A Tale of Two Cows

yes, I've read your 'answers'. My statement still stands. Why can't you answer the question instead of trying to develop ones never asked?

It reminds me of Edmund Blackadder trying to teach Baldrick addition.

"If I add 2 beans with two more beans... what do I have?"

"A very small casserole."

:lol:

You too are earning a passing grade but I'm still looking for the basic principle that should guide the governor's decision here.
I like the answer given by David Gerrold in trying to explain government in the series "War Against the Chtorr".

The Governor's guiding principle is to do what is most equitable to all it's citizens with the least amount of action and cost. If Riche has a cow, and Pauvre does not, it is not the Governor's job to make sure Pauvre does. It is also not the Governor's purpose to prevent Pauvre from applying himself to gain a new cow.

If for some reason, Pauvre steals a cow from Riche and kills it for a party, Governor must work to make Riche as whole as possible before the theft, and punish Pauvre accordingly for his crime. Since they cannot return a live cow, they must do the most fair thing possible which is probably to return the meat if possible, or force Pauvre to work to provide compensation to Riche until such time as Riche is made as close to whole as possible.

Static Inertia is the guiding principle of government unless forced to move. Then it must move in the most efficient manner with most equitable result. Most often, this means no action.

Again soooo close, but you're dealing more with process than principle here.

You are correct that if Pauvre takes Riche's cow without Riche's permission, Pauvre has violated Riche's right to his own cows. And the governor, if he respects and defends Riche's rights, will punish Pauvre for the crime and, if real justice is done, Pauvre will be required to make Riche whole as best that he can. (That is one component of our law that is lacking these days--it is too easy to make time served in jail or prison or a fine the full compensation for a crime rather than requiring the one committing the crime restore the one harmed as much as possible.)

Ghandi understood that principle well. When a guilt ridden Hindu man came to him and admitted killing a Muslim man and what should he now do, Ghandi replied, "You must raise the son of the Muslim man as you would raise your own, and you must raise him as a Muslim."

But we still haven't quite identified the core principle that would or would not make Pauvre entitled to have one or more of Riche's cows (or anything including money that Riche owns.)
 
I did...pages back.
yes, I've read your 'answers'. My statement still stands. Why can't you answer the question instead of trying to develop ones never asked?

It reminds me of Edmund Blackadder trying to teach Baldrick addition.

"If I add 2 beans with two more beans... what do I have?"

"A very small casserole."

:lol:

You too are earning a passing grade but I'm still looking for the basic principle that should guide the governor's decision here.

uh oh--have you gone over the edge into morality ? :eusa_whistle:
 
yes, I've read your 'answers'. My statement still stands. Why can't you answer the question instead of trying to develop ones never asked?

It reminds me of Edmund Blackadder trying to teach Baldrick addition.

"If I add 2 beans with two more beans... what do I have?"

"A very small casserole."

:lol:

You too are earning a passing grade but I'm still looking for the basic principle that should guide the governor's decision here.

uh oh--have you gone over the edge into morality ? :eusa_whistle:

LOL, good try, but in this case 'should' is related to policy/principle and not morality. :)

If the Governor is a Leftist he will decide one way.

If the Governor agrees with the Founders, he will decide another.

Of course as a Constitutional originalist and a great admirer of our Founders, I see one right conclusion re principle in this case and see that the Governor should agree with me. :)
 
Last edited:
:lol:

You too are earning a passing grade but I'm still looking for the basic principle that should guide the governor's decision here.

uh oh--have you gone over the edge into morality ? :eusa_whistle:

LOL, good try, but in this case 'should' is related to policy/principle and not morality. :)

If the Governor is a Leftist he will decide one way.

If the Governor agrees with the Founders, he will decide another.

Of course as a Constitutional originalist and a great admirer of our Founders, I see one right conclusion re principle in this case and see that the Governor should agree with me. :)

shame on you. :lol:
 
Do you people get all your history from revisionist sites?

The founders believed that it was up to the state to care or not care for the poor, so whatever the Governor of the state decides to do would not be in conflict with the founders.
 
Nope. I still have all my college history books and at that time there wasn't any such thing as a personal computer, much less revisionist sites.
 
Then honestly, you must not have paid much attention. The governor can decide, if the people of the state want it, on how to care for the poor. As long as said care doesn't violate any part of the US constitution.

Taking a cow from someone would violate the constitution. Taxing them would not.

Your analogy is ridiculous.
 
The problem did not include what the people might or might not decide to do. The problem involves what policy/principle should guide the governor (government) in what it does.

Again, what difference does it make whether a cow or money is taken by the government? Are they not both Riche's property? If you think the governor has the right to take Riche's money for the benefit of Pauvre, then just translate a cash tax into a cow tax. It isn't difficult when you're dealing with a principle.
 

Forum List

Back
Top