Quoting Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> More importantly, I think the MOQ implies that it is immoral for > intellectual and social patterns to be affected by biological differences > (such as health). So if the best librarian for a town needs $200,000 > towards her medical expenses per annum while the owner of the local Cadillac > dealership needs only $2000, the MOQ points towards these expenses being > paid for from general taxation (rather than the individual) to ensure that > the best possible intellectual and social patterns (for the town) are > maintained. The only exception would be vanity cosmetic surgery and, > possibly, conditions brought upon by oneself through drugs such as tobacco > and alcohol. With the latter "self-harmers", I think some additional > contribution from salary/pension (though variable depending on income) would > be required. You seem to be suggesting that the MOQ prefers librarians over Cadillac dealers. I find no such occupational discrimination in the MOQ. If I did, I would reject the MOQ as moral malarkey. As for imposing penalties on self-harmers, how about drugs, fast foods, and non-exercisers? The list of harmful behaviors is almost endless. Regards, Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
