Hi Platt, Platt: > The truth is politicians propose social programs using other > people's money > coerced from the people, not offered voluntarily, resulting in a > loss of > individual liberty. That's the moral issue.
Steve: Our government governs with the consent of the people. I don't agree with the claim that there is coersion involved though I do think that your point that every law that the government makes is enforced at the point of a gun is an important one to keep in mind. co·erce –verb (used with object), -erced, -erc·ing. 1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document. 2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience. 3. to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual. Since we have voting rights, I don't think it is correct to say that the government has no "regard for individual desire or volition." It has to answer to the people on election day. I know I'm sounding somewhat naive, but I think that the government really does work that way at least to an extent. I'm not sure what I'd recommend for someone who feels coerced by his government like you do. (I suppose there are pacifists who feel the same way about their money being used for the military as you do about your money being used for social programs.) Civil disobedience? Relocation? > >> If the fruits of labor represents money, we are talking about a >> social pattern of value, aren't we? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's >> then. > > Property is the fruit of labor. Money is merely a symbol of property, > useful in exchanges in a free market. The moral question is, "What is > Caesar's?" But property is inorganic. The comfort it provides is biological. The status is represents is social. >> There is also the premise in your argument that individuals in a >> society have no duty to other individuals that I disagree with. >> According to the MOQ, there is no individual without society. > > And there is no society without individuals. There is some sleight of hand in that reversal. You are mixing uses of the term "individual" in the MOQ. There is no individual defined as a forest of static pattern of value of all four types and the ability to respond to DQ without society since the fourth level evolves after the 3rd. When you say that there is also no society without individuals you are changing the meaning of individual to refer only to biological and inorganic patterns of value. > As Pirsig explains, society is needed to defend individuals from being > devoured by biological forces. That is the primary purpose and moral > sanction for the law, the military and the police. Wouldn't a national health care program help defend individuals from being devoured by biological illness? > What other specific duties to other individuals do you find in the > moral > structure set forth in the MOQ? Society needs to maintain itself and intellect needs to support society since it's existence depends on society. I think the MOQ then suggests that we have to educate people to be able to perpetuate and contribute to society since social roles require education. Also, societies evolved because they helped biological man survive. Stronger societies then do a better job than weaker societies at serving people's biological needs, so a strong MOQ case can be made that it is in society's interest to have structures that increase the health of it's members. Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
