Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 13:57:38 BST

  • Next message: Michael Hamilton: "Re: MD Music to MOQ to (was MOQ and the Moral Society)"

    > 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?


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 18 2005 - 13:58:17 BST