Morality

[TheDictator]

What should morality be based on? And Why?

[IMPress Polly]

Our sense of morality is expressed in what offends us. That we can actively choose to engineer or we can passively allow society to engineer our moral systems for us. Being rather independent-natured, I choose the active course. Personally, I seek ensure that my moral system revolves around opposition to oppressions generally (including nominally voluntary ones (i.e. exploitations)) both economic and social. It's impossible to be absolutely consistent in this connection (because tackling some oppressions requires some repressive measures that deny total range of choice, for example), so I just do the best I can. The general idea of my moral system is to achieve the maximum possible socially beneficial (that part is key!) degree of social and economic equality. And I try to encourage others to be independent-minded and take the route of persistent questioning and self-education.

[Chris]

There's command theory (like most religious views), there's utilitarian (like poly's) and there's natural law.

I'll take natural law. Because it is based on our nature, not something supernatural or ideological.

[Micketto]

Our sense of morality is expressed in what offends us. That we can actively choose to engineer or we can passively allow society to engineer our moral systems for us. Being rather independent-natured, I choose the active course. Personally, I seek ensure that my moral system revolves around opposition to oppressions generally (including nominally voluntary ones (i.e. exploitations)) both economic and social. It's impossible to be absolutely consistent in this connection (because tackling some oppressions requires some repressive measures that deny total range of choice, for example), so I just do the best I can. The general idea of my moral system is to achieve the maximum possible socially beneficial (that part is key!) degree of social and economic equality. And I try to encourage others to be independent-minded and take the route of persistent questioning and self-education.

Where does posting pics of the German model Ira Vampira, then thanking people when they compliment you, fall on your moral scale ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhLlWDlY318

Just curious...

[Sytha]

What should morality be based on? And Why?

the "what" is based on what is socially acceptable. Different societies have different standards and tenets of "morality"

Morality is different from person to person even within set social environments.


Asking what morality should be based on is just like asking what religion is the one and only religion.

The answer is what you personally beleive in.

[Chris]

Different societies have different standards and tenets of "morality"

But I think different societies justify and condemn actions in similar ways. We all condemn slavery, we all justify self-defense.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
There's command theory (like most religious views), there's utilitarian (like poly's) and there's natural law.

I'll take natural law. Because it is based on our nature, not something supernatural or ideological.

I don't feel the bolded item is totally accurate. Maybe 60%. I guess I don't have it down concretely enough to brand it in one of the three categories you list strictly. I try to be not only practical, but also principled. You can't always do both, but I try for the best mixture. But my point is that for me it's not all contingent on the rigid math of what benefits the largest number at a particular juncture. Most of the time yes, but not all of the time. Some things I feel are absolutely wrong, not just circumstantially.

Anyway, "natural law" is a totally arbitrary concept, IMO. We don't really know the nature of nature THAT well.

[Chris]

"The general idea of my moral system is to achieve the maximum possible socially beneficial (that part is key!)"

Your general key point is utilitarian. The problem with that is it is too abstract to be practical.


We don't know "the nature of nature"? Not sure what you mean or what that has to do with natural law.

[Micketto]

the "what" is based on what is socially acceptable. Different societies have different standards and tenets of "morality"

Morality is different from person to person even within set social environments.


Asking what morality should be based on is just like asking what religion is the one and only religion.

The answer is what you personally beleive in.

Just as you said "Morality is different from person to person even within set social environments".... there are also different moralities, as a whole, established within some different social environments.
If that makes sense.

In other words.... what may be immoral here... may be considered moral in another part of the world.

So really, there is no correct way to establish one "morality".
Basically your right and wrong ends where it's conflict with my right and wrong begins.

[Chris]

Moral relativism is self-contradictory

[jillian]

There's command theory (like most religious views), there's utilitarian (like poly's) and there's natural law.

I'll take natural law. Because it is based on our nature, not something supernatural or ideological.

natural law?

you mean like natural selection? darwinism?

nature is amoral

[Chris]

natural law?

you mean like natural selection? darwinism?

nature is amoral

No. Natural law as what is natural to who we are.

[jillian]

No. Natural law as what is natural to who we are.

Unless you're gay or pro choice?

[Chris]

Unless you're gay or pro choice?

How do you justify being pro-choice? Morally, I mean.

[Chloe]

How do you justify being pro-choice? Morally, I mean.

I'm not trying to respond for Jillian but I don't think that being "pro-choice" is really a morality thing. I think that the extreme pro-life position is more immoral in some cases.

Pro-choice is not anti-life or anti-baby, it's just the allowance of the parent to decide the future development of the embryo growing inside of her up until a certain point in my opinion. To deny a parent the ability to have a say in their health and what could happen to their family's future is actually more immoral in my opinion than allowing them to do what they feel is best for their lives since it not only takes away some of their freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it forces them to possibly take steps that could be harmful to themselves or their family's stability...which would be immoral for the opposing person to put onto someone else because of their point of view. Anyway that's just my opinion. I could be wrong but I think it just depends on how you look at it.

[junie]

How do you justify being pro-choice? Morally, I mean.



it would be immoral to leave such a thing up to government regulation...





Defenders of the decision argue that Roe v. Wade was a disinterested, pragmatic, and ultimately principled decision defending the most basic rights of personal liberty and privacy.


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html


The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

[Chris]

I'm not trying to respond for Jillian but I don't think that being "pro-choice" is really a morality thing. I think that the extreme pro-life position is more immoral in some cases.

Pro-choice is not anti-life or anti-baby, it's just the allowance of the parent to decide the future development of the embryo growing inside of her up until a certain point in my opinion. To deny a parent the ability to have a say in their health and what could happen to their family's future is actually more immoral in my opinion than allowing them to do what they feel is best for their lives since it not only takes away some of their freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it forces them to possibly take steps that could be harmful to themselves or their family's stability...which would be immoral for the opposing person to put onto someone else because of their point of view. Anyway that's just my opinion. I could be wrong but I think it just depends on how you look at it.

Yes, but what of the unborn's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How do you morally justify denying it what you allow the mother?

(I didn't bring this up. :-))

[junie]

Yes, but what of the unborn's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How do you morally justify denying it what you allow the mother?

(I didn't bring this up. :-))



what anyone would personally choose is beside the point as far as being legally pro-choice...

[Chris]

it would be immoral to leave such a thing up to government regulation...

I agree.

But how do you justify depriving the unborn its rights? And what is this thing called privacy, where does that come from, is it a natural right too? Why deprive the unborn that natural right?

[Chris]

what anyone would personally choose is beside the point as far as being legally pro-choice...

Ah, but the question here is not what is legality but what is morality.

[junie]

Ah, but the question here is not what is legality but what is morality.



ah but no it isn't...



How do you justify being pro-choice? Morally, I mean.

[Mister D]

ah but no it isn't...

What?

Try it this way: how do you justify owning Negro slaves? Morally, I mean. It was perfectly legal.

[Chris]

ah but no it isn't...

Why look at the title, junie, and the OP question. (Note, too, this is a discussion On the Serious Side so please contribute.)

[BillyBob]

And I try to encourage others to be independent-minded and take the route of persistent questioning and self-education.

Libs are some of the most close-minded people to ever walk the Earth.

[Chloe]

Yes, but what of the unborn's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How do you morally justify denying it what you allow the mother?

(I didn't bring this up. :-))

Bear with me I've typed this out like three or four times now and i'm not 100% sure how to answer this but I'll try...

So technically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't a right it's just a sentence in the declaration of independence talking about what England didn't give the founders and what they believed were automatic rights I guess you could say, but that's beside the point. Technically though it's not an actual right that is given to us by American law or anything, and so I don't think it applies to an unviable embryo. A person can justify it if their personal opinion and the opinion of the law says that at a certain stage of pregnancy they can end that development process safely and without killing what would be a real living breathing human being. Because of that you are doing something legal and in the best interest of you or your family and so that could make it moral for you personally. I realize that some people believe that life begins at conception and so for them it is immoral, but that's a personal belief.

I mean like for example does a two week old embryo have the same "right to life" as a baby about to be born? Morally you could justify that question as being a no since one is a viable living baby and the other a developing embryo without features, without sustainable ways of staying alive without the mother's life providing for it. Some people would say yes and some would say no. Who is right and who is wrong? Is it more moral to make the choice that benefits the most people or is it more moral to make the choice to benefit the one?

[BillyBob]

What?

Try it this way: how do you justify owning Negro slaves? Morally, I mean. It was perfectly legal.


Good question. [is there a popcorn smilie? I'm too lazy to sort through the ten billion this site has to choose from]

[Chris]

Libs are some of the most close-minded people to ever walk the Earth.

The topic is morality, not liberals, please.

[Chris]

Bear with me I've typed this out like three or four times now and i'm not 100% sure how to answer this but I'll try...

So technically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't a right it's just a sentence in the declaration of independence talking about what England didn't give the founders and what they believed were automatic rights I guess you could say, but that's beside the point. Technically though it's not an actual right that is given to us by American law or anything, and so I don't think it applies to an unviable embryo. A person can justify it if their personal opinion and the opinion of the law says that at a certain stage of pregnancy they can end that development process safely and without killing what would be a real living breathing human being. Because of that you are doing something legal and in the best interest of you or your family and so that could make it moral for you personally. I realize that some people believe that life begins at conception and so for them it is immoral, but that's a personal belief.

