From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 17:10:59 BST
Hi all,
On 18 Jul 2005 at 8:57, Platt Holden wrote:
> 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.
platt 7-18-05:
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 7-18-05:
I'm objecting to your repetition because you offer it in place of
argument, and to avoid answering questions.
> 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?
platt 7-18-05:
Behind everything government does for good or ill is a law or
regulation backed by force. Agree?
msh 7-18-05:
If you mean laws which allow the collection of taxes, and the
punishment of tax-evaders, sure I agree. But, as usual, you avoid
answering my question, which is do you agree that government, in a
moral society, will do a lot more than just enforce laws?
msh 7-17-05:
> I'll leave your disparaging comments about "liberals," whoever they
> are, to the record.
platt 7-18-05:
Just following you lead in using "liberal" as shorthand for those
with a an easily identified political agenda.
msh 7-18-05:
But your not following my lead. I use the terms "liberal-
conservative," "left-right" to refer to collections of ideas
defining a political philosophy, no different than saying
"materialist-idealist." You use the word "liberal" to reject an idea
without debating it. As a recent example, I said that police who
engage in high speed pursuit of motorists, when there is no reason to
believe that the motorist is a threat to life, are needlessly
increasing the risk to society. This idea is well-understood by
many, many police agencies who, to their great credit, have adopted
policies for terminating such pursuits. But this was your response
to my idea:
platt 7-17-05:
Interesting you put the blame for life-endangerment on the police,
not the perp. I'll never understand liberals who love government
intrusion into the lives of law-abiding private citizens but hate
"pigs."
msh 7-18-05:
Here's my still unanswered question. I think it's a fair question,
and I'm wondering if anyone other than Platt sees a reason to avoid
it. Here it is, then I'll let it go:
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?
> platt 7-16-05:
> (In my book, protecting property is life saving.)
> msh 7-16-05:
> Of this I have no doubt. However, such a belief is irrational, as
> can be verified by observing the actions of police and fire
services
> who routinely save lives before property.
> platt 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.
platt 7-18-05:
That drugs are property.
msh 7-18-05:
The question is, which takes rational precedence, saving lives or
saving property? Property can be replaced. It seems very odd that
such a question would even be debated on a website exploring the
Metaphysics of Quality.
platt 7-18-05:
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.
msh 7-18-05:
Ok, I'll do that.
platt 7-18-05:
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?
msh 7-18-05:
I don't claim it's my neighbor's responsibility to pay my health
costs. I say, in a moral society, people will not be allowed to die
because they cannot afford life-saving treatment.
Although my argument has been spelled out more than once in this
thread, I'll sketch it briefly here:
1) In the MOQ, ideas such as those found in the US Constitution, are
of higher value than society itself. That is, society in its moral
evolution, will move toward realization of such ideas.
2) It's clear from the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments that no one
may be deprived of life without the due process of law.
3) If society allows someone to die because they cannot afford life-
saving treatment, that person is being deprived of life without due
process of law.
4) Therefore, according to the Metaphysics of Quality, society has a
moral obligation to prevent this deprivation of life.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com 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 - 21:34:21 BST