[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by AX

Murder is government by my model.

Why? I am asking, because obviously some things government should be involved in. Murder is not where it gets murky.

This is not a "private issue" but this does not have a public consequence either. It fits under law enforcement which is a government institution. When the actions of one person affect the wellbeing and/or life of another in an adverse way without consent, then is is a government issue. Nobody would let a cannibal eat them that was not mentally ill or handicapped and therefore would not be of sound mind to make such a judgment.

Why is government concerned about Mental state if it does not affect society? I make the statement that a cannibal roaming the streets free and placing classified ads in the paper is an issue that is private, but has an effect on society. If you read any of the backlash to that event, you would see it did have an effect on German society.

See, these stupid obviously bad investments should have been outlawed in the 1920's when it caused the first great depression.

So, Government is too big, but too small? This is a direct argument for government expansion to even larger size. This is hardly in place with the rest of this post.

The government gets too much money as it is. Ideally we could roll back our spending, keep the government in government business, and we'd be fine. We did it pre-20's and were fine.

I think a lot of American History is forgotten to say this. Government seizures and such prior to the civil war showed Government had gotten too large. Heck, some would argue that the civil war was a direct result of the federal government overextending its power.

Well, I agree to an extent, but instead of getting rid of property tax make it only apply to acreage after the first two. We have to generate money thru some legal means (our current income tax system is technically illegal), and that should still generate enough flow to keep us moving.

So the farmers would take the hit? The problem is, they are crucial to our economy and they do not really make much to begin with.

Wrong, it is wrong to murder somebody, because it is obviously a non-consented infringement on their right to live. And to say that the right to life is a moral value is demeaning life itself.

Wrong, the fact that you believe life, and a right thereto is even a good thing is a moral value judgment. Not all societies even traditionally have held this. It is not self evident without a value system.

Would life be worth making it to your third birthday if it weren't an inherent right?

Yes. In fact, I am not sure what it being an inherent right has to do with life having value. Which is what the document summarized states.

It is "self-evident". and I know that I'm kinda canonizing this document of rebellion but it is the basis on which we established our country as it's own independent country and one that I find to fit my ideal model pretty damn well. If we had it all to do again, that's one thing that WOULD NOT change.

But that is one bit that should change. Its only self evident from a perspective which values life as a moral judgment. The Sawi traditionally value treachery, and fattening enemies for the slaughter. Under Hammurabi, not all life had an intrinsic value. Under Torah, was there an inherent life in the male Caananite child? It is not self evident. That is a little infusion of what was very obvious to the very brilliant and deistic Mr. Jefferson. But its only from a certain set of moral values that that is evident.

From Jerry's argument that law is an enforcement of a biological impulse, all life should not have equal value. Bad genes would need to be eliminated for the good of the species for its long term survival.

Any Psychiatrist or Psychologist will tell you that a sane person would never consent to that. It is murder and it is absurd to think that any governmental model of a modern nation would allow that.

But whats trickier is trying to figure out how to ban it. It can't be considered murder exactly. The intent and fact that you are not infringing on another person's choice make it tricky to ban. At the time, a few laws had to be enacted to figure out how to prosecute.

It's not a private issue at that point. A private issue would be a phone call and an infringement or overstepping of government bounds would be wire tapping somebody's phone without reasonable and credible suspicion that that person is guilty of a heinous crime.

So an ad in the paper and what someone asks to have done to them with no transfer of money is a public issue? How is it not a private issue?

Child abuse is a private issue that stays within the home most times.

Murder has been illegal in almost every legal system in history. It's a no brainer. Where the government oversteps it's bounds is gay marriage, television censorship, (and though not a U. S. example) banning chewing gum because it makes your streets dirty and gets under park benches.

Why should Singapore not have a right to enforce its cultural values? Is a government violating its role when it does so? I seriously think not.

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by tlj009

What can't we manufacture here? I deal in the construction business. I am aware that most of our valves, fittings, etc. come from overseas because the US based companies went out of business or went overseas. As a result, some things are simply not manufactured here. But I am curious to know what cannot be manufactured here.

Well, technically, almost everything could be produced here. But, you must realize that it may not be in the country's best interest to limit itself. In fact, it goes against the very rules of economics to say that we should produce everything here in this country. We are far better off by trading with the world. I'm not saying that the legislation in place is the best for trading or that it is perfect, because it's not. I am saying though that trade helps the U.S. and the world as a whole.

[tlj009]

Well, technically, almost everything could be produced here. But, you must realize that it may not be in the country's best interest to limit itself. In fact, it goes against the very rules of economics to say that we should produce everything here in this country. We are far better off by trading with the world. I'm not saying that the legislation in place is the best for trading or that it is perfect, because it's not. I am saying though that trade helps the U.S. and the world as a whole.

It depends on what your idea of "better off" is. Are you "better off" than the Amish because you have more things? You are right that limiting trading would limit the economy. I am just not sure that is such a terrible thing. How exactly would it affect our lives? Fewer jobs? Lower wages? Higher prices?

