From: Ascmjk@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 06 2004 - 23:17:30 GMT
In a message dated 11/6/2004 3:36:27 PM Central Standard Time, ajb102@psu.edu
writes:
Is this an appeal to that elusive "corporate altruism", that if everything was
privitized we'd all be so much better off? If you are against taxes, I
suggest
you start your opposition by refusing to use anything supported by tax
dollars.
I find it disheartening that you jumped to conclusions so quickly. I was
offering up ideas to ponder. Surely one can raise questions about how the tax code
is viewed in relation to how other issues are viewed. This time, deal with
the ideas without worrying about where I personally stand on any given issue.
If one argues it is moral to tell a rich person what to do with their wealth,
could the case be made that it is moral to tell a poor person what to do with
their poorness? I think that's a fair question.
And the other discussion I raised was about privacy, and what people consider
permissible. Many in the United States have raised objections about the
Patriot Act, because of privacy issues. If this is a legitimate complaint, is the
man who complains about the tax code standing in the same court (at least
philosophically) as the man who complains about the Patriot Act? Instead of
pondering this, you jumped to the conclusion that I support something along the lines
of no taxes. You apparently didn't consider these other options. Any or none
of these could have the highest Quality.
A. We should not complain about the Patriot Act, but we should complain about
the tax code. After all, if we are keeping our noses clean, we should have
nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. But it is wrong for the government to
drain my economic plasma for the same reason it would be wrong for the government
to force me to donate my actual blood against my will, no matter how much
other people are bleeding to death.
B. We should complain about the Patriot Act, but NOT the tax code. Taxes are
the lifeblood of modern society. While it's morally wrong for society to chip
away at our privacy, it is morally correct for society to tax us. Personal
privacy is a good value. Personal wealth is inherently immoral, unless utilized
by the standards of society. But excessive invasion of privacy is the beginning
of the end for individuals to chart their own course in life. We can map out
our own future adventures, and make our own rules to successfully navigate the
rules of society and nature. We don't control the wind, but we control the
sails. It's all over when society decides what map we follow.
C. We should complain about the Patriot Act *and* the tax code. Both are
going overboard with regard to our privacy and our money. Get rid of both. It is
not immoral to value personal liberty, nor is it immoral to decide for
ourselves what that means.
D. We should not complain about the Patriot Act *or* the tax code. We need
them both, and both need to be stronger. We need to offer both our privacy and
our wealth to public scrutiny. We are all in this world together, after all.
Let us move proudly forward toward the unified brotherhood of mankind, and get
the ball rolling by surrendering the outdated values of privacy and economic
greed.
Let us discuss these things without talking about "left wing and right wing."
And yes, the election does indeed prove (despite the gibber-jabber of pundits
of both sides) that America is as admiringly diverse as ever. The point is
not to denigrate diversity found in other nations, such as the ones you
mentioned, but to discredit the recent accusations that America has *lost* its
diversity. It has not.
Jon
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 : Sun Nov 07 2004 - 02:26:28 GMT