Torture versus collateral damage; the bigger evil?

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl

This brings up a very important point that I try to keep raising. The Americans were not averse to something like a war tax being imposed. We would have gone for it. The political elites were afraid to ask us to do it. They lacked any real backbone or moral courage as evidenced by all their defense of torture. Hell they lack any real moral base.

I tend to agree, since conservations with most people outside of the self-appointed political elite point to agreement on many of the moral issues we're discussing. However, we have a system that allows us to purge the politically elite and yet we re-elect the same batch of clowns repeatedly. Can we be both moral and apathetic?

As for lowering taxes to raise revenues I'm in strong agreement with Fuchs. I have done a fair amount of reading on this topic, and I tend to believe that big business propaganda is pushing that line, but the numbers don't add up. I'm also of the belief the government should spend less, but that is a different argument altogether. I think we're in agreement that when we go to war the nation goes to war, so everyone should sacrifice. Putting a "I support the troops" sticker on your car isn't sacrifice. Paying additional taxes to support the war effort is, and it should motivate the nation (populace) to more closely watch how the government spends that money in support of the war and put a stop to the multi-million dollar contracts to political croonies who are getting rich off the war and providing no value in return.

This gets back to my previous point can we really be moral if we're apathetic? The political elite count on us being sheep, in military terms it gives them considerable freedom of movement.

[Entropy]

This brings up a very important point that I try to keep raising. The Americans were not averse to something like a war tax being imposed. We would have gone for it. The political elites were afraid to ask us to do it.

You should go back and look at the debates at the time. In the case of Iraq, the argument was that a tax was unnecessary because the war would be short, of modest cost, and that most of that cost would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues after the war. It's a similar story with Afghanistan, except the cost was modest (15-20 billion a year for the first five years) so a tax wasn't deemed necessary. Tax increases were not considered after that because we were always just a Friedman Unit or two away from winning or leaving....

[carl]

You should go back and look at the debates at the time. In the case of Iraq, the argument was that a tax was unnecessary because the war would be short, of modest cost, and that most of that cost would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues after the war. It's a similar story with Afghanistan, except the cost was modest (15-20 billion a year for the first five years) so a tax wasn't deemed necessary. Tax increases were not considered after that because we were always just a Friedman Unit or two away from winning or leaving....

I remember those debates just fine. But your comment doesn't address my point. Those arguments were made by chicken hearted elites, which was my point.

[carl]

I tend to agree, since conservations with most people outside of the self-appointed political elite point to agreement on many of the moral issues we're discussing. However, we have a system that allows us to purge the politically elite and yet we re-elect the same batch of clowns repeatedly. Can we be both moral and apathetic?

I think we can. I don't think we have fully realized the impact of TV on our democratic structure. The Constitution was made when political discourse was conducted face to face or via the written word. Both of those methods allowed more detail and complexity to be presented. More importantly in my view is that both required the people to pay more attention to what was going on. They had to make an effort to follow a whole speech or discussion just as they had to make an effort to read a written argument.

TV has changed all that. It is easier to get most of what passes for news from the tube. It is normal enough that people will do what is easier. So it is normal for many people to make decisions based upon the ad or the sound bite. That is a huge difference from when the Constitution was written. Centuries of history went into the making of Constitution. TV has only been around for 60 years. I don't think we know how it is going to fully affect our politics yet.

Another thing, 220 years ago there wasn't all that much around in the way or entertainment compared to today. So politics was part of the entertainment available so I think for that reason people paid more attention to it. Nowadays, there are many more things easily available to catch your eye.

As for lowering taxes to raise revenues I'm in strong agreement with Fuchs. I have done a fair amount of reading on this topic, and I tend to believe that big business propaganda is pushing that line, but the numbers don't add up.

Ah but they do. People being people, it can't not be so. I figure if the tax rate were raised to 100% on somebody, tax revenue would soon be zero or close to it. If you lowered that rate, even a little, revenue would go up. If you lowered it a lot, revenue would skyrocket. If you take everything from somebody, they aren't going to work at all. That's normal. If you don't steal so much from them, they get more for working, so they work. People react to the situation.

This gets back to my previous point can we really be moral if we're apathetic? The political elite count on us being sheep, in military terms it gives them considerable freedom of movement.

Like I said, I think we can be moral and apathetic. That is bad because there is no check on the superzips, who have no moral foundation at all beyond what is good for the superzips.