It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gentledissident
Insuring the well being of everyone has to be enforced, or we won't.
Sure, some may think they are doing fine so others should do fine as well. I hope they still think that when they aren't doing fine. We need laws to protect us from the "every man for himself' syndrome. That encroaches on freedoms like laws against theft and murder do. You are not free to do those things either.
Originally posted by antonia
Except you are missing one of the central problems here-Most people are not ethical. That's why we have laws concerning the elderly and children. I don't see the problem with enforcing some kind of standard. (I think in some areas it has gone too far.)
There's a story about a grand ethical businessman for you-and what happened to this.... Entrepreneur? He paid 2000 dollars for killing over 100 women.
This has always been my main problem with libertarian viewpoint-It's just as unrealistic as the commies. It depends on human beings being moral or ethical (take your pick) when history shows most human beings have to be told how to behave. Infanticide used to be common in western society until the Church pronounced edicts against it. If humans are so capable of natural ethics then why do we actually need to tell them that killing your own child is wrong? Our society is replete with examples of this lack of ethics. You can't try to deal with how people should be, you have deal with how they are.
Libertarians are always bouncing around that point.
Yes, like I mentioned, it depends on what side you're on.
Originally posted by nenothtutheft and murder encroach on the freedoms of others, and so are punished. Likewise, a law forcing someone to help when they don't want to ALSO encroaches on their freedom of choice. Pick your poison, I suppose.
Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
May I ask what measures you would find appropriate (that would have a realistic chance of success) if furthering an objective of accountability (both corporate & governmental) would be on the table? I'm really interested in seeing your take--to me, your insights are always quite philosophical. And also, what steps would you suggest to effect worthwhile and positive change?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by elfie
Antonia's arguments ask that we pretend that all this corruption and greed is not a problem with government, but is somehow a problem with "them". Such a fallacious reasoning only ensures that "they", whoever the hell "they" are, continue with their business as usual while all the clamoring for more regulation will only make "us" more of the very same slaves that "we" keep complaining about.
Further, and staying with antonia's argument, antonia may, or may not be, arguing that she/(he?) doesn't trust her own ethics and honor and needs to be regulated, but she/(he?) is most assuredly arguing that you and I need to be regulated because antonia doesn't see where you and I, on average, are worthy of anything more than mistrust and mild disgust at best.
Even more tellingly with antonia's post is that it begins by addressing my argument with Walking Fox regarding the Fox's implicit assertion that only progressive taxation can save a suffering dying man. What is so telling about this is that I had restrained myself with Fox in regards to the O.P.'s sloppy hypothetical. It was a sloppy hypothetical because the scenario demanded that the person suffering was also dying. No qualifications given to this, only that the person Fox believed I have such a callous attitude towards is dying. No suggestions that this dying person could be saved from dying if only we taxed the rich enough, only that I was callous towards dying suffering people because I don't want any income tax on anyone, rich or poor!
So many assumptions have to be made about Fox's sloppy, lazy hypothetical, that when antonia pipes in taking me to task for my "solution" to this imaginary suffering dying person, perspective and focus on the actual issue becomes so absurdly muddled that it is like unraveling years of discombobulated string. The hypothetical itself was nothing more than reification. Antonia follows up this reification with more reification and all of it has nothing at all to do with the nuts and bolts of taxation, how government actually operates, and how Constitutions mandate how government can, and cannot operate.
i didn't say government isn't a problem. You are just reading it that way. I think human nature is the problem. It's a far more pessimistic argument than what you assigned to me. And you could at least address me since I gave you the same, I know I am an idiot, but damn, where are your manners?