Give me an excuse to ignore your post, will you? Seeing as how I am trying to keep up with, what, 5 or 6 other posters? in this thread, I would be a fool not to jump at this. So, for my reply to “your” post, see my response to hers.
Ahhhh…I was afraid for a minute there I would have to dig up my old math textbooks to make sure I understood what you were talking about. However:
No, I am not basing an argument on this or anything else…there were no arguments in my OP, only questions.
Are assumptions required to be correct?
My apologies…this should have been folded in with the last post.
Quite. I do have a question about that last answer though: Would it not also be “possible” for the government to “stay out of issues of how the money we use collectively through the government to run aspects of our society is spent”? If it did, of course, we would presumably have anarchy, but I don’t see how that makes it impossible.
Gotcha. And Sweet Jesus I am caught up. I wouldn’t’ve thought it possible…
…
Time for another break, methinks…amd some Tylenol[sup]TM[/sup]…
Okay, Weird Al, I suppose you’re going to have to count me as one of the masses who’s been convinced. Perhaps the story that ultimately allowed me to convince myself would help get across their point (as I understand it, at any rate)?
Suppose that there is a country ruled by Benevolent Dictator Bob. Being a benevolent dictator, he nevertheless decides that he’s going to have to tax the citizens to pay for such things as roads, police, et cetera, ad nauseum. However, BDB has recently been talking to Concerned Citizen Al, and Al has convinced BDB that imposing any particular moral choice on the faceless masses that make up this country is wrong.
BDB is a reasonable guy, so he does what any natural leader would do in this type of situation: he delegates. He goes to his special committee on taxing the loyal citizens and explains to them that he needs to raise funds by taxing, but he’s very concerned that no particular moral vision is forced upon his citizens. The committee goes off, and a few weeks later, they come back and tell him “Listen, Bob, that’s a great idea, but we can’t think of any way of taxing without making SOME form of moral choice, such as deciding who pays how much.”
BDB is very disappointed, but he takes Al’s concerns very seriously, so he decides that taxing is going to have to go out the window. “Surely,” he reasons, “if I impose no taxation at all, thus avoiding the moral decision in the first place, I can’t be said to be imposing any particular moral code on my citizens, and I’ll have addressed Al’s concerns!”
Along, however, comes Concerned Citizen Kimstu (and several others, yes, but this post is long enough as it is), who points out that she was rather expecting to have such modern conveniences as roads and a reasonable police force, and that by not collecting revenues, BDB wasn’t able to pay for these. Thus, Kimstu is now forced to choose between living in a society where such things don’t exist or leaving her home. She was forced to make this choice as a direct consequence of Al’s moral decision to forbid the government from making moral decisions, obviously. But what SHE wanted was for each person to contribute a fair share (nevermind about how that’s determined; it’s irrelevant to the argument), and that’s not going to happen because Al has essentially banned the government from taxing. Hence, this is an example of Al imposing his moral code upon her, the very thing that Al claims not to want.
BDB goes off and thinks for a while, certain that Kimstu must be wrong because her point is highly non-intuitive to him, but after lengthy dialogue, he decides that Kimstu does indeed have a point, so he foists the entire thing back off on the committee for taxation and heads down to the pub for a pint or three because his head hurts.
I don’t know if this helps clarify their point, Al, and I REALLY hope the tone isn’t insulting, but it was basically at about this level that I had to think about things before what the others are saying finally made sense to me. (I really do find this rather non-intuitive for some reason, possibly because I don’t think it necessarily works this way between individuals and possibly because I never gave this issue careful thought to begin with, so I carelessly made a faulty analogy to interpersonal interactions.)
And, by the way, if anyone thinks I’m misrepresenting the argument, please correct me. I think this is quite the interesting topic. (And, I want to add that anyone who says that you shouldn’t debate or ponder hypotheticals because they’re only hypotheticals is probably missing some of the most interesting questions!)
For the record
Though it may not have been a memorable experience for all parties involved, I am thinking of my first “Great Debate” of the title “Objectivism/Ayn Rand.” (I can’t believe I’m even linking it) For any parties who do remember such an event, let it be known that at that time to be considered in the same boat with Kimstu would have signalled an apocryphal event.
At any rate, the op asks:
So, I ask: should the state seek to enforce anyone’s morality through the tax code and/or other economic policy? Though this may seem like dodging the qustion, once it has been decided that there should even be a state the question is already answered as a state cannot act without following, even if by chance, someone’s moral code.
If so, who decides what morality is enforced? Whoever runs the state. In a dictatorship the answer is obvious. In a republic the answer is thoroughly more involved, dealing with the accuracy of representation, etc. But none-the-less, in the end, the ruling body is a handful of citizens who decide the morality of the state.
Would this be in any way fundamentally different from enforcing morality in non-economic areas, say by forbidding certain sexual practices? IMO, not really. Not to say that the idea behind those laws wouldn’t be different, but that the principle is the same; to wit: the government does whatever the government does based on a standard or set of standards for correct action, and so all government action is rooted in an idea, however tenuous, superfluous, or incoherent(overall), of morality.