I mean like for example does a two week old embryo have the same "right to life" as a baby about to be born? Morally you could justify that question as being a no since one is a viable living baby and the other a developing embryo without features, without sustainable ways of staying alive without the mother's life providing for it. Some people would say yes and some would say no. Who is right and who is wrong? Is it more moral to make the choice that benefits the most people or is it more moral to make the choice to benefit the one?


So technically "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" isn't a right it's just a sentence in the declaration of independence talking about what England didn't give the founders and what they believed were automatic rights I guess you could say, but that's beside the point.

Rather, the colonists had these natural rights. These natural rights are derived from natural law--as old as history.

And it's contradictory for you to claim those rights in one post and then declaim them next.


Technically though it's not an actual right that is given to us by American law or anything, and so I don't think it applies to an unviable embryo.

Technically?

But you're right these natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are not given by law. They inhere in who we are. Law instead is created to protect them.

We are all created equal with these rights, and certain;y the unborn are created human beings.


A person can justify it if their personal opinion and the opinion of the law says that at a certain stage of pregnancy they can end that development process safely and without killing what would be a real living breathing human being.

Again, the question isn't what is the legal justification, but what is the moral justification. Legality is posited law, man-made law. Natural law is moral law.


in the best interest of you or your family and so that could make it moral for you personally

This does introduce an essential aspect of morality, it is not personal, it is social, morality has to do with choosing to do right or wrong in your interactions with others.

Certainly your and your family's interests must be considered--perhaps the pregnancy could do harm, but so too must the unborn's.


I mean like for example does a two week old embryo have the same "right to life" as a baby about to be born?

Yes. Why? Because, again, we're all created equal before the law, certainly before natural law, I think most would say before God's law, and ought to be even before man's law.



viable

"Capable of working successfully; feasible"

Certainly the unborn at any stage is viable.

And yes I know you mean something else but how does that justify morally depriving the unborn life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?



Who is right and who is wrong? Is it more moral to make the choice that benefits the most people or is it more moral to make the choice to benefit the one?

Those are the questions.


You're thinking. Saint Thomas Aquinas said that natural law is that much of divine law that man can discover through right reason.

[Sytha]

No. Natural law as what is natural to who we are.

I am sure pedophiles and rapists around the world agree with you. And all criminals of the world salute you.

[Peter1469]

When does a human exist? That is the fault line in the abortion debate.

[Sytha]

Certainly the unborn at any stage is viable.




Then I am sure you would have no problem removing said viable cells from a woman at any point and have it be viable all on its own.

[BillyBob]

When does a human exist? That is the fault line in the abortion debate.


Whenever that line is determined, justice must be doled out evenly. If a fetus is not yet a human and a Mother can kill it, a drunk driver should not be charged with 'murdering' it. Likewise, if the baby is beyond that point, that drunk driver should be charged with murder and a Mother as well if she aborts it.

You CANNOT have it both ways.

[Chris]

I am sure pedophiles and rapists around the world agree with you. And all criminals of the world salute you.

That's an awfully odd interpretation of what I'm saying. How could doing harm to others like that be justified morally?

[Chris]

When does a human exist? That is the fault line in the abortion debate.

Medical science says from conception on.

[Chris]

Then I am sure you would have no problem removing said viable cells from a woman at any point and have it be viable all on its own.

Please go back and respond to the entire post not a cherry picked portion. You've twisted my point against abortion to one for it.

[truthmatters]

the fault line for YOUR side is that another human is also involved.

a fully fiable human who OWNS the body where the tissue lies.

You dont get to order that person what to do with the tissues indise their body

[Chris]

the fault line for YOUR side is that another human is also involved.

a fully fiable human who OWNS the body where the tissue lies.

You dont get to order that person what to do with the tissues indise their body

The unborn baby is not a slave.

The question here is morality, not sides.

[truthmatters]

it is not a viable human being and can not survive without the host body.


hate women if you like but you dont own their bodies

[Chris]

it is not a viable human being and can not survive without the host body.


hate women if you like but you dont own their bodies



it is not a viable human being and can not survive without the host body.

How does that affect the moral question?



hate women if you like but you dont own their bodies

Where do you come up with these straw men? How can you morally justify making things up like that?

[truthmatters]

because its immoral to FORCE people to do with THEIR body what you call moral

[truthmatters]

Do you have any idea how many fetusses are naturally absorbed by the body ?

[BillyBob]

Where do you come up with these straw men?

It's all he's got.



How can you morally justify making things up like that?

Who said he was moral?

[BillyBob]

Do you have any idea how many fetusses are naturally absorbed by the body ?


Irrelevant. [Apparently the body can absorb brains, too]

[Chris]

because its immoral to FORCE people to do with THEIR body what you call moral

Morality ought to apply to all, matters, not just mothers but unborn babies. Thus, you contradict yourself--as I said above, moral relativism is self-contradictory.

[truthmatters]

so you think YOUR morality should apply to others bodies?

[Chris]

so you think YOUR morality should apply to others bodies?

Where do you see me saying that, matters. Again, is it moral for you to make things up like that? Is it intellectually honest of you? How do you justify it?

[truthmatters]

There is no god


fetuses are not babies until they are babies.

the human body absorbs fetuses all the time.


You want women who all of the sudden turn up not pregnant anymore to go to jail.


you think you own womens bodies more than they own them

[Chris]

There is no god


fetuses are not babies until they are babies.

the human body absorbs fetuses all the time.


You want women who all of the sudden turn up not pregnant anymore to go to jail.


you think you own womens bodies more than they own them

Do you think it is moral to make things up, matters? You just made up two more lies.




fetuses are not babies until they are babies.

Special pleading.


the human body absorbs fetuses all the time.

Naturalistic fallacy.

[Chris]

As I said last night, Saint Thomas Aquinas said that natural law is that much of divine law that man can discover through right reason.

Matters, could you try to use right reason rather than all your logical fallacies?

[BillyBob]

so you think YOUR morality should apply to others bodies?

Yes, saving babies from their murderous mothers is morally justified.

[truthmatters]

then find a way to take the fetuses from their bodies and save them you poretend moralist

[truthmatters]

As I said last night, Saint Thomas Aquinas said that natural law is that much of divine law that man can discover through right reason.

Matters, could you try to use right reason rather than all your logical fallacies?

this is not about YOUR religion.

see how you are

[Chris]

The question here though is not whether this or that chosen human action is moral, but how do you determine whether it is moral or not and what is the source of that morality. Let's get back to that.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
"The general idea of my moral system is to achieve the maximum possible socially beneficial (that part is key!)"

Your general key point is utilitarian. The problem with that is it is too abstract to be practical.

We don't know "the nature of nature"? Not sure what you mean or what that has to do with natural law.

I agree with you when you say that my moral standpoint is currently too subjective to be all that practical. It's a work in progress. But let me clarify one thing about it: The utilitarian aspect of my thinking is that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. For example, if presented with that cliche comic book choice of saving the life of a loved one or that of a large number of strangers, I think deep down we all know that the more moral, less selfish choice is to save the large number of strangers. Conversely though, I DON'T believe that the INTERESTS of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In other words, I don't believe in arbitrary privileges. For example, it may benefit white Americans and heterosexuals to have a culture that favors them at the expense of minority racial groups and GBLT people, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable. So yeah, I actually do believe that the principle of majority rule has its limits in terms of ensuring that justice gets done.

Is this making a little more sense now?

[truthmatters]

the flesh inside a human being belongs to them not you.

that is a good piece of morality for you

[Sytha]

That's an awfully odd interpretation of what I'm saying. How could doing harm to others like that be justified morally?

It is not an odd interpretation, it is an extreme interpretation of your "natural morals"

most pedos feel that what they like is natural,normal and quite moral to themselves. They dont think or feel its personally immoral because their wants and desires are natural to themselves.. NAMBLA is a good example of this.

criminals have no qualms of conscious or doing what they do as an affront to their personal morals.

[Chris]

the flesh inside a human being belongs to them not you.

that is a good piece of morality for you

Then the question is where did you come up with that bit of morality

[Sytha]

Medical science says from conception on.

medical science of course says that all cells are human. Medical science also says that fetal cells are not a viable life of their own.

Alive and living cells yes, but not a life of their own.

[truthmatters]

Oh so you think you own the flesh inside of other human beings?

[Sytha]

Please go back and respond to the entire post not a cherry picked portion. You've twisted my point against abortion to one for it.


i disagree. You statement clearly says that 4 weeks worth of fetal cells is a viable life of its own.

It is not.

[Sytha]

The unborn baby is not a slave.

The question here is morality, not sides.

neither is the woman, who hosts the cells, a slave.

[truthmatters]

people in fact own ALL the flesh inside their bodies

[Chris]

this is not about YOUR religion.

see how you are

Again, I have to ask how you morally justifying making up lies? I am not religious. See how you are? Are you capable of an intellectually honest discussion?

[Chris]

neither is the woman, who hosts the cells, a slave.

Why not? What moral justification do you have for that claim?

Note, I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking how you justifying that morally.

