Say the government wants to negotiate lower prices on coffee by being the worlds biggest buyer. To do that they take tax money to buy it and give it to all Americans free. That sounds fair. But I don't like coffee, I don't drink coffee, there's no coffee in my house. How is that fair to me?

Or the government land in the west, which belongs to me as well as every American, being used and abused by ranchers to make fortunes without  paying rent. How is that fair to us?

My taxes chipping in to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska I'll never see, no less use. How is this fair to me?

We see the Federal government programs passed by Congress to help with food, with school lunches, kindergarten,  health care, rent subsidies, housing, and the list goes on. These all sound like worthy programs, but after awhile I get to thinking all these programs are cash flow from me(taxes) to the same folks over and over, is that fair to me?

We hear constant anecdotes about the government spending millions of tax dollars on studying the sex life of a frog in Pango Pango. I'd be willing to bet there's a kernel of truth there although it only a kernel and phrased in a way to make it sound bizarre. But the truth is an awful lot of my tax dollars are spent on things I wouldn't necessarily approve of. It's done in a way that it would be a full time job to even discover a little about where it goes. Is that fair to me?

The further the government strays from the basic premise of making sure the wagons can be circled properly when needed the more people will be suspicious of any spending program. Some things are absolutely a community  responsibility,  clean water, sewer, sanitation, primary education. These are things that can't be done by the individual unless you have 100+ acre lots and no community. 
Everyone draws the line at a different location so we have to talk about why you put the line where you do.

Grandfather wrote:

Have your people call my people and they'll hash it out. You're too boring.

With nothing useful to contribute, then he mocks an honest and logical poster with multiple, demeaning and discourteous cheapshots.  Since he cannot deny honesty that exposes entrenched,extremist, and erroneous beliefs.

He is invited to post an adult (logical) reply.  Or apologize for mocking another.
 

henry_quirk wrote:

seems to me: before you can ask about the proper role(s) of government, you need to ask & answer this...

are there moral facts (about man) we can turn to as guides & boundaries of what is permissible between and among men?

if there are no moral facts then all is permissible, the only limits bein' the shiftin' & shifty opinion of whoever comprises the majority at any time

if there are moral facts, then some strategies, solutions, methods of governance are off the table no matter how well those strategies, solutions, methods work to make life easy or better

Moral facts? 
"Morals are the prevailing standards of behavior that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. 
Moral refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable.
 Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines."
"Fact- noun -  something that actually exists; reality; truth."
So you're saying since there are no such things as moral facts there can be no acceptable guidelines?
 

So you're saying since there are no such things as moral facts there can be no acceptable guidelines?

if there are no moral facts, then all you have is opinion, opinion which may be accepted by the majority or imposed by a minority, may be well-thought out & coherent or may be haphazard & nonsensical...in the end, just opinion

I, for the record, am a moral realist: there are moral facts

but, that's neither here or there

again...

before you can ask about the proper role(s) of government, you need to ask & answer this...

are there moral facts (about man) we can turn to as guides & boundaries of what is permissible between and among men?

if there are no moral facts then all is permissible, the only limits bein' the shiftin' & shifty opinion of whoever comprises the majority at any time

if there are moral facts, then some strategies, solutions, methods of governance are off the table no matter how well those strategies, solutions, methods work to make life easy or better

"Liberty is better than not-Liberty"

isn't it? describe, if you like, a circumstance were bein' a slave is preferable to bein' free


"Real men don't like to wear a leash"

well, that's not right...more like no man (or woman) willingly looks to be leashed

even slavers, as they eye man-flesh, reject the leash for themselves


anyway: I believe -- again -- there are moral facts about man that prohibit or invalidate certain kinds of governance

if there are no moral facts, then all is permissible

Last edited by henry_quirk (12/21/2020 6:18 pm)

Moral fact? Maybe an evolutionary biologist would say the highest morality is surviving to reproduction or ensuring the reproduction in your group? You are mixing beliefs and facts.

I said, "Nobody disagrees with these obvious statements." Do you understand? These are soft ball positions. The question is what do the words mean? What is Liberty, what constrains Liberty? That's the debate, not, "Some people think Liberty is bad." Read the words I'm saying.

henry_quirk wrote:

so, I can mark you down as moral anti-realist: okay

Your morals are not real, others' might be. Your morals have no basis in provable reality.

It's the debate that would be worth having. What we're doing is this: Liberty = purple zebras! You hate purple zebras because you think 17 equals 43! Whereas I love purple zebras-- and therefore Liberty-- because I know that 17 equals 52! People who think 17 equals 43 love wearing a leash, but true 52 believers NEVER wear a leash!

It's just a bunch of empty words. Your big thesis is that people prefer to enjoy more degrees of freedom, rather than less. Nobody disagrees with that-- it's a statement of the obvious.

"What is freedom, and how do we have it?"
"What promotes freedom, and what hurts it?"

These are the questions where people might disagree, and could have a discussion about.

Just repeating, "yOu hAtE fReEdOm, you LoVe wEaRiNg a LeAsH" doesn't accomplish anything.

Last edited by Flint (12/22/2020 12:57 am)

henry_quirk wrote:

griff wrote:

henry_quirk wrote:

so, I can mark you down as moral anti-realist: okay

Your morals are not real, others' might be. Your morals have no basis in provable reality.

 
so: what are my morals, and why are my morals not real

and: these others, who are they, and why might their morals be real?

Your morals are not quantifiable.

I like Bruce's answer but for the sake of argument someone might claim that their highest moral standard is the continuation of human DNA. That which supports the flourishing of human life long-term might be quantifiable.

henry_quirk wrote:

if we're gonna do this, we'll do it right

But again, henry shows his contempt for the left.

 

I don't have any leashes but it sounds kinky, where do I get some?