re#14 Because there are no 'morons' that one might discover, ethics is different than physics. In physics, to cite Feynman, it really doesn't matter what people think. Ethics relies upon discussion among people ('logical' or otherwise) because that's all we have. Rest assured that everyone agrees that one has a right to his/her own life. In the Dust-Bunny U talk of Dworkin, the term is 'dignity'. So we can safely begin our ethical search with the universality of 'dignity'. Then we can say that Justice begins with personal dignity. But the issue here is to conjure up a 'role of government' scenario which corresponds to what you think is fair in terms of paying taxes. This, you declare is the only truth in government--all others being a form of rape and slavery-- despite the fact that other levels of taxation exist that other people are happy to pay. But, of course, all this is the epistemological tail wagging the ontological dog, anyway. All governments are 'unfair' everywhere to those who want to pay less taxes. Some people are just better sounding 'philosophical' than others. >>>>Without moral principles we can't form laws that suit that same purpose of establishing liberty - we'd have no standard to parse from.<<<<< My point, precisely. Moral principles, such as 'dignity', provide a rough, agreed-upon standard from which to parse. But real morality is dot-connecting from principle to problem, which is why I believe that Dworkin is correct that moral principles are 'objective' because they serve as universal points of reference. >>>>You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent.<<< 'Owner's terms' are those given to said owner by usufruct-agreement of the society which grants 'ownership' to begin with. With all due respect, Rand's error is anthropological. There is no 'ownership' outside of societal convention, anywhere, nor has there ever been. This is not to say that I'm not for the drastic lowering of taxes, which will create prosperity. Rather, your foundationalist approach is a philosophical lost cause. You lose badly on points, and then pitch a hissy fit, which is something we reformists really don't need. Rather, it's all simple and pragnmatic. Ockham's razor says that easiest is best. Lower taxes is not anti-slavery or anti rape, but simple prosperity. EM
| 