[Chris]

people in fact own ALL the flesh inside their bodies

What, morally, is that based on?

[Sytha]

Why not? What moral justification do you have for that claim?

Note, I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking how you justifying that morally.

the argument is that a fetus is "a life" correct? Removing it by c-section, a form of birth, should be morally correct. Note, not a classic "abortion".

The woman does not have to host a parasite she does not wish to support, and the fetus has its life of its own.

[Dr. Who]

Let's pose a new scenario. Supposing that human medical science is able to transfer a fetus to a male to host, in a situation where the fetus is inimical to the life of the mother, would it be moral to force the father of the fetus to host its life?

[Chris]

the argument is that a fetus is "a life" correct? Removing it by c-section, a form of birth, should be morally correct. Note, not a classic "abortion".

The woman does not have to host a parasite she does not wish to support, and the fetus has its life of its own.

Removing it in such a way as to kill it would be morally wrong.

The woman should not have had sex if she didn't feel morally responsible the consequences.

[Chris]

Let's pose a new scenario. Supposing that human medical science is able to transfer a fetus to a male to host, in a situation where the fetus is inimical to the life of the mother, would it be moral to force the father of the fetus to host its life?

I don't think men could handle it.

I think though that force without justification is immoral.

[Chris]

Move away from babies altogether.

Is slavery moral, yes, no, why, why not?

[BillyBob]

Move away from babies altogether.

Is slavery moral, yes, no, why, why not?


This thread should be moved to the 'Rant' forum.

[Dr. Who]

Move away from babies altogether.

Is slavery moral, yes, no, why, why not?No. People are neither goods nor livestock to be bought and sold. No one has the right to own another or in so doing, coerce them into performing free labor through threats of violence. The concept is morally bereft. It violates the natural right to freedom.

[roadmaster]

No. People are neither goods nor livestock to be bought and sold. No one has the right to own another or in so doing, coerce them into performing free labor through threats of violence. The concept is morally bereft. It violates the natural right to freedom. Right slavery is wrong but still goes on today in many countries if not all.

[Sytha]

Removing it in such a way as to kill it would be morally wrong.

The woman should not have had sex if she didn't feel morally responsible the consequences.

A c-section does not kill. It gives birth. How is birth morally wrong?

[Dr. Who]

I don't think men could handle it.

I think though that force without justification is immoral. If it is appropriate for society to force a mother to gestate a fetus to term, how can it be any less appropriate to require the father to carry the child. The justification is the same.

[Chris]

No. People are neither goods nor livestock to be bought and sold. No one has the right to own another or in so doing, coerce them into performing free labor through threats of violence. The concept is morally bereft. It violates the natural right to freedom.

OK, but what is the basis of that, why is that the moral position?


This thread has veered of into I think this is moral and that is not. But what is the basis, the foundation of these moral choices, decisions, justifications and condemnations?

[Chris]

A c-section does not kill. It gives birth. How is birth morally wrong?

I'll try again but you're being too vague then for me to answer your questions. If the action does not harm, then there is nothing morally wrong. If it does harm, there is.

[jillian]

Removing it in such a way as to kill it would be morally wrong.

The woman should not have had sex if she didn't feel morally responsible the consequences.

P u n i s h

t h e

h a r l o t s

[Chris]

P u n i s h

t h e

h a r l o t s

Is that what you think? Why? What is your moral reasoning for that?

[jillian]

Chris

i have seen nothing indicating that you or anyone else is equipped to enforce your own alleged morality on others.

1. Where is the "responsibility" of the male in your morality tale? Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant alone.

2. I think it's immoral to deny women access to abortion service, deny them access to birth control, and allow them to live in poverty because you don't think women should have sex

[truthmatters]

Removing it in such a way as to kill it would be morally wrong.

The woman should not have had sex if she didn't feel morally responsible the consequences.


what about the man?


you see when you give us your sperm you gave it away.


You have no right to ANY of the flesh inside our bodies.

Including a fetus.


You dont get to deside.

women dont get to deside what happens inside your body either.


fair is fair

[Chris]

Chris

i have seen nothing indicating that you or anyone else is equipped to enforce your own alleged morality on others.

1. Where is the "responsibility" of the male in your morality tale? Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant alone.

2. I think it's immoral to deny women access to abortion service, deny them access to birth control, and allow them to live in poverty because you don't think women should have sex


i have seen nothing indicating that you or anyone else is equipped to enforce your own alleged morality on others.

I'm not advocating my own morality. Nice straw man though.


Where is the "responsibility" of the male in your morality tale? Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant alone.

Same as.


I think it's immoral to deny women access to abortion service, deny them access to birth control, and allow them to live in poverty because you don't think women should have sex

Again, this thread is not about what you think is moral or immoral but what is the basis of morality. IOW, what is the moral basis for your opinion here?

[Chris]

what about the man?


you see when you give us your sperm you gave it away.


You have no right to ANY of the flesh inside our bodies.

Including a fetus.


You dont get to deside.

women dont get to deside what happens inside your body either.


fair is fair

Ignoring irrelevancies and already answered questions especially to matters taken out of context.



You have no right to ANY of the flesh inside our bodies.

What is the moral basis of that opinion?

[jillian]

Is that what you think? Why? What is your moral reasoning for that?

Read your last. It is clearly what YOU think

[Chris]

Read your last. It is clearly what YOU think

Sorry, but it's not. It's your invention, why'd you make it up?

[jillian]

Ignoring irrelevancies and already answered questions especially to matters taken out of context.

What is the moral basis of that opinion?

You entitle your thread "morality"

you post that women should not have sex I'd they are not ready to be "morally responsible" for a chchild and you claim you don't want to make moral choices for others?

lol. That's funny from a "libertarian" who thinks government should interfere with a woman's right to choose.

And then you complain when I point out that most people are barely capable of making their own moral choices and I sure wouldn't want anyone but me making mine.

And you say I'm off topic?

perhaps you might want to fine-tune your logic skills..

Ive always felt that syllogisms were a good place to start to strengthen those skills

[jillian]

Sorry, but it's not. It's your invention, why'd you make it up?

Intentionally misstating what I posted again, dear?

You really shouldn't do that. It makes you look kinda silly

[Chris]

You entitle your thread "morality"

you post that women should not have sex I'd they are not ready to be "morally responsible" for a chchild and you claim you don't want to make moral choices for others?

lol. That's funny from a "libertarian" who thinks government should interfere with a woman's right to choose.

And then you complain when I point out that most people are barely capable of making their own moral choices and I sure wouldn't want anyone but me making mine.

And you say I'm off topic?

perhaps you might want to fine-tune your logic skills..

Ive always felt that syllogisms were a good place to start to strengthen those skills


You entitle your thread "morality"

You don't even get that right, jullian, I didn't entitle the thread, the person who started it did and expanded on it by saying: "What should morality be based on? And Why?" Try reading, please.


you post that women should not have sex I'd they are not ready to be "morally responsible" for a chchild and you claim you don't want to make moral choices for others?

You need to read that in the context in which I said it for it to be meaningful. I already pointed this out and you refuse to read the context but persist in your misleading interpretation.


lol. That's funny from a "libertarian" who thinks government should interfere with a woman's right to choose.

Not interfere.

But also not interfere in the rights of all, including the unborn.

It helps to actually know what libertarianism is actually about before you mistakenly criticize it.


And then you complain when I point out that most people are barely capable of making their own moral choices and I sure wouldn't want anyone but me making mine.

I complained about your straw man argument, your putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that you made up.


And you say I'm off topic?

No, I asked you, on topic, what is the moral basis of your opinion. "What should morality be based on? And Why?" Apparently you can't answer.


perhaps you might want to fine-tune your logic skills..

I'm not the one inventing logically fallacious straw men, you are.


Ive always felt that syllogisms were a good place to start to strengthen those skills

OK, here is your opinion: " think it's immoral to deny women access to abortion service, deny them access to birth control, and allow them to live in poverty because you don't think women should have sex"

Now, in a syllogism tell us what is the moral basis of your opinion. "What should morality be based on? And Why?"

[jillian]

Chris

still waiting to hear where the male's "responsibility" is

[Chris]

Intentionally misstating what I posted again, dear?

You really shouldn't do that. It makes you look kinda silly

Nice ad hom, Jillian, but you're the one who invented what I said, I'm the one who has pointed out your straw men. It's thus, by your straw men and now ad hom that your posts look silly.

[Chris]

Chris

still waiting to hear where the male's "responsibility" is

Post #82. Do you even read what people post before you post?

[junie]

Intentionally misstating what I posted again, dear?

You really shouldn't do that. It makes you look kinda silly



ftr, he agreed when i said it would be immoral to leave such a thing up to government regulation.

now he is merely looking for people to articulate the moral justification for their opinions...


what i was trying to get across the other night is the difference between justifying the pro-choice position vs justifying an abortion.

[truthmatters]

Read your last. It is clearly what YOU think


post 84

[truthmatters]

I'm not advocating my own morality. Nice straw man though.



Same as.



