townhall.com — Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? For me, the answer to both questions is no. What about you? Walter Williams calls it again
Apr 1, 2009 View in Crawl 4
novaculusApr 1, 2009
The irony here is that those who pay no taxes now and therefore fear no tax increases, and greedily support Obama's massive spending on handouts and the staggering resulting deficits will ultimately suffer the most. The bill will inevitably come due. Their taxes will be raised, and the programs they live on will be cut. The poorest inevitably suffer the most in economic downturns. If they think times are tough now, wait until that bill comes due, and the economy has been crippled by the anti-business policies of Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Bawney Fwank. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
darkwater37Apr 11, 2009
"The basic test of morality is whether force was/is used and I agree with the article. Use of force on someone who is not committing a crime that hurts someone is a crime and immoral, the person that is using that force is the aggressor and is the one who should should be stopped. But what do you do about annoying things like ice cream trucks that play that annoying tune for a hour weaving though the neighborhood every day."
Closed AccountApr 11, 2009
I'll take a capitalist any day over a liberal on welfare working under the table.
stonebearApr 12, 2009
I think a lot of people get morality mixed up with ethics. As an instrument of power, government is inherently amoral. Not only does it not understand morality, who's morality should it understand? Religion then enters to accommodate morality in a place it shouldn't be. Government should concern itself with ethics, because they are the appropriate foundation of law; ethics, not morality is what allows justice to be blind. Our government slipped the bonds of law, and nobody noticed because all they could think about was how they could squeeze their particular brand of morality into the government, whether it be welfare for the poor, welfare for the rich, religion in public schools, God on the money, or a god-damned "war" on whatever. It was moralists that forgot all about ethics and sold the rest of us out for their own narrow interests, and now we have to live with big brother in our pockets, bedrooms, and computers for the duration because of it.
striker101Apr 12, 2009
I (yet again) spent time googling definition of ethics vs morality, which seem wildly all over the map. One link which seems helpful is <a class="user" href="http://www.ehow.com/how_2152617_distinguish-between-morality-ethics.html">http://www.ehow.com/how_2152617_distinguish-betwee ...</a> Here on any Digg subject we find space merely for brief comment, thankfully avoiding the myriad of books and words from every pundit thru eternity. Merely discussing the semantics of ethics vs morality might consume this website for years while resolving nothing of value. Using this English language which has yet to even provide a neuter-pronoun for he/she illustrates the difficulties of such discussions.I am unhappy with "morality" as the base-name for my website; we all use the best we can find yet available. "Morality" seems an intimidating and overbearing word demanding too much effort than most people can bear. Worse, morality is generally construed as being the province of religion, most unfortunate.Regardless of whether we call it morality or ethics, I totally believe that everything must begin with and rest upon a simple foundation of basic "moral" principles, stated in the Declaration of Independence as man's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that's individual MAN, not animals, not god, not the collective -- MAN. Had those principles been included and absolutely defined within the Constitution, there would be no need for most of the endless discussions here on Digg.Our founding fathers did their level best, but could not have forseen how semantics play by lawyers and politicians and the proponents of sacrifice could destroy us, as it has. Humankind has much yet to learn.