Keith, > Thanks for the replies, Platt.
Likewise, Keith > -----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05---- > Another way to look at your examples: using government to enforce a social > contract between a man and a woman, ensure the freedom of elected local > school officials to decide on their school's curriculum, and protect the > lives of the unborn. As I noted previously, I consider these legitimate > uses of government power -- protecting lives, ensuring individual freedoms, > and enforcing contracts. I guess whether this view is libertarian or > religious social conservative is up to you to decide. ----- [Keith] > I agree in the abstract that protecting lives, ensuring individual > freedoms, and enforcing contracts are all legitimate government functions. > > I see and empathize deeply with the argument for protecting the unborn. I > think abortion is one of the profound & divisive unresolved metaphysical & > ethical questions of our time. I don't happen to believe in the metaphysics > of "ensoulment" or even personhood at conception, though, so I think there > is a window in which abortion (as well as embryonic stem cell research) is > acceptable, where social considerations outweigh biological patterns. After > all, a fertilized embryo can split into twins after 2 weeks of cell > divisions, so how can we call an embryo a person? At some point in fetal > development, obviously, abortion becomes unacceptable. Where is the line? > Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan lay out some interesting perspectives on that > question in their essay "Is it possible to be both 'Pro-Life' & > 'Pro-Choice'?" <http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml>. A fine article covering all the bases. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that abortion is OK up to the third trimester. But then again I certainly favor abortion in cases of incest, rape and if necessary to save the mother. A tough and related question is one of responsibility for for the proper care and education of the newborn. A child born out of wedlock is usually a disaster for both mother and child. But should the state step in either to require an abortion, or put the child in a better environment? I really don't know, nor do I find the MOQ helpful in arriving at a conclusion. In sum, I agree with your statement, "I think abortion is one of the profound & divisive unresolved metaphysical & ethical questions of our time." [Keith] > I can also see the federalist argument behind allowing school officials to > decide on the curriculum for their own schools. However, I think the > relevant issue in the particular case of "Creation Science" or "Intelligent > Design" is not local control but the separation of church & state. Teaching > religious doctrine as science is the problem here & that's the ground on > which higher-level government intervention is justified. It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the question of allowing Muslim religious practices to take place during school hours on school property. I understand this is being permitted in some cities. In any event, I don't see the harm in allowing "Intelligent Design" to be introduced as a separate evolutionary theory. I don't think it threatens an establishment of religion as conceived by the Founding Fathers. Further, it teaches what science itself preaches -- knowledge is not absolute. [Keith] > I have far less understanding for the "gay marriage" ban and other > religious social conservative anti-gay legislation, however. Perhaps you > can tell me how allowing same-sex civil unions undermines contract law for > heterosexuals. Prima facia, I don't see the problem. I'm not even sure that > marriages are best thought of primarily as contracts ... I have no problem with gays getting "married" without a formal contract recognized by the state. But "married" as recognized by the state means a union of a man and women to procreate and raise children within a family setting, long recognized by societies throughout the world and over eons of time as the best arrangement for insuring long term social viability. Thus, I don't feel maintaining the status quo regarding marriage is "anti- gay." > -----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05---- > Yes, but current intellect is devoid of values and thus incapable of > proper control. "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on > to say that science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to > take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object > science has no provision for morals." (Lila, 22) > > This is an important conclusion of the MOQ that I don't think too many here > are ready to accept. Nor in the ten years this site has been open do I > recall it being thoroughly discussed. I get the distinct impression that > most contributors here believe that if only we could rid the world of the > supposed "who-whom" game of oppressors and oppressed we could attain > Utopia, appealing to the authority of historical figures like Marx, Jesus, > and the Buddha for moral guidance rather than the more realistic rational > morality proposed by Pirsig. ----- [Keith] > I don't follow you here, unfortunately. You agree that communism & > socialism are intellectual patterns trying to control society, but ... are > defective because (like science?) they don't include values? Those two > political forms value human equality almost above all else, right? I'm not > a proponent of either communism or socialism, but I just don't follow your > line of reasoning here. It's not so much my line of reasoning as Pirsig's which is spelled out in detail in Lila. Basically the scientific subject-object mindset prevalent today considers morality, if it considers it at all, as completely subjective, a matter of personal whim. Pirsig explains: "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there are no morals, just functions. Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila, 22) > -----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05---- > You paid the sales tax with your previously owned money (property) which > becomes the communal property of the state. ----- [Keith] > OK, I can see that. I think this level of "communism" is unavoidable since > we need somehow to carry out the functions of government & the money has to > come from somewhere to pay for that. I don't see a slippery-slope from > taxation to state ownership of either the means of production or all > property, though. Well, with 40 percent of income going to pay taxes at all levels of government now, and the calls for even higher taxes by some, the slippery slope has become quite slippery indeed. The trend doesn't bode well I fear. > -----Platt, Wed 2007-07-11 10:05---- > Since you asked: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer > ----- [Keith] > Thanks for the link! At first glance, this looks very promising. I'll have > to research it more deeply. > > You may see this as government meddling, but I support environmental > tax-shifting <http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2ch12_ss2.htm> as one > market-friendly way to remove the externalities that lead to the economics > of environmental degradation. The combination of the progressive FairTax > with the full-cost accounting of environmental tax shifting would likely > reduce government bureaucracy, decrease the need for heavy-handed > environmental regulation, and spur sustainable economic development. Thanks for the reference. Sounds promising. I'll look into it. Platt 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/