Again, this thread is not about what you think is moral or immoral but what is the basis of morality. IOW, what is the moral basis for your opinion here?

sorry my mistake post 82

[truthmatters]

still makes no sense

[Chris]

ftr, he agreed when i said it would be immoral to leave such a thing up to government regulation.

now he is merely looking for people to articulate the moral justification for their opinions...


what i was trying to get across the other night is the difference between justifying the pro-choice position vs justifying an abortion.

Yes, the topic is justification of the morality underlying opinions.

Some are getting hung up on their opinions, opinions are fine, but here the point is morality, what is it, what's it's basis.


So, junie, how do you morally justify your pro-choice position?

[Chris]

still makes no sense

What doesn't? Be specific.

[truthmatters]

Your religious reasons dont justify controling womens flesh

[Chris]

Your religious reasons dont justify controling womens flesh

I don't I've told you before I'm not religious, there's nothing in what I've said to indicate I support controlling women's choices, so tell me why you make those things up? How do you morally justify making things up?

[junie]

Yes, the topic is justification of the morality underlying opinions.

Some are getting hung up on their opinions, opinions are fine, but here the point is morality, what is it, what's it's basis.


So, junie, how do you morally justify your pro-choice position?



several people have answered already, so not sure what you're looking for...seems an exercise in mental masturbation...

since we agree, why don't you articulate your own answer...?

[Chris]

several people have answered already, so not sure what you're looking for...seems an exercise in mental masturbation...

since we agree, why don't you articulate your own answer...?

Many have stated their position without providing a moral justification of it. I'll wait.


The "exercise in mental masturbation" is from those who invent straw men for what others say. Like saying I want to control women's choices--why would I defend what i don't think?

[Dr. Who]

Yes, the topic is justification of the morality underlying opinions.

Some are getting hung up on their opinions, opinions are fine, but here the point is morality, what is it, what's it's basis.


So, junie, how do you morally justify your pro-choice position?Morality derives from sympathy, empathy, altruism, those human attributes that seek to do good rather than harm to one's fellow human beings. It is also using reason and logic to overcome our natural selfishness for the greater good.

[Mister D]

Morality derives from sympathy, empathy, altruism, those human attributes that seek to do good rather than harm to one's fellow human beings. It is also using reason and logic to overcome our natural selfishness for the greater good.

I don't think selfishness is all that natural.

[Dr. Who]

I don't think selfishness is all that natural. To a degree selfishness is natural. It is a survival trait we are all born with. Babies are naturally selfish. Their world is very small and all about themselves. We eventually develop the ability to see beyond our own selfish wants and see that we are not the center of the universe. Some learn better than others.

[Mister D]

To a degree selfishness is natural. It is a survival trait we are all born with. Babies are naturally selfish. Their world is very small and all about themselves. We eventually develop the ability to see beyond our own selfish wants and see that we are not the center of the universe. Some learn better than others.

I small children, I agree. Otherwise, it's a character flaw at best.

[KC]

I don't think one can act without in some way or another being selfish, it's just that some motivations or more honorable than others. For example, some one might help a person in need because they know that it will make them feel good about themselves, but that is certainly a more honorable motivation than expecting some kind of material reward.

[Dr. Who]

I small children, I agree. Otherwise, it's a character flaw at best.Perhaps a character flaw, but it is in all of us to greater or lesser extents. For example, you are stuck somewhere with a rather unkempt obnoxious slob who keeps annoying you with conversation that you find disgusting. You are stuck there for several hours and there is no access to any food. You don't know how long you will be stuck there and you are really hungry. You happen to have some granola bars with you. Do you keep the granola bars for yourself, or do you share them with that person?

[Dr. Who]

I don't think one can act without in some way or another being selfish, it's just that some motivations or more honorable than others. For example, some one might help a person in need because they know that it will make them feel good about themselves, but that is certainly a more honorable motivation than expecting some kind of material reward.Of course, but to be truly moral is to be unselfish for its own sake, whether you derive personal gratification or not. For example, someone who you strongly suspect is a killer or you know is a killer is drowning and you have the ability to save their life. Do you save them, despite your misgivings, or do you let them drown?

[Chris]

Morality derives from sympathy, empathy, altruism, those human attributes that seek to do good rather than harm to one's fellow human beings. It is also using reason and logic to overcome our natural selfishness for the greater good.

I would rather say those aspects of action toward others are morality. Here's why. I'll follow Randy Barnett who in The Structure of Liberty argues natural law can be formulated as given-if-then rules. Given the nature of man and the world, if we wish to pursue happiness, the good life, good, then we must be sympathetic, empathetic, we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us, or not so unto others what we would not have them do unto us. How do we know this, well, I'd say it is the collective (social, cultural) wisdom that has evolved without design. Reason and logic only enter the picture if you want to try to discover and explain natural law.

Plato claimed collectivism leads to altruism, individualism to selfishness, but that is not really true for it is through self interest that you put yourself into a responsible position to help others, so that is moral, while handing off that responsibility to others, the collective (the state) is not.

[jillian]

I don't think one can act without in some way or another being selfish, it's just that some motivations or more honorable than others. For example, some one might help a person in need because they know that it will make them feel good about themselves, but that is certainly a more honorable motivation than expecting some kind of material reward.

To be moral does require one do good, not harm. But are you trying to say morality requires purely altruistic motive?

[Chris]

To be moral does require one do good, not harm.

Why? What is the basis for making that claim?

[Chris]

I don't think one can act without in some way or another being selfish, it's just that some motivations or more honorable than others. For example, some one might help a person in need because they know that it will make them feel good about themselves, but that is certainly a more honorable motivation than expecting some kind of material reward.


Of course, but to be truly moral is to be unselfish for its own sake, whether you derive personal gratification or not. For example, someone who you strongly suspect is a killer or you know is a killer is drowning and you have the ability to save their life. Do you save them, despite your misgivings, or do you let them drown?

And why is this, what is the basis for assuming selflessness is good?

I think this forms the basis from misunderstanding self-interest (or what some call selfishness).

Consider altruistic action. Say I give you some good, one good is lost and one good is gained, but on the whole, socially, and morals are social, nothing good has been gained. Conversely, the same is true if you give me a good, I gain, you lose, but there is not net social effect.

Now consider self-interested action. Say you have something I want and I have something you want and we in our self-interest exchanges goods. Then I have gain and your have gained and socially good has been generated, created.

Self-interested action creates good and is thus moral.

Altruistic action is this case is socially, morally neutral, amoral. And can be immoral if in the above altruistic example you give me something you consider good but I consider evil, or vice versa, then both lose, and, socially, there is less good.


(This btw is the moral basis of free market capitalism and immoral basis of authoritarian socialism.)

[jillian]

Why? What is the basis for making that claim?

You think it is moral to do harm?

[Chloe]

And why is this, what is the basis for assuming selflessness is good?

I think this forms the basis from misunderstanding self-interest (or what some call selfishness).

Consider altruistic action. Say I give you some good, one good is lost and one good is gained, but on the whole, socially, and morals are social, nothing good has been gained. Conversely, the same is true if you give me a good, I gain, you lose, but there is not net social effect.

Now consider self-interested action. Say you have something I want and I have something you want and we in our self-interest exchanges goods. Then I have gain and your have gained and socially good has been generated, created.

Self-interested action creates good and is thus moral.

Altruistic action is this case is socially, morally neutral, amoral. And can be immoral if in the above altruistic example you give me something you consider good but I consider evil, or vice versa, then both lose, and, socially, there is less good.


(This btw is the moral basic of free market capitalism and immoral basic of authoritarian socialism.)

I think that there are arguments that could easily be made calling into question capitalism's morality as well.

[Peter1469]

I think that there are arguments that could easily be made calling into question capitalism's morality as well.

The free market as envisioned by Adam Smith required morality. We have seen that disappear in modern days- look at how capitalism works in South Korea- an almost complete lack of morality. Dog eat dog.

[Chris]

You think it is moral to do harm?

Are you incapable of justifying your opinions, jillian? You made the claim, I asked you to provide the moral basis for it. Do try.

[Chris]

I think that there are arguments that could easily be made calling into question capitalism's morality as well.

I'm sure there are as well. That's the point of discussion, to explore such things. I'd be interested in hearing your counterargument.


I have seen arguments that make free-market capitalism appear to be evil but they special plead by removing the critical criteria on capitalism of free-market. I think that happens because Marx's definition of capitalism is used and it assumes no such thing as freedom exists.

[Chloe]

I'm sure there are as well. That's the point of discussion, to explore such things. I'd be interested in hearing your counterargument.


I have seen arguments that make free-market capitalism appear to be evil but they special plead by removing the critical criteria on capitalism of free-market. I think that happens because Marx's definition of capitalism is used and it assumes no such thing as freedom exists.

I don't think that the free-market aspect is all that bad but I do think that you can have free markets that are focused less on the individual's success and more on a collective of people sharing in the outcomes. So like the government wouldn't control what needs to be produced and everything, it would still be supply and demand for the most part, but businesses and things like that would be more cooperative based and community based. I think that even if something is free and open it can still be more moral to have the results benefit the group over maybe like one individual investor.

So like for example say if there is a huge demand for a new kind of flip flop because summer is coming and the company that makes that flip flop starts to sell a whole bunch of flip flops then typically only a very small amount of people will benefit from those massive profits, like the people in charge or the people who own stock in that company, but in my opinion it would be more moral for all employees to have equal ownership of that company and share the profits together. The market still drove the demand for the flip flops but the reward doesn't go to the elite few.

