The Glade 4.0

Don't forget Mao.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

No. They have no moral convictions.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

In that case, I would say person two is most moral.

_________________
"I've got twenty ways to tell you shut the f*ck up / nineteen of them are twenty-four bars long / the other one goes: SHUT THE F*CK UP" - Aesop Rock
"There is no God higher than truth." -- Gandhi
Formerly: Tulamian

He's just more intelligent.

_________________
"The map is not the territory."

*eyeroll*

Clearly there are reasonable lines you must draw. Any philosophy or system of ethics can be expanded to show vast harm if you take them out to an extreme conclusion, even libertarianism. For example, in a world without regulation, disease, poverty, hunger, and illness related to environmental destruction and pollution would wipe out countless people. If that's not harm, I don't know what is.

However, if the question is "if we raise taxes a small amount on the fewest that earn the most, and the result is that millions of people are able to access affordable health care and we wind up saving billions in medical costs over the long term", then I think the moral choice is clear. You do a small amount of negligible harm to a group that is best able to handle it, and in exchange you do a great deal of good for a great number of people. That good eventually pays off for everyone, including the people your raised taxes on.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Your proposition contains a bunch of unsubstantiated non-sequitors where even the admitted flaws are rationalized out of existence without any sort of reasoning or proof.

You may as well proffer "if dwarven smiths forged ruby studded thorium necklaces that irridated evl magic at the cost of a small share of Thurgadin's royal vault that eventually increased the coffers of all of Norrath" that would be a clear moral choice. Every choice of words you make minimizes (at least in your mind) the costs of the actions (and in fact rebukes them entirely) you are taking and makes from those costs, glorious and inevitable fortunes in disproportionately unrealistic amounts to be shared among all. I find such lofty rationalizing to be the pinnacle of zeal and fervor that results from blind idealism and rabid fantacism.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

You're claiming I'm unreasonable, and then moving on to equate libertarianism with anarchism.

Please learn what particular systems of government are before disparaging them. Furthermore, disprove the contention that Mao murdered his own people to improve his country (in his mind).

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I did not equate libertarianism with anarchism, although the two are pretty close when they play out, in practice. In a true free market that lacks any and all government regulation, and in a society where health care is only for those that can pay, there is absolutely no doubt that the conditions I described above would come to pass. Business owners, concerned with profits and unregulated by government, would pollute to their hearts content. If the public were to sue them, they have the means and influence to make sure that they win those court cases. The "market" would not serve as a magic bullet against the vagaries of our society and human nature.

Money talks, and the ones making the money would be calling the shots. Our air would be poisonous, our water would be a cess pit, and disease would spread like wildfire with no government ability to keep it in place. That's the ultimate look of a libertarian society. Look no further than Somalia for an example of a country operating without government restriction. '

The point, however, was that comparing what I said to the ideology of Mao and the other horrible dictators mentioned was inaccurate and inflammatory hyperbole. You can cause some small amount of harm to the few, harm that in the end has a negligible effect on their life, in order to do good for a great number of people. Not only is it a moral choice, but it is a significantly greater moral choice than letting a problem rot the society in the name of not pinching someone on the arm.

Again, that's taken to the extreme. A complete lack of government regulation on business would lead to a great deal of harm. That's why government regulation came to pass in the first place - corporations, more concerned with their bottom line and not concerned with the effects their industry had on the public and the world around them did great harm, and government steped in to protect the public.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Monte please note that the level of harm is not discussed anywhere in options.

Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, all caused harm by doing what the initially intended to be beneficial policies. They completely fit the definition set forth for the first question.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Your post fails here. There can be no truly free market without some government regulation.

Ladas, according to the libertarians, the market exists without government. In other words, the only free market is one that exists without any regulation what so ever from government.

That means - no environmental regulations, no safety standards on products like food and drugs, no pollution regulation - none of it.

Elmo - comparing a 3% marginal tax increase on the top earners in a country to help pay for an expansion of health care that will ultimately save money in the budget (thus benefitting us all) to the horrifying dictatorship of Pol Pot is, on it's face, foolish, inflammatory, inaccurate, and irrational. You may not be in the mood to discuss the level of harm done, but I think it's absolutely relevant to the conversation at hand. You can do a small amount of "harm" to those most able to endure it in order to bring a vast amount of good to those most in need, and that good you do will eventually even pay off for those you "harmed".

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Montegue:

You keep telling me I need to pay more taxes. So, I'll ask you again: how much did you pay in taxes (net) last year?

_________________

I'm a Pragmatist. Ethics are situational.

Moral - not ethical.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Then you truly fail to understand the purpose of government and what is required to implement a truly free market, and completely misunderstand or willfully ignore what is actually been said by the board libertarians.

