it. And then expecting to be paid for the "service".
I can state right now, unequivocally, that I do not consent to the taking of my earnings for the purpose of social programs of any sort whatsoever. If I want to give to charitable causes, I'm quite capable of doing so myself. If I want to support the arts, I'm very much able to find art that I feel worthy of support.
But back to your example, you're truly saying that if a rich guy carpools with you, that gives you tacit permission to rob him? That's... wild.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The car, obviously, is an analogy to the more usual infrastructure, and I think that makes a good critical mass measurement : A community is a sufficient amount of people that they need some specialisation to maintain their infrastructure.
You use the concept of infrastructure as though it's an all or nothing deal. That my consent in one area can be interpreted as a general consent. I think you need to support such a claim.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Say maybe a thousand, if their technology is at the subsistence farming level. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "enough people that they can meaningfully be said to have a common infrastructure." Does that satisfy your requirement of a critical mass?
Not even a little bit. "Meaningfully" --in whose opinion?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Would you have tried to prevent Abraham from killing Isaac if you did know that God had commanded it?
Nope.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You can't posit tacit consent in the face of explicit dissent.
You are certainly entirely at liberty to move to some tax haven. They do exist.
In a way, it is a Prisoner's Dilemma kind of thing. Taxes go into building infrastructure, at least that's the theory. Now, if we could charge money each time you used a bit of infrastructure, we wouldn't need taxes. Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to measure just how much defense you are using on any given day, not to mention police presence, availability of roads, and opportunities for safe investment. So we charge everybody some, and hope that it evens out.
Now this is a tacit agreement among most people. I understand that you do not agree, but if there were really widespread resistance on moral grounds to taxation, the system would long since have ground to a halt. But the thing is, once we have this infrastructure set up, you use it whether or not you want to; and if people were allowed to use it without paying - well, I'm sure you know all about the Prisoner's Dilemma in large populations, right?
quote:But back to your example, you're truly saying that if a rich guy carpools with you, that gives you tacit permission to rob him? That's... wild.
Come now. The carpool example is indeed wild, precisely because infrastructure doesn't really extrapolate down to the level of individuals. It is an emergent effect of having enough people. Precisely the distinction you were seeking, in fact, between individuals and societies. It's an analogy, ok?
quote:You use the concept of infrastructure as though it's an all or nothing deal. That my consent in one area can be interpreted as a general consent. I think you need to support such a claim.
Well, clearly you find the benefits of living here outweigh the disadvantages, or you would have moved to the Bahamas or Luxembourg and paid no taxes, right? So you are consenting at least to that extent.
About all or nothing : You're right that roads, for example, could be priced on a per-use basis. But how about the military? The police? A social safety net? (And just because you prefer to lvive without one, doesn't mean you have the right to impose your choice on everyone else.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)