Does that make any sense?

[jillian]

Are you incapable of justifying your opinions, jillian? You made the claim, I asked you to provide the moral basis for it. Do try.

are you really that stupid?

never mind. rhetorical question.

oh wait... i know... i'll just call it "natural law" and pretend those words have meaning beyond your own musings.

i do not need to justify the opinion that morality requires one do no harm. it is my opinion.

i believe it is immoral to do harm or to sit back while everything around you falls apart. (you know, like people starving).

now grow up and stop troling. you want an exchange?

pretend to engage in something more than just trolling my posts with non-sequiturs.

and if you really wanted a decent conversation, you might have asked the ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE question ... which is...

what if you have to do harm to do good?

which then leads to a discussion of greater good versus individual good.

now do try to learn how to engage appropriately...no matter how much you want to strut around, claiming abstract philosophical principals are LAWS...

while ignoring actual law.

[Chris]

are you really that stupid?

never mind. rhetorical question.

oh wait... i know... i'll just call it "natural law" and pretend those words have meaning beyond your own musings.

i do not need to justify the opinion that morality requires one do no harm. it is my opinion.

i believe it is immoral to do harm or to sit back while everything around you falls apart. (you know, like people starving).

now grow up and stop troling. you want an exchange?

pretend to engage in something more than just trolling my posts with non-sequiturs.

So all you got is ad hom. And you call that an exchange? Tell us, how do you justify moral the use of logical fallacies?

[jillian]

So all you got is ad hom. And you call that an exchange? Tell us, how do you justify moral the use of logical fallacies?

you're the one who starts the ad homs...

and the trolling.

is this a chronic problem of yours?

now be a good boy and go back and read the end of my post.

and feel free to engage in actual discussion, if you can.

again... it is my OPINION...

it is my BELIEF...

you believe in a book that says a guy died and came back to life?

i could say "why on earth do you believe something that absurd"?

or we can start with the premise that you simply believe it... which is far more accurate than trying to justify it.

[Chris]

I don't think that the free-market aspect is all that bad but I do think that you can have free markets that are focused less on the individual's success and more on a collective of people sharing in the outcomes. So like the government wouldn't control what needs to be produced and everything, it would still be supply and demand for the most part, but businesses and things like that would be more cooperative based and community based. I think that even if something is free and open it can still be more moral to have the results benefit the group over maybe like one individual investor.

So like for example say if there is a huge demand for a new kind of flip flop because summer is coming and the company that makes that flip flop starts to sell a whole bunch of flip flops then typically only a very small amount of people will benefit from those massive profits, like the people in charge or the people who own stock in that company, but in my opinion it would be more moral for all employees to have equal ownership of that company and share the profits together. The market still drove the demand for the flip flops but the reward doesn't go to the elite few.

Does that make any sense?


I don't think that the free-market aspect is all that bad but I do think that you can have free markets that are focused less on the individual's success and more on a collective of people sharing in the outcomes. So like the government wouldn't control what needs to be produced and everything, it would still be supply and demand for the most part, but businesses and things like that would be more cooperative based and community based. I think that even if something is free and open it can still be more moral to have the results benefit the group over maybe like one individual investor.

But what I described as self-interested exchange did benefit the group, society. As Adam Smith, a moral economist put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Can a group, collective, firm operate sharing in a cooperative enterprise. Why yes, please see the topic on Parecon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11514-Parecon?highlight=parecon) for an explanation and example. But note two things: One, the cooperative exists as an entity within the context of free-market individuals, iow, it acts as an individual entity. Two, cooperation is the basis of the moral exchange model I described, is the basis of free markets.



Does that make any sense?

Yes. Good answer.

But why do you think a hierarchical firm, where there are owners, bosses and workers, provided it is voluntary, by choice, is less moral than a cooperative firm? In terms of the workers, and in terms of society at large?

[Chloe]

But why do you think a hierarchical firm, where there are owners, bosses and workers, provided it is voluntary, by choice, is less moral than a cooperative firm? In terms of the workers, and in terms of society at large?

I guess because if you look at it as owners, bosses, and workers then ultimately power leads to selfish acts, and so the owners and bigger bosses would eventually want to find ways to make more money which is usually at the expense of the workers. If that were to happen then that would be immoral in my opinion. It happens every day now though so I think there are more examples of what I described then the opposite I think.

[Dr. Who]

And why is this, what is the basis for assuming selflessness is good?

I think this forms the basis from misunderstanding self-interest (or what some call selfishness).

Consider altruistic action. Say I give you some good, one good is lost and one good is gained, but on the whole, socially, and morals are social, nothing good has been gained. Conversely, the same is true if you give me a good, I gain, you lose, but there is not net social effect.

Now consider self-interested action. Say you have something I want and I have something you want and we in our self-interest exchanges goods. Then I have gain and your have gained and socially good has been generated, created.

Self-interested action creates good and is thus moral.

Altruistic action is this case is socially, morally neutral, amoral. And can be immoral if in the above altruistic example you give me something you consider good but I consider evil, or vice versa, then both lose, and, socially, there is less good.


(This btw is the moral basis of free market capitalism and immoral basis of authoritarian socialism.) I beg to differ. Altruism can result in a net gain. For example, I drive by a burning car and pull someone to safety. A selfless act because I could have died as well. A life is saved. Had I not saved the individual, a life would be lost. A net loss to society. The guy turns out to be a research scientist and discovers the cure for cancer. A net gain to society. Furthermore, if we are all sane people, what I consider to be good, is likely to also be perceived as good by the recipient. On the other hand self-interested action can result in harm to others. Say I am a farmer. I decide to grow genetically modified corn. My crop is great. My self-interest is satisfied because I make a great profit. However in the process, my GM corn contaminated my neighbor's much smaller organic corn field. He can't use pesticides or chemical fertilizers, so his crop also suffers from some loss due to insects and it cost him more to grow it because he can only use natural fertilizer. His crop is now unable to be sold as organic, so he can only sell it as regular corn. He barely covers his costs. My self-interest has caused harm to my neighbor.

[Chris]

I guess because if you look at it as owners, bosses, and workers then ultimately power leads to selfish acts, and so the owners and bigger bosses would eventually want to find ways to make more money which is usually at the expense of the workers. If that were to happen then that would be immoral in my opinion. It happens every day now though so I think there are more examples of what I described then the opposite I think.

Why do owners, bosses and workers lead to selfish acts? If all are exchanging time and effort and money and perks for what they in their self-interest value, how is any one of them losing anything? Each gains. And society gains in that they then turn around and exchange what they've earned for goods and services.

Doesn't your cooperative actually end up selfish? What if you work in a cooperative and want it to do things a certain way--be more green, for example--but the majority say no. The majority now has power over you to get what they want over what you want, power corrupts.

[Chris]

I beg to differ. Altruism can result in a net gain. For example, I drive by a burning car and pull someone to safety. A selfless act because I could have died as well. A life is saved. Had I not saved the individual, a life would be lost. A net loss to society. The guy turns out to be a research scientist and discovers the cure for cancer. A net gain to society. Furthermore, if we are all sane people, what I consider to be good, is likely to also be perceived as good by the recipient. On the other hand self-interested action can result in harm to others. Say I am a farmer. I decide to grow genetically modified corn. My crop is great. My self-interest is satisfied because I make a great profit. However in the process, my GM corn contaminated my neighbor's much smaller organic corn field. He can't use pesticides or chemical fertilizers, so his crop also suffers from some loss due to insects and it cost him more to grow it because he can only use natural fertilizer. His crop is now unable to be sold as organic, so he can only sell it as regular corn. He barely covers his costs. My self-interest has caused harm to my neighbor.

My point was that self-interest leads to altruism. As Adam Smith, a moral economist put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

What if in your example you had lost life or limb. Then society has broke even. And if you both die, society has lost.

Consider further. A fireman at a fire at a house with a number of people in it. He rescues some but at some point must make a self-interested choice that going into the flames one more time will assuredly kill him, he who if he lives could save countless more people from future fires. If we were all truely altruistic we'd lose all firemen at society's great loss.


On the other hand self-interested action can result in harm to others.

Then you'd not be truly acting in self-interest for you would know your act would harm the neighbor who in turn could help you.

Self-interest is not selfish.

[Dr. Who]

But what I described as self-interested exchange did benefit the group, society. As Adam Smith, a moral economist put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Can a group, collective, firm operate sharing in a cooperative enterprise. Why yes, please see the topic on Parecon (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11514-Parecon?highlight=parecon) for an explanation and example. But note two things: One, the cooperative exists as an entity within the context of free-market individuals, iow, it acts as an individual entity. Two, cooperation is the basis of the moral exchange model I described, is the basis of free markets.




Yes. Good answer.

But why do you think a hierarchical firm, where there are owners, bosses and workers, provided it is voluntary, by choice, is less moral than a cooperative firm? In terms of the workers, and in terms of society at large?

Enlightened self-interest furthers the need of the group and in so doing ultimately serves one's own self-interest.

[Chris]

Enlightened self-interest furthers the need of the group and in so doing ultimately serves one's own self-interest.

