AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Yes, it is morally acceptable for my duly elected representative to agree with other representatives that $25 should be deducted from my paycheck to fund roads and bridges shared by all--Citizen A and Citizen B equally and without respect to their individual circumstances. That was the founders original intent.

There are too many possible extenuating circumstances to know. But here the scenario is the choice of the two individuals involved. The scenario I presented does not give Citizen A a choice in the matter.

As hypothesized I see nothing but morality ambiguity because you have not provided enough information.

1. Government doesn't presently do what you hypothesize.
2. You haven't given a reason why government took money from A to give to B.
3. You haven't told us how much of A's money went to B.
4. Your hypothesis doesn't describe what A does, what B does and whether A made money because of B.
5. You haven't defined what was legal in your scenario for A to earn this money.
6. Your explanation of A and B ignores the complexity of human existence.
7. You haven't explained if there are restrictions on what B can do with the money.

If the government took $5 of the $10 million that A earned and gave it to B then I see nothing wrong with it.
If the government took ALL of the money that A earned then I see it as a problem.
There is a very large middle in there that can play out a lot of different ways.

I am looking for a moral principle that would justify that government taking property from Citizen A and giving that property to Citizen B.

Quote:

Yes, it is morally acceptable for my duly elected representative to agree with other representatives that $25 should be deducted from my paycheck to fund roads and bridges shared by all--Citizen A and Citizen B equally and without respect to their individual circumstances. That was the founders original intent.

Oh.. so there was nothing morally wrong about the bridge to nowhere then as long as our representatives voted for it.

OK. glad you made that clear for us Fox.

Quote:

There are too many possible extenuating circumstances to know. But here the scenario is the choice of the two individuals involved. The scenario I presented does not give Citizen A a choice in the matter.

Oh, so Citizen A lives in a dictatorship? Citizen B is not a majority since we are only allowed Citizen A and B.

There's too much in there that is not very coherent, fox. "Founders' intent", aside from whether that construction actually makes sense, involves a legal argument, not a moral argument.

More tellingly, you end up labeling it immoral when taxes go to alleviate suffering but moral when they got to sewer maintenance instead.

I did not say a word about a 'bridge to nowhere'. I did specify that a moral justification can be made for taxes that fund roads and bridges that Citizen A and Citizen B can equally benefit from without respect to their individual circumstances.

But what moral principle allows the government to confiscate Citizen A's property for the purpose of exclusively benefitting Citizen B?

Quote:

I did not say a word about a 'bridge to nowhere'. I did specify that a moral justification can be made for taxes that fund roads and bridges that Citizen A and Citizen B can equally benefit from without respect to their individual circumstances.

No road in the US equally benefits all citizens. I get more benefit from the one that goes past my house. You get more from the one that goes by yours. I will never use the road that goes past your house. 99% of the citizens in the US will probably never use the Federal highway that goes past where I grew up.

The people on a small island in Alaska would get more benefit from the bridge. 99.9% of the US will probably never use that bridge. Why is one OK and the other isn't? As long as our representatives vote on it, is it OK? Or do you have other criteria you use?

Quote:

I am looking for a moral principle that would justify that government taking property from Citizen A and giving that property to Citizen B.

What's the moral principle that would justify that government takes a child from Citzen A and gives it to Citizen B (or agency C)?

I am not changing the question. I have answered based on several different factors that exist in the real world that you want to keep out of your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is ambiguous in morality because it ignores too many factors that change the ethical standing.

By living where he is A has agreed to the social compact that allows his money to be taken. It is moral because A can leave the country and move somewhere else if he doesn't like it.

I am not changing the question. I have answered based on several different factors that exist in the real world that you want to keep out of your hypothesis.

Your hypothesis is ambiguous in morality because it ignores too many factors that change the ethical standing.

By living where he is A has agreed to the social compact that allows his money to be taken. It is moral because A can leave the country and move somewhere else if he doesn't like it.

Okay you're getting closer to an answer here, but let's be clear about your intent here. You're saying that the people elect the government; therefore it is what the government decides that makes something moral? You're willing to stand behind that statement with no equivocation?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote:

Okay you're getting closer to an answer here, but let's be clear about your intent here. You're saying that the people elect the government; therefore it is what the government decides that makes something moral? You're willing to stand behind that statement with no equivocation?

I don't see how you possibly got that out of my statement. I was referring to a social compact which has nothing to do with "electing" any government. People that live in dictatorships also have social compacts.