Yes exactly where did I say that a free market does not itself require a framework for the protection of rights? A market is always more free the more rights are protected.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes you did, and no they don't.

You stated "without regulation." That isn't libertarianism, that's anarchism.



You mean, an anarchistic market?



If the market were totally unregulated, there would be no cause of action to sue. You have therefore created either a false analogy or a false dilemma, I'm not sure which. The point is, your statements above are incorrect.



Indeed, Somalia is a great example of anarchy and tribal despotism (which is what anarchy eventually evolves into).



That's relatively inaccurate as well. Law essentially exists to provide an alternative to violence in response to harm. It creates methods of restitution. Regulations exist to provide grounds upon which to sue companies. As such, they might serve as a deterrent, but they don't prevent wrong-action from occuring.

They simply give individuals the ability to try and be made whole following wrong-action.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Utilitarianism...Spock

_________________
Hokanu
Duty is a magnificent blessing because it is the sign of trust from the universe.
END OF LINE.

I have never once told you, Khross, that you need to pay taxes. What I paid in taxes is none of your business. So don't try to make something personal of something that isn't personal at all.

If you make a lot of money, then yes, I believe that you have a larger obligation to the social contract than someone who makes significantly less. You benefit in a compound fashion from the social contract in a way that far exceeds someone like me. Furthermore, a wealthy person endures less overall harm from a small tax increase than a middle class or poor person. And in the end, you wind up benefiting most from a healthier economy and fiscal picture for the country.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So? Why is it any of your business, or anyone else's for that matter to say who is supposed to pay the burden because you cannot hack getting a better paying job?

Why should it be anyone else's problem that someone is trying to raise a family on McDonalds wages? How is it my problem that you could not get a job paying as much as I have and cannot have the same standard of living I do? How is it your problem if you make more than I do and have a better standard of living than I do? I did not sign any social contract saying anything about giving a **** about my fellow man.


So why should you get to decide that people who make more should contribute more; put up or shut up.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

There isn't any real difference between the two, you know.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It seems fair to me that those that benefit the most from the social contract should contribute the most to it in terms of percentage of income. I don't understand why you think it's a matter of being able to "hack" a better paying job. The value of an individual has nothing to do with their net worth. There are plenty of scumbag CEOs who will never contribute as much to our society as a great primary school teacher, and that teacher will never make anything close to the kind of money those CEOs make.



You do sign on to the social contract. Our military protects you just as much as the McDonald's worker, only, if you have more to lose than them, you are getting more bang for your buck. The internet is government subsidized. You drive on publicly funded roads, you likely have a public education (maybe not, maybe so), and there are countless things you benefit from every day that are part of that social contract.

And for that, you pay a premium. Taxes.



I don't get to decide that, and I would appreciate a less combative tone.

We all go vote. And in our representative democracy, the people we vote for set the tax rates. I vote for politicians that support policies I agree with, and hope that when the sausage is made, said policies bear some resemblance to what I would like to see. But *I* am not deciding that people who make more should contribute more. Our democratic process decides that.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Morals tend to be religiously or socially derived, and ethics tend to be existentially or philosophically derived. Ultimately they are identical. I agree with your point. Ultimately they all lead back to social power structure as well... but that's another issue... morals and ethics only apply when there is more than one person.

edit:

It's interesting because if you killed every person on Earth except one, then suddenly most of the 10 commandments cease to apply... also saying God wouldn't allow just one person is naivety. Obviously it's a possible event.

_________________
"The map is not the territory."

No I didn't, and yes they do. I would appreciate it if you did not extrapolate from my words things I have not argued.



So, libertarianism supports federal regulation of pollutants? That would be news to me.




That's the free market described by every single libertarian on the board, to my recollection. A market where the government has no power to regulate things like pollution or worker's safety, for example.



We are talking about government regulation, not civil action. In other words, laws that restrict what a business can and cannot do. Pollution and product safety, for example.



And also a fantastic example of what happens in a free market.





And in such a situation, where the only "regulation" was the right to sue, the powerful and wealthy would always have the advantage, and justice would no longer be blind or balanced. A corporation could afford to hire the very best lawyers and do all of the underhanded things they do today to avoid paying out for their atrocities, only there would be no other, higher laws for them to answer to. In other words, their money could buy them out of any consequences for their actions.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Here's the thing -- you've never given an argument to substantiated this claim. Furthermore, you seem to be arguing from a personal social contract theory that doesn't follow from any of the major historical social contract theories. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that if you've built up a solid and well-reasoned theory. But since you've never given any exposition on what this theory is, we have no way to address or critique it. Until such time, the claim that the wealthy get "compound benefits" from the social contract is essentially a null declaration to anyone other than yourself.

Could you explain to me what your social contract theory is, and demonstrate to me how it is that the wealthy receive more benefit from it?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.