Exactly. Except it does not do so intentionally. See Adam Smith on the Invisible Hand.

[Dr. Who]

Exactly. Except it does not do so intentionally. See Adam Smith on the Invisible Hand.It need not do so intentionally. The Invisible Hand does not work as well in the context of really large industry or where other forces such as advertising come into play.

[Chris]

It need not do so intentionally. The Invisible Hand does not work as well in the context of really large industry or where other forces such as advertising come into play.

It does until someone says that's not fair--without justification--and intentionally designs redistributive solutions that do more harm than good.

[Peter1469]

It need not do so intentionally. The Invisible Hand does not work as well in the context of really large industry or where other forces such as advertising come into play.

That is what I have been saying for a long time. Large corporations are not creatures of the free market.

[Chris]

you're the one who starts the ad homs...

and the trolling.

is this a chronic problem of yours?

now be a good boy and go back and read the end of my post.

and feel free to engage in actual discussion, if you can.

again... it is my OPINION...

it is my BELIEF...

you believe in a book that says a guy died and came back to life?

i could say "why on earth do you believe something that absurd"?

or we can start with the premise that you simply believe it... which is far more accurate than trying to justify it.

Point out, jillian, where I engaged in ad hom as I have pointed out yours. Calling me boy is another example I point out. Your turn.



Opinions take on value when they can be explained and justified--especially in a thread that asks one to give the basis of morality.

[Chris]

That is what I have been saying for a long time. Large corporations are not creatures of the free market.

Behind the curtain of large corporations lies government.

[Peter1469]

Behind the curtain of large corporations lies government.

And without government- those mega corporations would have more power.

[Chris]

And without government- those mega corporations would have more power.

How? Who would they buy power from if not a corrupt government?

The moral corruption of this nation is political. (Trying to get back to topic.)

[Peter1469]

How? Who would they buy power from if not a corrupt government?

The moral corruption of this nation is political. (Trying to get back to topic.)

Without government the mega corps would run amok. While the libertarians were looking for contract clauses to sue with.

I agree with you that government is bad. But so are the mega corporations that control everything- and they can do that with or without government.

[Chris]

Without government the mega corps would run amok. While the libertarians were looking for contract clauses to sue with.

I agree with you that government is bad. But so are the mega corporations that control everything- and they can do that with or without government.

How could they run amok without government. We see them running amok with government collusion. How without?

[Peter1469]

How could they run amok without government. We see them running amok with government collusion. How without?

That is very naive and quaint. If there were no government, what force would be greater than the mega corps?

[jillian]

That is very naive and quaint. If there were no government, what force would be greater than the mega corps?

none...

we'd get to live in a dickensian nightmare where our food and water and air were contaminated and the vast majority of people worked for almost no wages and for ridiculously long hours...
with no benefits, health or otherwise... and where banks could lose your money and close their doors... without you getting compensated....
lovely picture, eh?

[Peter1469]

none...

we'd get to live in a dickensian nightmare where our food and water and air were contaminated and the vast majority of people worked for almost no wages and for ridiculously long hours...
with no benefits, health or otherwise... and where banks could lose your money and close their doors... without you getting compensated....
lovely picture, eh?

But a true free market, as Admin Smith envisioned would not allow the food, water, and air to be contaminated. You cannot make a profit after you destroy something.

You can't make a profit if you lose your workers.

The left doesn't understand the real free market. But to be fair, we are not operating under a real free market.

[jillian]

But a true free market, as Admin Smith envisioned would not allow the food, water, and air to be contaminated. You cannot make a profit after you destroy something.

You can't make a profit if you lose your workers.

The left doesn't understand the real free market. But to be fair, we are not operating under a real free market.

even adam smith didn't believe that the market should be totally unregulated.

you would also have to presume that a totally free market is a good thing. i don't. a true free market that doesn't result in my dickensian nightmare would require a free flow of information allowing people to make informed choices as well as the POWER to fight the pollution, contamination, etc.

why do you think huge corporations care about a little long term loss... they reap the huge profits on the front end... and when it's over, it's over... but you have all you need to last you until your grandchildren's children are old and grey.

and absent government regulation, remember, monopolies would not be illegal... there would really be no free market. it is doomed to failure... as is communism... neither take into consideration human nature and the unwillingness of those who hold all the power, the money and everything else to give any of it up for the greater good.

and you, i think, might overestimate the ability to exert power against a behemoth.

[Guerilla]

How could they run amok without government. We see them running amok with government collusion. How without?

Instead of buying power from the government, wouldn't they just buy power from the people? If it's all ran on self-interest, then the corporation can just pay people to coerce other people in the place of government? The corporations benefit because their will is imposed and the ones imposing are getting paid. Gain for both, not necessarily for society. In this way natural law is not necessarily moral. The corps and imposers would have to actively resist what comes naturally - which is to benefit themselves, as you suggest.

[zelmo1234]

That is very naive and quaint. If there were no government, what force would be greater than the mega corps?

The purchasing power of the people

[zelmo1234]

even adam smith didn't believe that the market should be totally unregulated.

you would also have to presume that a totally free market is a good thing. i don't. a true free market that doesn't result in my dickensian nightmare would require a free flow of information allowing people to make informed choices as well as the POWER to fight the pollution, contamination, etc.

why do you think huge corporations care about a little long term loss... they reap the huge profits on the front end... and when it's over, it's over... but you have all you need to last you until your grandchildren's children are old and grey.

and absent government regulation, remember, monopolies would not be illegal... there would really be no free market. it is doomed to failure... as is communism... neither take into consideration human nature and the unwillingness of those who hold all the power, the money and everything else to give any of it up for the greater good.

and you, i think, might overestimate the ability to exert power against a behemoth.

In your earlier post you talked aobut how corporatiosn would require long hour for little to no money! this would not only kill the buying power of their workers, but would kill the buying power of the nation and very high unemployment would be the rule fo the day!

Who would they sell their products too? to make these mega millions?

[Peter1469]

even adam smith didn't believe that the market should be totally unregulated.

you would also have to presume that a totally free market is a good thing. i don't. a true free market that doesn't result in my dickensian nightmare would require a free flow of information allowing people to make informed choices as well as the POWER to fight the pollution, contamination, etc.

why do you think huge corporations care about a little long term loss... they reap the huge profits on the front end... and when it's over, it's over... but you have all you need to last you until your grandchildren's children are old and grey.

and absent government regulation, remember, monopolies would not be illegal... there would really be no free market. it is doomed to failure... as is communism... neither take into consideration human nature and the unwillingness of those who hold all the power, the money and everything else to give any of it up for the greater good.

and you, i think, might overestimate the ability to exert power against a behemoth.

I never said that I don't favor government regulation of business. I do. I would however treat small business very different from large corporations.

[truthmatters]

Im glad we can all agree that the austrian school of economics is insane.

who is going to tell the republican party?

[Micketto]

what about the man?
you see when you give us your sperm you gave it away.


1. Where is the "responsibility" of the male in your morality tale? Last time I checked, women don't get pregnant alone.


Truth is a girl now ? Pegged him to be a 16 yr old boy... at best.

Anyway....
How fkd up it is for you people to try and hold the responsibility of pregnancy on the man, when he has no say in ending/saving the life he created.

Can't have it both ways, people.

If you want to give the woman full control over killing the baby... then the women has to take full responsibility for creating it.

If a woman needs to get fkd, there are ways to do it without getting pregnant.
Of course... responsible women already know this and would never be in this situation.

I realize this completely goes against the liberal viewpoint of pointing blame everywhere except on the person responsible.

Dilemma, eh....

[Micketto]

You entitle your thread "morality"

How often have I seen you addressing the wrong person... or claiming people said things they didn't ?
Now you try and claim Chris started this thread.
Brilliant.

[Chris]

That is very naive and quaint. If there were no government, what force would be greater than the mega corps?

Where would they get their power? We know that today they get it in the form of economic favors from a morally corrupt government that sells it to them for votes and campaign contributions. San government, where would they get this power? You don't seem to want to answer this simple question. If it's so "naive and quaint" it ought to be easy to answer.

[Chris]

none...

we'd get to live in a dickensian nightmare where our food and water and air were contaminated and the vast majority of people worked for almost no wages and for ridiculously long hours...
with no benefits, health or otherwise... and where banks could lose your money and close their doors... without you getting compensated....
lovely picture, eh?

Why? How? The world you describe is one in which corporations get their power from government, not a pretty picture. Why would it remain the same without government? How?

[Chris]

even adam smith didn't believe that the market should be totally unregulated.

you would also have to presume that a totally free market is a good thing. i don't. a true free market that doesn't result in my dickensian nightmare would require a free flow of information allowing people to make informed choices as well as the POWER to fight the pollution, contamination, etc.

why do you think huge corporations care about a little long term loss... they reap the huge profits on the front end... and when it's over, it's over... but you have all you need to last you until your grandchildren's children are old and grey.

and absent government regulation, remember, monopolies would not be illegal... there would really be no free market. it is doomed to failure... as is communism... neither take into consideration human nature and the unwillingness of those who hold all the power, the money and everything else to give any of it up for the greater good.

and you, i think, might overestimate the ability to exert power against a behemoth.

Monopolies are created by government.