Well, I did leave that door open. I hardly expected somebody who has repeatedly stressed his desire to explore a focused discussion to slink out of it, though.
Interstingly, I see very little in your response to mandelstam that is actually responsive to the points she nad I addressed in common. Interestingly, I also see that some of teh questions you asked her were actually spelled out fairly clearly by me. Ah, well, we each seek understanding in our own way.
Yes, human actions can be amoral. Human actions which impact other human beings can even be amoral, though it is hard to find “real world” examples. Of course, determining the morality, immorality, or amorality of an action requires asserting that one has a valid moral code. If the action in question has teh potential to affect people who do not share your moral code, then this is an imposition.
And, yes, anrchy is possible. It has not,historically, proven to be sustainable in human societies. Since you seem manifestly uninterested in real world data (except for the curious focus on amorality), I don’t imagine that will stop you from making whatever point you imagine this discussion is leading to.
Sorry Weird Al, I got hit with a major work deadline and couldn’t so much as log onto the SDSM for a few days…
I had written:
"…a dictionary definition of “morality” will, I think, clear up something that has been confusing you all along. Indeed, I’m sorry this didn’t come up earl[ier]. There are, in fact, two relevant definitions of the word “morality”. The first (the one that we, by and large, have been invoking) is value-neutral: a system of ideas of right and wrong. The second (the one that you, by and large, have been invoking) us value-normative: virtuous conduct, or the quality of being in accord with standards of good or right conduct. (These are paraphrased from Webster’s II.)
So all along we’ve been trying to say that even the guy who believes everything is motivated by self-interest, and/or the guy who prides himself on his unbridled love of sex, drugs and rock and roll (as all good liberals do, I might add 
) is simply someone whose “system of ideas of right and wrong” is predicated on individualism and the primacy of individual liberties.
But all along you were probably assuming that “morality”–something advocated by religious types and bleeding hearts, no doubt–was counter to your views on self-interest and to sex, drugs and rock and roll which you mistakenly saw as amoral. The reason being, I think, that you’ve imbibed a stereotype in which “virtuous conduct” is seen as something that only matters to preachy, busybody types.
At least I’m guessing this was the case."
Al replied: “Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I concede none of this of course, but as I said, I am far from equipped at this time to attempt to prove you wrong.”
Well, Al, I suspect then that there’s very little debate left–whether you concede or not
Me restating the OP"Should the state seek to enforce anyone’s morality through the tax code and/or other economic policy?
“Our answer: regardless of whether it should or shouldn’t, the state already does this as a basic function of democratic governance: i.e., it enforces the “morality” of the majority through various tax policies and, indeed, through all governing practices.*”
WEA"So, once again, I assume your answer is yes, as I assume you want the gov. to continue to function."
Precisely.
the OP again"If so, who decides what morality is enforced?"
MeOur answer: So long as the democracy is functioning well enough, and so long as the particular act is deemed constitutional, the morality of the majority is what gets enforced."
the OP"Would this be in any way fundamentally different from enforcing morality in non-economic areas, say by forbidding certain sexual practices?"
Me:“Yes it would be different because, as xenophon and others have explained more eloquently than I can, our constitution attempts to preserve individual liberty as much as possible. But taxes are not seen as threats to individual liberty and to argue that they are, you’d have to overturn the dominant morality.”
Al:"I would appreciate a clarification of that last answer. Not seen by whom?"
Taxes (at least moderate taxes) are not seen as a threat to individual liberty by the majority of people, including our legislators and judges. And, I might add, including you since you said earlier that you did want the government to do stuff like defend the realm and insure banks and you didn’t have an alternative means of financing these activities. 
Yes, I’m back from my break…I think this thread is mostly finished, but there are a few loose ends…
Well, like I said, it wasn’t just you, but a bunch of others I was trying to keep up with. You try doing that sometimes. However:
Ok. I’ve modified the OP a bunch of times, what’s one more? So replace “should” with “do you want”.
I don’t think the difference is fundamental, but instead of arguing the point, let’s consider yet another variation of the OP. I asked Mandelstam, how is it fundamentally different from the government giving money to that Reverend Phelps guy and his Westboro Baptist Church, assuming that the issue of the constitutionality of this had been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, which ruled it constitutional.
Ok…can you think of any example?
No problem. I’ve taken most of this week off from this thread…it’s been grueling.
Well, restrictions on certain sexual practices are not seen as a threat to individual liberty by the majority of people, at least a majority of people in many states.
I certainly have an alternative to income taxes…but that’s another thread.
Ok, one more thing…does everyone here more or less agree with the concept of government-enforced morality as expressed by g8rguy in his thought experiment, the one that starts:
?
I just want to get this straight, for my own edification.
Yes.
Well, having an alternative is easy; having a better and fairer alternative is another matter! [Where I admit that “better” and “fairer” are moral judgements…but alas necessarily so, as we now all understand! ]
I pretty much agree with the BDB.
