(no subject)

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Please read Isiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty. It is helpful for those who really do want to abandon antiquated concepts of liberty in favour of a more modern version.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Is there a specific point you could summarize?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I am not sure what is your point, but I can tell you from get go that I'm not an anarchist at all. We all argue about where the line between positive and negative liberty should be. I take 10 commandments as basic postulates. Everything is driven on this fundament.
It crosses the line when government tells me I have to buy a certain product, or wants to take the most my fruits of my labor. I am also for the concept of state, so my taxes should benefit only the members of that state. And so on.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Well, there isn't Ten Commandments anyway. But assuming this, do you think those "basic postulates" should be laws.

The point is that purely negative theories of liberty do not consider enabling positive liberties.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

What do you mean there is no ten commandments? You lost me there.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The so-called decalogue is a bit of a myth. There's usually around 12-13 depending on how you count them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Traditions_for_numbering).

But the main point being, do you think those Commandments should be laws?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

They aren't laws, but the fundamentals of human morality. Laws should be built on this moral basis.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

That's not the question I asked. I asked do you think those Commandments should be laws?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I think I was pretty clear. If you are trying to portray me as some kind of religious fanatic, it's not going to work, I don't even go to church.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You wrote: " I take 10 commandments as basic postulates. Everything is driven on this fundament."

If you think these are basic postulates, then surely you think they should be enforced by law. If not, why not?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I already said, those are fundamentals of moral code, morality is not the law. The laws are more specific and more descriptive, and have to be - breaking the law involves punishment and people have to know the exact relation between behavior and punishment. Morality, on the other hand is vague, and therefore subject to interpretations.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Vague? You're calling the Decalogue vague? Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal... Doesn't seem to particularly vague to me.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

It is very general. While the law describes first degree, second degree, etc...
What is your point?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

My point is that law provides prescriptive implementations of moral principles. If you think that the Decalogue are the fundamental principles, do you think they should be implemented in law - if not, why not?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what Decalogue is. And why are you so interested in my opinion about this?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what Decalogue is.

Yes you do. It's been linked in this thread and the term has been used multiple times. Plus, you could enter it into a search engine.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=decalogue

And why are you so interested in my opinion about this?

As just explained, laws are the prescriptive implementations of moral principles.

More to the point, why do you keep avoiding the question?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Because I don't understand what you are asking, and also what your point in general.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4311268.html?thread=97648100#t97648100

[blackdwarv.livejournal.com]

So, let me get this straight.

When the government tells you that you have to buy a certain product... like say a road or a bridge or police force... so those should all be thrown out and only private (toll) bridges and for-hire police should exist. Gotcha.

Wants to take most of my fruits of labor. Um, I'll assume you are using hyperbole here, because last time I checked, tax rates maxed out at 40%.. which isn't 'most'. More, you are actually getting a return on this in things like infrastructure, defense, and social programs which even if you don't use, are keeping your front lawn uncluttered from lepers begging for one of your coins...

Taxes should only benefit the members of that state? I thought you were against the federal government?

Ten Commandments? Tell me, what morality is governed by the graven images clause? You'd really be a-okay with slavery? How does same-sex marriage or polygamy or even (that Republican favorite) bestiality? None of these are forbidden by the Ten Commandments (unless it is your neighbor's ass that you want to bone...). And how do you propose to enforce that whole "God's Name In Vain" thing? Morality police who wander around waiting for a guy to stub his toe and shout "Jesus Christ"?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

How clever. Government doesn't tell me personally to buy a road. The corresponding government entity(state, city, county, etc) tells the community, or vice versa, to pay for the road. If I personally don't like it, I might move to Montana (still US) and avoid paying for it. So, lets not compare oranges and melons.
You are correct - hyperbole.
Why are you so dismissive of poor? All the poor are lepers to you? Actually, I don't mind paying for lepers at all, I'll be happy to pay for real disabled people. "Real" is the key world, and I don't consider laziness, stupidity or identity crisis a disability.
Ten commandments are written for people with common sense, thought it only states "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor", doesn't mean that it's OK to false witness against thy boss, even if he deserves it.
First, I recommend you to read "Aesop fables", then you might stop taking everything literally.
There is nothing about slavery in 10 commandments.

[blackdwarv.livejournal.com]

How clever. Government doesn't tell me personally to buy a road. The corresponding government entity(state, city, county, etc) tells the community, or vice versa, to pay for the road. If I personally don't like it, I might move to Montana (still US) and avoid paying for it. So, lets not compare oranges and melons.

I know this is hard to believe, but they still have roads in Montana. Even *gasp* INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS which are funded by... you got it... the federal government.

Why are you so dismissive of poor? All the poor are lepers to you? Actually, I don't mind paying for lepers at all, I'll be happy to pay for real disabled people. "Real" is the key world, and I don't consider laziness, stupidity or identity crisis a disability.

Oh, goodie! We agree then, and we shall immediately cut tax loopholes, raise the top minimal rate to the same as income tax, and remove all corporate subsidies. If you can work, you should, not live off my dime! Got to remove all those leeches and moochers!

There is nothing about slavery in 10 commandments.

Exactly. I'm glad that you followed that.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Interstate Highway is a Federal infrastructure, which involves multiple states. This where the direct responsibility of federals comes to work - to coordinate the business of multiple states.
we shall immediately cut tax loopholes, raise the top minimal rate to the same as income tax, and remove all corporate subsidies.
Agree, but not immediately - gradually to avoid unintended consequences.
Raising minimum wage artificially is not going to do any good to almost nobody, so do not agree.
What the heck do you thinking - some kind of teacher or what? Checking me? No, you didn't know, then you googled and you pretend that you were checking me. Hah.