I hear you guys. I'm down with the greater good... But, how do we ensure ethical behavior in politics?
Make lobbyists illegal for one. No private campaign or otherwise contributions to an elected/appointed official.
Beautiful. I was just thinking, get rid of politcal marketing from corporations with other agendas. Even then, anyone could run on any platform.. And switch policies in office. There would still be underground marketing.
You're seeking to adress a symptom of big government by limiting free speech. We could simply limit the power of government, and this would severely decrease the value in lobbying.
isn't the effectiveness of lobbying a symptom of corporate influence, not big government. What about good old fashioned bribes? You know bribery is alive and well in Washington. How do the masses get involved?
There've been a number of people here saying that morality is subjective. I'd just like to point out that if morality is subjective, then it becomes entirely useless in discourse, and thus any discussion entered into under such terms is severely limited in value. There's also been a big resurgence in the last couple of decades in value ethics, over more specialized theories like those posed by Kant. What impact do people think that this has on the discussions in this thread?
It's near impossible. It will happen through either bankruptcy or revolution. It's the chicken and the egg, I guess. Corporate lobbying could have led to the creation of big government, but right now big government attracts lobbying. Yes, bribery and other hidden forms of lobbying do and will still exist if we outlaw lobbying. That's why I'd rather get rid of their level of power.
I understand if that's your definition of morality, but that is why it is subjective. I see at least a third act of immorality. Standing by and watching evil occur, not doing things in your power to stop it, is also an immoral act. If you watch a man beat a women and do nothing to help her, you didn't live up to a very high standard of morality.
Check out this thread (Very similar).... http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritua...ghts-human-duties-human-responsibilities.html
There is nothing wrong with using force to save someone else from attack. The non-aggression principle, which is what we are referencing, states that the use of force or coercion or the threat of force or the use of fraud are immoral acts. They are immoral because they violate the property rights of those who are being coerced or attacked. The only time force is justified is for defense of your person or property or when defending another from attack.
We are defining "morality" in terms of property, not what one thinks is right or wrong. Property ownership is absolute, or should be considered as such. Immorality in the terms we are using is the use of force or fraud against another person for the benefit of the aggressor or his agents. For example, taxation is immoral because the collection of taxes depends on the state using force or the threat of force to coerce individuals into paying tribute to the king. If one does not pay their taxes then they will face stiff penalties, possibly death. To those that disagree that taxation is not immoral because no force is used then simply stop paying your taxes and see how well you do. When "morality" is defined in terms of property rights, that is, you do not have the right to violate or transgress against anothers property, which extends first from his ownership over himself, his time and his labor and extends to his possessions, then we can arrive at a very clear understanding of "morality" based on property rights. Of course we are talking political morality, not social. It may be that one abhors homosexuality. Yet no one has the right use force to stop homosexual from engaging in whatever activity they choose. The only restriction they face is that they cannot use force either. Therefore, no matter what act you are doing, so long as it is peaceful and not employing force, it is politically moral to engage in it. I think, in general, that politics and morality are completely contradictory since politicians are always the first willing to use force against someone because they disagree with them. You can give a slave a choice between being beaten with a stick or not eating for the night but that doesn't change the fact that he is a slave. What you have proposed is what is known as a false choice. It is often employed by politicians. You can choose to have your money stolen to pay for police or you can choose to have your money stolen to pay for welfare. But that doesn't change the fact that your money is being stolen. Your system, like the one we currently have, is neither just nor uncorrupted since you have failed to eliminate the problem which is systematic theft of peoples property, also known as taxation.
Unless of course you're also given the choice to not pay taxes. I think its a pretty decent idea. If you choose to pay taxes, you can then choose what those taxes go into. As long as the list of things you can pay taxes covers many things, in great detail, and as long as there is complete transparency as to where each specific person contribution goes to, I think there is little room for corruption, and wouldn't qualify as slavery. But then, how would this be any different from paying a private business for a service? Especially since, in this system, what you don't pay taxes in you would end up paying directly for. At least though, by giving private corporations a stake in providing these services, rather than just the government sponsored options, given that there aren't laws and regulations that favor the government subsidized programs by stifling competition, we can actually see who would do a better job at it.
Yes, I agree it is a much better solution. And in short order the politicians would be out of business as people would realize they don't actually need them at all.
No there is something wrong with not acting. Not acting would not be fraud or aggression, but it would IMHO be immoral.
The only way I can imagine this could be considered immoral is if you hold a ridiculous view like 'loving all humans' etc. I'll tell you just like I tell self-proclaimed 'animal lovers' and I'm a pet owner by the way. No one 'loves' all. The only way you can 'love' all is if you mutilate the concept of love to encompass many other emotions that aren't nearly as strong as the word 'love' implies. I love some humans, and I love some animals. I also dislike some humans and dislike some animals. Not everything deserves my love, and more importantly, no one can tell me who I should and shouldn't love. Sure, you can use another more appropriate word to describe whatever feeling it is that makes you feel like it would be immoral to not act, but frankly, nothing beyond love for another is strong enough imo to warrant action. This brings up another relevant point though. You can't discuss morality and politics without first addressing one's framework of values. Clearly, two individuals can value different things, and therefore will feel differently towards different things. The only way you can justify forcing someone else to abide by policies based on your values, if the other person doesn't have the same ones, is to somehow put a value to values. In other words, you'd have to say, well, my values are more important, significant, virtuous, better than yours, so you HAVE to conform to them, but I don't have to do jack shit about yours other than patronize you for them.
the only thing to warrant inaction is fear. Love is great and I agree it is a condition to create action, but it is not the only one. In genocide it is a duty to act. would you stand their and watch a women be beat because you do not love the women? would you have stood by and watched 6 million people be exterminated? explain how your argument is moral - because I just don't see it.
A moral framework that abandons logical reasoning is...fail. What is your notion of proximity? Standing there and watching a women be beat...Where is there? Where is she? What are the circumstances? And your second example... even worse. It totally ignores any sort of details that could describe how you can realistically help these people. I certainly agree that there are some very specific actions against others, in very specific circumstances that would make inaction immoral. But the list is, let me repeat, very specific, and very detailed, and trying to describe it with just one, or even a few words would be extremely vague, misleading, and inaccurate.
Wow, do I really have to give you some hypotheticals to show you how asinine it is to disregard detail and circumstances to come up with viable solutions? The woman is being beaten and worse, raped even by 5 guys. Your standing 5 feet away. There is a group of 10 people standing 30 feet away, but around a corner. You're gonna be an idiot and jump in, so they can beat and rape you too? Or are you gonna run to the group of 10 people and recruit their help? You might even want to consider, in you limited perspective, that there are some things that individuals can't do anything about, especially in a society, ruled by a governing body, that encourages inaction. Group think keeps most people immobile even in situations where its clear it takes just a small group to mitigate. So, if your the sole person that does something, your undertaking more risk to your life. Its not fucken fear. Its fucken logical to want to continue living. I agree that people should do shit, and even learn to prepare for the worst so they can be more useful if shit goes down, but that isn't accomplished by a nanny state that tries to save us from ourselves. Again, your view departs even further from logical reasoning and viable solution and decision making when you bring up a vague example like a genocide. Your trying to expand a moral belief you have about individuals and small groups in close proximity to, well, do I really even have to explain this? Spare me, and extrapolate the rest of it on your own.