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by tlj009

It depends on what your idea of "better off" is. Are you "better off" than the Amish because you have more things? You are right that limiting trading would limit the economy. I am just not sure that is such a terrible thing. How exactly would it affect our lives? Fewer jobs? Lower wages? Higher prices?

Yes, I agree it does depend upon everyone's opinion of better off. By limiting the economy it would affect our lives because we would have higher prices with maybe slightly higher wages.

Before you predict the wages there is also a supply and demand for labor that would have to be considered. If there were more jobs being created (what would happen if we quit importing and made our own clothes and tools) then the demand for labor would increase thus raising the wages. At the same time though the supply of labor may slightly rise since there are those who decided it wasn't worth their time to work at the low wages so they'll work for higher wages. Thus the increase in the supply of labor pushes the wage rate back down.

Basically, companies are going to offer a wage rate and if people like it, they'll work if they think they deserve more than they'll sit at home. I don't have the latest unemployment rate, but according to everything I've read and heard most people agree that the natural rate of unemployment is roughly 5%. And yet again, unemployment is possibly a good thing.

Ultimately though, I honestly don't know how it'll affect your life. I know in my area that a ban on coal burning would create a lot of unemployment (I myself would be out of a job), but those jobs may be created somewhere else. This then shows no change in the unemployment rate across the nation as a whole. It all depends on which locality you are in as to how it will directly affect you. Besides, there is a difference between efficiency and equality. Most economist strive for efficiency over equality and trade is more efficient than not trading.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

By that logic, when a car dealer and I determine what price I will pay for a car, it boils down to morality.

No, but if you and a car salesman were determining what prices everyone should pay for a car, there are values and morals that would come into play.

To me, laws are "what will I give up in order to gain". One could argue that not gaiming the system (I'm white, so making blacks slaves gains me while costing nothing) is a moral choice, and there might indeed be a moral element to "laws should appply to everyone"; but the actual laws themselves are more a matter of that initial axiom.

So there is a value judgment component. IE: Your condition that laws should apply to all equally is not predicated on you giving up anything or gaining anything.

"I'll give up the right to do stuff to other people in order to gain protection from them doing it to me". That my freedom is more valueable to me than my liberty to affect others isn't a moral decision, but a pragmatic one.

But what about laws that do not effect you personally? The fact that there are laws put in place to protect you from your fellow man is a value judgment, and ultimately will reflect societies mores. That is why the codes of various democracies look different.

You moved right past the end of the argument and into an equivocating definition of "wrong".

Pardon my assumption, but my assumption is that the vast majority of society views murder as wrong, whether for religious reasons, or merely because their values do not line up with the taking of a life. I do not believe it is a biological evolutionary impulse, because man, at his most primitive, survival of the fittest, forms of society does seem to have a cheap view of life. Look at Hammurabbi's code for example. A heck of a lot of things would get you killed. Look at any number of things in primitive societies.

"It's wrong because it's illegal" doesn't neccessairly flow into "why is acting illegally wrong".

Thats not my point at all. My point is, that in a democracy, laws are formed because society thinks they are wrong, at least theoretically, so the morals and values of a society will be that which is then legislated. Relax, I am not claiming a religious or even inherent morality as basis for law, but that law is always a mirror of at least some group's moral compass. Whether it be the zeitgeist of Dawkins, or the Torah of Moses, or the book of Mormon. What we see on our law codes is a compilation of what the majority of society views as wrong, at least theoretically. I would tend to think morals become law when society as a majority excepts or rejects them. Take homosexuality for example. A hundred years ago, I bet you would see openly gay people prosecuted, but society as a whole has had its values change.

What you really meant, I presume is "why choose to make that illegal instead of something else?" There seem to be a few conclusions ("first causes") someone could argue... and "morality" isn't one of them.

Herd morals are one thing that could easily be argued and seems to explain why demagogues throughout history are able to sway democracies. I am not arguing for any particular morality here, but that laws are a reflection of a nations morals, and everyone has morals of a sort. We start out life with them as we all have at least an idea of what fairness is as children, whether we heed it or not. Morals change and very from person to person. I for example do not always believe it wrong to lie. I bet you could easily enough find people who would disagree with me. That shows a variance in morals. Now, if a vast majority of society in a democracy holds a view, they can and do legislate it. Its why, for example, I cannot carry my favorite knife down the street. (It's a hunting knife, and for me I have used it for everything under the sun.) In Papua New Guinea, in the jungle, its perfectly legal. It also would raise no eyebrows. Now here in OC, CA, just carrying it would get me jail time. Now... I am certainly not arguing the act of carrying a 7 inch blade is immoral intrinsically, but our society has deemed it unacceptable as a value judgment so I cannot.

Because "what makes acting immorally wrong" is just as valid a question as "what makes behaving illegally wrong"... the only way to really answer it is by hinging the definition of "wrong" on "illegal" or "immoral", and in either case your answer is circular.

So "why do we choose to establish 'rights' and protect them?". Because we see advantage. Because our biological urges and cognitive functions combine to make that solution to our percieved desires/problems. Because we choose to.