[Chris]

Im glad we can all agree that the austrian school of economics is insane.

who is going to tell the republican party?

The Rep Party is generally Keynesian just like the Dems.

But, come on, matters, tell us what you even know about the Austrian School of Economics. Calling it insane is pretty shallow.

[KC]

The Rep Party is generally Keynesian just like the Dems.

But, come on, matters, tell us what you even know about the Austrian School of Economics. Calling it insane is pretty shallow.

I see both parties departing from both Keynesian and Austrian orthodoxy.

If Dems were orthodox Keynesian, they wouldn't want to raise taxes while the economy remains weak. If Repubs were orthodox Keynesian, they would not talk about slowing the growth of spending while the economy remains weak.

Actually, neither party is much like Austrian economics.

[jillian]

Actually, neither party is much like Austrian economics.

I would say "Thank G-d", but the way i see it, the right is very much trending austrian school.

unfortunately.

however, that stops when a republican holds the purse strings. then they aren't as concerned with money management.

[Peter1469]

Where would they get their power? We know that today they get it in the form of economic favors from a morally corrupt government that sells it to them for votes and campaign contributions. San government, where would they get this power? You don't seem to want to answer this simple question. If it's so "naive and quaint" it ought to be easy to answer.

They would just take it.

[Chris]

I see both parties departing from both Keynesian and Austrian orthodoxy.

If Dems were orthodox Keynesian, they wouldn't want to raise taxes while the economy remains weak. If Repubs were orthodox Keynesian, they would not talk about slowing the growth of spending while the economy remains weak.

Actually, neither party is much like Austrian economics.

We're drifting off the morality question.

Keynes advocated both trickle down and trickle up economic policy, both spending and cutting taxes. He was all over the board, didn't miss a beat. He was a lousy economist. One thing Keynes advised was small, short stimulus not neoKeynesian everlasting Quantitative Easing.

No, Reagan knew some Austrian Economics, Hayekian policy, but that's about it, the rest has been Keynesian. Monetary policy comes to some degree from Friedman, though he'd turn over in his grave were he to see what's happening with printing money and inflation.

[jillian]

Monopolies are created by government.

no... monopolies are PREVENTED by government.

monopolies occur via a purely free market.

try the sherman antitrust act... you know, an actual law.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51

[Chris]

I would say "Thank G-d", but the way i see it, the right is very much trending austrian school.

unfortunately.

however, that stops when a republican holds the purse strings. then they aren't as concerned with money management.

Be specific, where is the right adopting Austrian School Economics. Money management? What are you talking about?

[Chris]

They would just take it.

That would require force. With government, government has a monopoly on force, without, the people, society, individuals have it, it's distributed, dynamic, not for the taking. So, again, I ask, how?

[Chris]

no... monopolies are PREVENTED by government.

monopolies occur via a purely free market.

try the sherman antitrust act... you know, an actual law.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51

I understand the intent of the law, but the road to perdition is paved with such good intentions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6LLQdpY7wU

[KC]

We're drifting off the morality question.

Keynes advocated both trickle down and trickle up economic policy, both spending and cutting taxes. He was all over the board, didn't miss a beat. He was a lousy economist. One thing Keynes advised was small, short stimulus not neoKeynesian everlasting Quantitative Easing.

No, Reagan knew some Austrian Economics, Hayekian policy, but that's about it, the rest has been Keynesian. Monetary policy comes to some degree from Friedman, though he'd turn over in his grave were he to see what's happening with printing money and inflation.

Friedman's main critique of the Great Depression was that we allowed the money supply to shrink. I agree that he would not approve with Bernanke's handling but he would at least grant that it was handled better by the fed than 1929-33 was.

[Peter1469]

no... monopolies are PREVENTED by government.

monopolies occur via a purely free market.

try the sherman antitrust act... you know, an actual law.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=51

Government can do both. Prevent and create monopolies. Without government, we would not be able to prevent monopolies- and these corporations would destroy the free market.

[Chris]

Government can do both. Prevent and create monopolies. Without government, we would not be able to prevent monopolies- and these corporations would destroy the free market.

Case in point for such immoral activity?

[jillian]

Government can do both. Prevent and create monopolies. Without government, we would not be able to prevent monopolies- and these corporations would destroy the free market.

i'm not sure i can think of a government created monopoly

i actually think they've been lax in allowing too many big companies to buy up our sources of information like TV and newspapers and radio stations... but that's another issue.

i agree with you that absent government we have no power to stop monopolies which would, in turn, destroy any competition.

government is not the problem.

bad government can be a problem.

[KC]

i'm not sure i can think of a government created monopoly

i actually think they've been lax in allowing too many big companies to buy up our sources of information like TV and newspapers and radio stations... but that's another issue.

i agree with you that absent government we have no power to stop monopolies which would, in turn, destroy any competition.

government is not the problem.

bad government can be a problem.

Government creates monopolies by creating legal barriers to entry or simply declaring a monopoly. For example, the slaughterhouse cases of the nineteenth century had to do with a monopoly created by the Louisiana legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

[jillian]

Government creates monopolies by creating legal barriers to entry or simply declaring a monopoly. For example, the slaughterhouse cases of the nineteenth century had to do with a monopoly created by the Louisiana legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

that isn't really what the cases addressed.

they addressed the police power of the state.

while i understand why you are saying that, there are better ways to lookn at the caselaw on the subject.

there is also caselaw that severely limits the slaughterhouse cases

[KC]

that isn't really what the cases addressed.

they addressed the police power of the state.

while i understand why you are saying that, there are better ways to lookn at the caselaw on the subject.

there is also caselaw that severely limits the slaughterhouse cases

Yes, the legal significance of those cases has little to do with monopolies, but the premise for the case provides an example of law that was used in the creation of monopolies.

[Peter1469]

i'm not sure i can think of a government created monopoly

i actually think they've been lax in allowing too many big companies to buy up our sources of information like TV and newspapers and radio stations... but that's another issue.

i agree with you that absent government we have no power to stop monopolies which would, in turn, destroy any competition.

government is not the problem.

bad government can be a problem.

Governments everywhere create monopolies. How much choice do you have to buy electricity for your home?

[jillian]

Governments everywhere create monopolies. How much choice do you have to buy electricity for your home?

That's a fair question. But I'm not sure how an apartment building would allow for multiple utility companies.

[Chris]

Governments everywhere create monopolies. How much choice do you have to buy electricity for your home?

Most public utilities are monopolies.

Post Office.

Single payer healthcare in Canada.

It's too easy to think of examples.

[Chris]

That's a fair question. But I'm not sure how an apartment building would allow for multiple utility companies.

What difference does it make how an apartment building would allow it, the government already has a monopoly, that was the point.

[Dr. Who]

Monopolies are created by government.Monopolies are also created by corporations, hence the anti-trust legislation against same. It is a very simple thing for a wealthy corporation to buy up all of the competition. The fact remains that for the most part they are prevented from doing so by laws. Otherwise, at this point in time there would only be one network on television, Hearst publishing would have taken over all of the newspapers and there would probably be only one bank. AIG would have long since subsumed all of the insurance carriers who present any competition and Bell/AT&T would own all of the telephone/telecommunications business.

[Peter1469]

That's a fair question. But I'm not sure how an apartment building would allow for multiple utility companies.

Electric companies are given regional monopolies all over. Here in Northern VA, the only electric provider is Dominion.

[Dr. Who]

Most public utilities are monopolies.

Post Office.

Single payer healthcare in Canada.

It's too easy to think of examples.
State/government owned monopolies theoretically can operate more cheaply as they don't require profit over and above operating and maintenance costs. The cost saving is passed on to the consumer. They can't go bankrupt or economize on maintenance and leave people without essential services. Would you want to privatize the military? It is by your definition a monopoly. Should the US put wars or peace keeping efforts out to tender? Should all police forces be privatized, perhaps the FBI?

[Chris]

Monopolies are also created by corporations, hence the anti-trust legislation against same. It is a very simple thing for a wealthy corporation to buy up all of the competition. The fact remains that for the most part they are prevented from doing so by laws. Otherwise, at this point in time there would only be one network on television, Hearst publishing would have taken over all of the newspapers and there would probably be only one bank. AIG would have long since subsumed all of the insurance carriers who present any competition and Bell/AT&T would own all of the telephone/telecommunications business.

At last an actual example of a monopoly. Still the question remains, was it a natural one, or artificial, ie. government-made?


That was hardly the case. Although
AT&T undoubtedly encouraged the monopolization of the industry,
it was the actions of regulators and federal and state legislators that
eventually led to the creation of a nationwide telephone monopoly.

Read more @ UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf)

[Chris]

State/government owned monopolies theoretically can operate more cheaply as they don't require profit over and above operating and maintenance costs. The cost saving is passed on to the consumer. They can't go bankrupt or economize on maintenance and leave people without essential services. Would you want to privatize the military? It is by your definition a monopoly. Should the US put wars or peace keeping efforts out to tender? Should all police forces be privatized, perhaps the FBI?

What is their incentive to operate more cheaply? That is, to seek efficiencies and provide better service?

Yes yes yes yes....

[Dr. Who]

What is their incentive to operate more cheaply? That is, to seek efficiencies and provide better service?

