[DrTodd13]

I agree that "sometimes" is not really an answer. It is in effect saying that in some circumstances you think that overall happiness is improved with one course of action and in another similar case you think human happiness is improved by the opposite course of action. In both cases, you are still operating on the ends justify the means.

[Wackojack]

Only God and Satan can sell you happiness. Satan's price is eternal damnation. God's price is you. Gods sacrificed himself to "save" the world. Oddly that didn't bring universal happiness. I will have to invent a hypothetical world in which universal happiness is possible. Then I will be God.

[Al_U_Card]

Wackojack, on Sep 25 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

I will have to invent a hypothetical world in which universal happiness is possible. Then I will be God.

Absolutely divine.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Sep 25 2008, 05:39 AM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

(there's no such thing as an answer of "sometimes")

Of course there is. People are sometimes willing to sacrifice individuals for the sake of society. Sometimes they are not.

Lobowolf, on Sep 25 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 05:20 AM, said:

once again it all comes down to philosophy... do the means justify the ends? you either think they do or they don't (there's no such thing as an answer of "sometimes")

I think there's such an answer as "sometimes." I believe in private property rights, but I'd trespass on your front your lawn to cure cancer. I wouldn't murder you, though, even if I knew I wouldn't suffer any consequences.

then the means justify the ends... imo

[JoAnneM]

Why would you ask such a question? That is my mother's suggested reply to a bad question.

[Mbodell]

Quote

It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh...the needs of the few. Or the one. I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper.

We already make these choices all the time (we just don't most of us think about them like this). The Wall Street bailout is $700 billion dollars. Think about the US lives that could be saved if instead that money was used for universal health care. Think about the global lives that could be saved if instead that money was used for food and medicine combating malaria and other problems in the developing world. And a $700 billion dollar bailout will not even bring universal happiness!

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

then the means justify the ends... imo

I suppose you are right. How else would you justify means?

[DrTodd13]

PassedOut, on Sep 25 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Sep 25 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

then the means justify the ends... imo

I suppose you are right. How else would you justify means?

Yeah...you're right. The only question is what the proper end is. If you don't think the ends justify the means then you must hold some ideal as more important than the end in question. Then, that ideal becomes your new "end."

[pigpenz]

JoAnneM, on Sep 25 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Why would you ask such a question? That is my mother's suggested reply to a bad question.

someone had to answer the same type of question when it came to Hiroshima and the atomic bomb

[mr1303]

We are all already enconomically enslaved. Has no-one not yet noticed?

[PassedOut]

mr1303, on Sep 26 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

We are all already enconomically enslaved. Has no-one not yet noticed?

How so?

[blackshoe]

oops, wrong thread.

[DrTodd13]

PassedOut, on Sep 26 2008, 05:19 AM, said:

mr1303, on Sep 26 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

We are all already enconomically enslaved. Has no-one not yet noticed?

How so?

Well, let's see, the government reserves the right to do everything to you that I mentioned as part of economic enslavement. Where are they limited in terms of maximum tax rate? Where does it say they can't nationalize every business and force you to do the job they want you to do? The 9th and 10th amendments are dead my friend.

Thank for mr1303 for noticing. One would have to suppose that those voting "none of the above" don't believe that we are economically enslaved. Is a slave not still a slave if he works 1 hour a day for his master versus 16?

[PassedOut]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Well, let's see, the government reserves the right to do everything to you that I mentioned as part of economic enslavement.  Where are they limited in terms of maximum tax rate?  Where does it say they can't nationalize every business and force you to do the job they want you to do?

Here is how you defined "economic enslavement" earlier in this thread:

Quote

Economic enslavement here means that [...] economically productive actions are under the control of the rest of the population...including dictating what jobs he can and can't do, how he does them, and up to 100% taxation.

We own two companies, and no one (in or out of government) told us we couldn't do that, nor has anyone interfered with our operations.

Yes, there are regulations, as there are traffic laws, and we follow them. I don't see that as "enslavement" at all. And our taxes are nowhere near 100%. Yes the government could try to act in a much more oppressive way, and that's a reason for constant vigilance.

Your argument seems equivalent to saying that free blacks in colonial America were actually slaves, because the potential was there. I think that the free blacks were in a better situation than the real slaves.

[DrTodd13]

I don't think your analogy is apt. A free black is a free black. Sure, he could be taken captive and re-enslaved but the possibility isn't what we're talking about. Let's say that a master says to his slave "You can now go wherever you want and do whatever you want until I tell you that I need you again." The slave then goes off and lives his life however he chooses. Is he still not a slave? The master can rescind his temporary freedom at any time. However, if a slave is completely freed, his master can't come back later and legitimately "unfree" him and start ordering him around again. That is the difference. The government has the attitude that they can regulate or tax you to whatever degree they desire. If they choose to not regulate or tax you for some reason, that in no way makes your state less than enslavement. If they try to regulate or tax you too much then you can try to elect someone who will buck the trend (good luck with that) or you can revolt. However, from the government's perspective, you are still at a minimum their economic slaves.

[Al_U_Card]

Does an Article V convention have any chance in all this?

[Lobowolf]

To the extent that PassedOut is saying what I perceive him to be saying, I agree with him entirely. I think it's a gross misuse of the word "enslavement" to apply it to "all of us," particularly those of us living in the United States and occasionally idle enough to discuss bridge, philosophy, and politics via internet servers. It's right up there with "Nazi" on the ridiculous analogy chart. Whatever's in third is quite distant.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Sep 26 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

To the extent that PassedOut is saying what I perceive him to be saying, I agree with him entirely. I think it's a gross misuse of the word "enslavement" to apply it to "all of us," particularly those of us living in the United States and occasionally idle enough to discuss bridge, philosophy, and politics via internet servers. It's right up there with "Nazi" on the ridiculous analogy chart. Whatever's in third is quite distant.

can agents of the federal gov't come to your home at 2 am, bust your door down and take you away for an indefinite period of time with no charges being filed and no notification of your whereabouts? if they can, the fact that you and i can discuss philosophy online doesn't lessen our enslavement, imo

[DrTodd13]

Of course, if I had slaves, one of my highest goals would be to convince them that they weren't slaves but still keep them obedient. Certainly there are degrees of enslavement but the degree doesn't matter when it comes to the fundamental question of what your state is. Please command on my thought experiment where the slave owner temporarily frees the slave or takes only 10% of his output. Is he still not a slave? How is that different than the current state of affairs where even in the US estimates for the effective tax rate go as high as 50%. Half your productive efforts go to someone else and you dismiss enslavement as a gross misuse?

[Lobowolf]

DrTodd13, on Sep 26 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

Of course, if I had slaves, one of my highest goals would be to convince them that they weren't slaves but still keep them obedient. Certainly there are degrees of enslavement but the degree doesn't matter when it comes to the fundamental question of what your state is. Please command on my thought experiment where the slave owner temporarily frees the slave or takes only 10% of his output. Is he still not a slave? How is that different than the current state of affairs where even in the US estimates for the effective tax rate go as high as 50%. Half your productive efforts go to someone else and you dismiss enslavement as a gross misuse?

A slave on vacation is still a slave, certainly.


If degree doesn't matter with respect to the fundamental question, then why cite tax rates "as high as 50%"? If you lived in a purely libertarian state, other than the government assessed a 0.1% income tax for infrastructure, would you be a slave?