I assume you are asking how funding Reverend Phelps is different from enforcing a moral viewpoint through economic policies, not from regulating sexual practices. The simple answer is pretty much identical to your last question: it is different because one deals with economic concerns and the other deals with matters of faith. If you want to restrict your discussion to the United States, the difference might be viewed as fundamental since the founders of this nation felt that the free exercise of religion was fundamental enough to guarantee it in the First Ammendment.
As a theoretical question, an evaluation of such government sponsorship would have to examine whether government funding of one religion can/should be considered an active hindrance of other religions. Certainly, if government funds are collected in a coercive manner (as through taxes) it seems reasonable to argue that funds available for religious activities can be viewed as a zero sum game, in which case sponsoring Reverend Phelps does negatively affect other faiths. This argument can be extended through an evaluation of social pressures which might accompany even an apparent governmental endorsement of a specific church.
Sure. At dinner tonight Mrs Mundi and I were down to the last two pieces of sushi (eel and hamachi). I told her to pick whichever one she wanted. Now, she knows I like them both, and she knows that I am not generally shy about expressing a reference if I feel one. So, her choice (eel) affected me (since I had to eat hamachi) yet was amoral (had a neutral moral value).
I agree that it is a nice summary of both positions. However, I will stress that his experiment predicates that a government agent already exists with unlimited executive powers.
All hail Bob. Pass the pork.
Incorrect assumption. I was doing a direct substitution, replacing the bit about “regulating sexual practices” in the OP with “funding Rev. Phelps”.
Again, I ask if there is unanimous agreement on this…that one can make a choice that affects someone else, that is nonetheless amoral.
g8rguy: I enjoyed your tale. Towards the end you wrote, “(I really do find this rather non-intuitive for some reason, possibly because I don’t think it necessarily works this way between individuals and possibly because I never gave this issue careful thought to begin with, so I carelessly made a faulty analogy to interpersonal interactions.)”
I think you’re intuitive powers are now in fine fettle: that is, I agree that it doesn’t usually work with this way for individuals.
The inimitable Weird_AL_Einstein:
Some rehash:
the OP"Would this be in any way fundamentally different from enforcing morality in non-economic areas, say by forbidding certain sexual practices?"
Me:“Yes it would be different because, as xenophon and others have explained more eloquently than I can, our constitution attempts to preserve individual liberty as much as possible. But taxes are not seen as threats to individual liberty and to argue that they are, you’d have to overturn the dominant morality.”
Al:"I would appreciate a clarification of that last answer. Not seen by whom?"
Me: "Taxes (at least moderate taxes) are not seen as a threat to individual liberty by the majority of people, including our legislators and judges."
AlWell, restrictions on certain sexual practices are not seen as a threat to individual liberty by the majority of people, at least a majority of people in many states.
Actually, I suspect that the majority of people do recognize restrictions on sexual practices as intrusive; which is why some of them are almost never enforced. There’s an example of our institutions not working the way they’re supposed to. IMO, private sexual acts between consenting adults should be constitutionally guaranteed so that even in cases where the majority of people are opposed to the acts, there should be no grounds for legislative banning. Yet such laws continue to exist probably because legislators fear the fall-out from repealing them. An even better example is the ban on civil unions between gays. There’s a case where the religious morality of a substantial number of people (though not necessarily the majority) interferes in a way it shouldn’t. Bear in mind, no one in this thread has alleged that American instutions always work the way they’re supposed to…
Al: “I certainly have an alternative to income taxes…but that’s another thread.”
Well, I’m with jshore on this one. It’s hard to imagine an alternate form of taxation that wouldn’t be much more regressive. As to mass-privatization, you can count me out of that idea. Have you ever read Snow Crash btw?
Hmmm. Yeessss…ish… hmmmmmm.
[li]At dinner tonight Mrs Mundi and I were down to the last two pieces of sushi (eel and hamachi).[/li]Comment: statement of context. no moral value.
[li]I told her to pick whichever one she wanted.[/li]Comment: either apathetic or moral choice. (I should be nice to my wife because…whatever reason applies, not going to read his mind)
[li]Now, she knows I like them both, and she knows that I am not generally shy about expressing a reference if I feel one.[/li]Comment: More context.
[li]So, her choice (eel) affected me (since I had to eat hamachi) yet was amoral (had a neutral moral value).[/li]Moral choice which precludes setting: I should eat because…whatever. Moral choice number two: I should eat stuff I like because…whatever. Once those are resolved, I don’t see that I could squeeze morals into this any more than I already have.
So, yeah, its a pretty amoral decision in the end. I take it you don’t agree?
[quote]
me
I assume you are asking how funding Reverend Phelps is different from enforcing a moral viewpoint through economic policies, not from regulating sexual practices.
Um, incorrect reading.
That’s what I said. If you couldn’t parse the statement itself, which I admit was convoluted, wasn’t it clear from the analysis which followed? (Particularly lines like, “it is different because one deals with economic concerns and the other deals with matters of faith.”) Did you even bother to read that part of the post, or did you misread the introductory sentence and turn the page?