What you are grouping together here is what I would call a societies values. The stuff that makes society go, "that is just wrong" indicates a given societies moral code. Pedophilia is a perfect example of that which society deems "wrong," though I would be hard pressed to find a genetic imperative that says it is wrong. Most people function off of a perceived moral code, regardless of where it is from and cast ballots accordingly, hence, laws are enacted off of morals. In other systems of government, its even easier to see. But if you control a societies values, you control their law.

What has society always barred?

Cruelty to animals has been a tabboo if not illegal and frankly, it serves no genetic advantage to say, "You can't torture a cow, but you can shoot it and eat it."

I disagree. It can be a reflecion of their fears, their desires, or their sheer ignorance. Certainly we don't legislate huting seasons because hunting in the summer is "immoral".

Actually... if you look back, most hunting seasons are set for conservation of a species by not removing the mother from young who would not survive, because it was considered cruel, and also for a matter of sheer pragmatism in not wiping out a species. Allowing another species to continue is a value. One, I might add, that societies have not always held dear.

We don't set a speed limit at 60 because 70 is immoral either.

We set it theoretically because less deaths supposedly occur at that speed because we as a society do not like death. We have a moral value of lives at least generally, whether it is based in scripture or genetic impetus.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by Bryan

so the government taxes the property you own, you don't really own it? that's odd logic.

Yes, that is my position. Can you prove it's bad logic?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Becky

Yes, that is my position. Can you prove it's bad logic?

I can. The deed of trust is in my name along with the bank's or the lienholder. The only claim the local government can make is if you don't pay your property taxes or other government assessments. When that happens, they have the right to place a lien on the property which is a high priority in the order of liens. They won't ever own it unless it goes to a tax sale for unpaid taxes, in which case, a private individual or investor will usually bid on it and it will go to them at a really cheap price. However, the government can also take your property through condemnation, escheat or a taking (say if they want to widen a road and part of your land is in the way). But, until they do that, they don't own the land as you want to think. Sorry...

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Becky

Yes, that is my position. Can you prove it's bad logic?

It's your job to demonstrate the logic of your position, not someone else's to disprove it. As it is it's just a flat non-sequitur. You paid a sales tax for your computer. Does that mean the government owns your computer?

[Hopeful]

Be kind, man. Most people don't have a grasp on real estate law.

[tlj009]

I can. The deed of trust is in my name along with the bank's or the lienholder. The only claim the local government can make is if you don't pay your property taxes or other government assessments. When that happens, they have the right to place a lien on the property which is a high priority in the order of liens. They won't ever own it unless it goes to a tax sale for unpaid taxes, in which case, a private individual or investor will usually bid on it and it will go to them at a really cheap price. However, the government can also take your property through condemnation, escheat or a taking (say if they want to widen a road and part of your land is in the way). But, until they do that, they don't own the land as you want to think. Sorry...

So the government doesn't own the land until they decide to own the land.

You have to pay a yearly price the government to stay on the land. The government can take the land anytime it wants. The government has the final say on what the land can or can't be used for. Whatever terminology you use, I think that it is fair to say that we don't have complete ownership of land.

[tlj009]

It's your job to demonstrate the logic of your position, not someone else's to disprove it. As it is it's just a flat non-sequitur. You paid a sales tax for your computer. Does that mean the government owns your computer?

And your example of a sales tax has nothing to do with the discussion. A sales tax isn't the same thing as a property tax.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by tlj009

So the government doesn't own the land until they decide to own the land.

You have to pay a yearly price the government to stay on the land. The government can take the land anytime it wants. The government has the final say on what the land can or can't be used for. Whatever terminology you use, I think that it is fair to say that we don't have complete ownership of land.

The government can't just seize your property whenever it wants, it can seize it only in order to pay for taxes which you've failed to pay voluntarily, or for a limited number of other reasons.

[tlj009]

The government can't just seize your property whenever it wants, it can seize it only in order to pay for taxes which you've failed to pay voluntarily, or for a limited number of other reasons.

It has to have a reason to take your land. And the reasons are rather numerous. From building infrastructure to economic development. Or because you didn't pay the government enough money to keep your land. I have heard about a push to put a property tax on vehicles. So not only will you lose your house and land when the economy falls apart and you lose your job, but you will be walking to work too.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by tlj009

So not only will you lose your house and land when the economy falls apart and you lose your job, but you will be walking to work too.

that would be awfully hard to do if you didn't have a job...

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by tlj009

It has to have a reason to take your land. And the reasons are rather numerous. From building infrastructure to economic development. Or because you didn't pay the government enough money to keep your land. I have heard about a push to put a property tax on vehicles. So not only will you lose your house and land when the economy falls apart and you lose your job, but you will be walking to work too.

Until they take it, however, they don't own it. The consideration for paying your property taxes is they generally leave you alone. In the tax sale scenario, an investor or individual or even the bank will pay the taxes to pick up the property because the government will not bid on the property. From the government's business viewpoint, they don't want to own the land because they don't have the personal to manage it. In reality, no bank will allow someone to pick up the property for less than the outstanding loan amount, otherwise it will have to write off the difference as a loss which is not a reasonable business decision.