Yes yes yes yes.... That is what government budgets are supposed to accomplish. I have one example for you. Halliburton. Number one defense contractor. In all likelihood privatizing the military would involve Halliburton. The same company that brought defective O rings to the space program, inedible food and contaminated laundry service to the military amongst many other disreputable activities. Would privatizing the military be put out to tender or would it inevitably end up in the hands of the favored corporatocracy. The fact that there is corruption in the US government, does not render the concept of a properly run government an impossibility, just unlikely. For what it's worth, corruption runs both ways. You have those in government that thwart the oversight process. You have individuals in corporations that connive to manipulate both government and the market. The common denominator is/are disingenuous greedy operators that pervade both big business and government. Every economic model is subject to the same corruption and decay. The day that your model is capable of working is also the same day that real socialism is possible, because they both rely on human integrity.

[Dr. Who]

At last an actual example of a monopoly. Still the question remains, was it a natural one, or artificial, ie. government-made?



Read more @ UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1994/11/cj14n2-6.pdf) I don't deny the complicity of government in the Bell/AT&T monopoly, however it was the DoJ that ended that monopoly in a 1974 anti-trust lawsuit against AT&T.

[Chris]

That is what government budgets are supposed to accomplish. I have one example for you. Halliburton. Number one defense contractor. In all likelihood privatizing the military would involve Halliburton. The same company that brought defective O rings to the space program, inedible food and contaminated laundry service to the military amongst many other disreputable activities. Would privatizing the military be put out to tender or would it inevitably end up in the hands of the favored corporatocracy. The fact that there is corruption in the US government, does not render the concept of a properly run government an impossibility, just unlikely. For what it's worth, corruption runs both ways. You have those in government that thwart the oversight process. You have individuals in corporations that connive to manipulate both government and the market. The common denominator is/are disingenuous greedy operators that pervade both big business and government. Every economic model is subject to the same corruption and decay. The day that your model is capable of working is also the same day that real socialism is possible, because they both rely on human integrity.

Supposed should be italicized and bolded and size to a large font and colored red.

Writing laws doesn't change things.

Haliburton probably would have a good change made so big as it is through crony capitalism.

Smedley Butler said it well, war is a racket.

[Chris]

I don't deny the complicity of government in the Bell/AT&T monopoly, however it was the DoJ that ended that monopoly in a 1974 anti-trust lawsuit against AT&T.

So you're saying government sometimes fixes its mistakes? Wasn't AT&T just back in court of monopolistic practices trying to buy out another service?

[Chris]

So what is the moral of the story?

[Peter1469]

Halliburton happened to win the LOGCAP contract in the late 1990s, under Clinton. That set them up to be the go to logistic provider for the US Army for Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2007-8 I pushed the Army into making the new LOGCAP contract a multiple award contract, so each task order could be competed- more work, but cheaper for the taxpayers.

[Dr. Who]

So you're saying government sometimes fixes its mistakes? Wasn't AT&T just back in court of monopolistic practices trying to buy out another service? Sometimes you just can't keep a "good" corporatocracy down! They keep on trying. If no one complains, they get away with it.

[Chris]

Sometimes you just can't keep a "good" corporatocracy down! They keep on trying. If no one complains, they get away with it.

I dislike AT&T for various reasons. But here's the thing, like Standard Oil, Micro$oft, and others they figured out how to bring better quality at lower prices to more people. Their competitor, who can't compete economically compete politically.

[jillian]

Halliburton happened to win the LOGCAP contract in the late 1990s, under Clinton. That set them up to be the go to logistic provider for the US Army for Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2007-8 I pushed the Army into making the new LOGCAP contract a multiple award contract, so each task order could be competed- more work, but cheaper for the taxpayers.

all true... but not at the levels engaged in during the bush years...

and when the vice president had a huge stake in it, it was simply smarmy to use them.

the gauge should be how the right would respond if this president or vice president were heavily invested in a company that they were paying far more per day to do military jobs than it costs to pay the military for the same work.

[Peter1469]

all true... but not at the levels engaged in during the bush years...

and when the vice president had a huge stake in it, it was simply smarmy to use them.

the gauge should be how the right would respond if this president or vice president were heavily invested in a company that they were paying far more per day to do military jobs than it costs to pay the military for the same work.

They got the contract several years before Cheney was VP. Had the Army terminated the contract simply because the new VP owned it prior, would have lead to a breach of contract case that could have cost the tax payers a lot of money.

[jillian]

They got the contract several years before Cheney was VP. Had the Army terminated the contract simply because the new VP owned it prior, would have lead to a breach of contract case that could have cost the tax payers a lot of money.

not for iraq they didn't.

and there was no backwater then

and again, the mercenaries were paid to do jobs the military could do at the rate of $1,000 a day.

[Dr. Who]

I dislike AT&T for various reasons. But here's the thing, like Standard Oil, Micro$oft, and others they figured out how to bring better quality at lower prices to more people. Their competitor, who can't compete economically compete politically.

Did they or is that just the perception? Other competitors were destroyed in the process, so I guess we'll never really know. Aren't you the guy that thinks more competition is better? How can these mega corps really be good? They have so much money they can squeeze out any new idea that poses a threat, either by buying out the developer or so out advertising them that the buying public becomes convinced that they are the best option. What great technology has never seen the light of day because of these companies?

[Peter1469]

not for iraq they didn't.

and there was no backwater then

and again, the mercenaries were paid to do jobs the military could do at the rate of $1,000 a day.

Wrong. The LOGCAP contract was a US Army requirements contract. In other words, the contractor would provide all logistics services world wide as needed.

[jillian]

Wrong. The LOGCAP contract was a US Army requirements contract. In other words, the contractor would provide all logistics services world wide as needed.

forever?

and, if so, perhaps conflict of interest laws should have required that cheney divest himself of the stock before starting a war.

[Peter1469]

forever?

For the period of performance. LOGCAP was for 10 years including options.

[jillian]

For the period of performance. LOGCAP was for 10 years including options.

that would have put us at about 2005 when the contract was up.

but they didn't terminate that contract, did they?

if another politician had a financial interest in us being at war, it would have been a huge story.

[Peter1469]

that would have put us at about 2005 when the contract was up.

but they didn't terminate that contract, did they?

if another politician had a financial interest in us being at war, it would have been a huge story.

Logcap started in the 1980s. I believe that the Halliburton contract started in 1997. In 2007 it was re-competed as a multiple award IDIQ contract.

Had the Army terminated the contract when Cheney became VP it would have been in breech of contract and the tax payers would have paid a lot of money for no good reason. And it would have had to re-compete the requirement at that time; more waste of money.

[jillian]

Logcap started in the 1980s. I believe that the Halliburton contract started in 1997. In 2007 it was re-competed as a multiple award IDIQ contract.

Had the Army terminated the contract when Cheney became VP it would have been in breech of contract and the tax payers would have paid a lot of money for no good reason. And it would have had to re-compete the requirement at that time; more waste of money.

oh.. i don't think they should have terminted the contract.

i think cheney should have been required to divest himself of the stock.

you think you should be sent to war to fill his pockets?

[Peter1469]

oh.. i don't think they should have terminted the contract.

i think cheney should have been required to divest himself of the stock.

you think you should be sent to war to fill his pockets?

I believe that Cheney did eventually divest himself of the stock.

[jillian]

I believe that Cheney did eventually divest himself of the stock.

i've never heard that. and i can't speak to it.

but if he did... how much did he make off of people dying first?

[Peter1469]

i've never heard that. and i can't speak to it.

but if he did... how much did he make off of people dying first?

You can Google it. SF 278- financial disclosure for senior government officials. http://www.oge.gov/Financial-Disclosure/Public-Financial-Disclosure-278/Public-Financial-Disclosure/

[Chris]

i've never heard that. and i can't speak to it.

but if he did... how much did he make off of people dying first?


i've never heard that. and i can't speak to it.

That seems to be the case in post after post. You really don't know but yet you do speak to it. Where do you get your information?

[Chris]

Did they or is that just the perception? Other competitors were destroyed in the process, so I guess we'll never really know. Aren't you the guy that thinks more competition is better? How can these mega corps really be good? They have so much money they can squeeze out any new idea that poses a threat, either by buying out the developer or so out advertising them that the buying public becomes convinced that they are the best option. What great technology has never seen the light of day because of these companies?

Competitors who couldn't compete.

Competition is better but not competition forced by government. Nor is government eliminating competition through regulation any better.

The only evil I see in big corporations is big government behind then in collusion exchanging wealth for power.



What great technology has never seen the light of day because of these companies?

You tell us, communications is one of the more innovative industries around.

[jillian]

That seems to be the case in post after post. You really don't know but yet you do speak to it. Where do you get your information?

still being a nasty little troll, huh? nice.

i always state when i don't know something. in fact, a normal person would say, well, ok... good when someone says they don't know something.

you know, like when you pretend to know about the constitution.

[Dr. Who]

still being a nasty little troll, huh? nice.

i always state when i don't know something. in fact, a normal person would say, well, ok... good when someone says they don't know something.

you know, like when you pretend to know about the constitution.Hey Jillian, there's a rule on the forum about name calling. Let's attack the message, not the messenger, please?