A Tale of Two Cows

[Grace]

I was going to say that the governor should tell Pauvre to also give up many pleasures, but he already got rid of his cow.

Naughty, naughty. But yes, alas, Pauvre did away with his cow. Now he wants one most especially because Riche has so many.

If you are the governor, what do you rule?

Pauvre gets no cow. If he wants one, he can go buy one from Richie..and I hope Richie jacks the price up just for Pauvre.

 

[saveliberty]

Why would you encourage a bad farmer to continue in that business? The most the governor should do is give him an aptitude test to find a better employment match.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was going to say that the governor should tell Pauvre to also give up many pleasures, but he already got rid of his cow.

Naughty, naughty. But yes, alas, Pauvre did away with his cow. Now he wants one most especially because Riche has so many.

If you are the governor, what do you rule?

Pauvre gets no cow. If he wants one, he can go buy one from Richie..and I hope Richie jacks the price up just for Pauvre.

LOL. Well Riche may or may not decide to sell a cow to Pauvre at any price but if his property is considered his property he is free to do with it whatever he wishes short of infringing on somebody else's rights.

But several have suggested that if Pauvre wants a cow, he should do whatever he needs to do, without infringing on the rights of others, so that he can acquire a cow.

If the government has the power to take Riche's cow (or anything belonging to Riche) for the specific benefit of Pauvre, I cannot see how the government does not have the power to take whatever it wants from Riche for whatever purpose it wants it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ravi, I don't much feel like debating the origin of rights, at least not right now. This thread has already got me wanting to go vegetarian. But imo there's a reason those rights were recognized in the first place... because it's wrong to kill someone, and it wrong to steal from someone.

Oh there you go using those outmoded concepts of 'right and wrong' again. What a philistine! Don't you know collectivists have evolved beeyyyoooonnnndd right and wrong? It's now 'what makes you feel good and not feel good'. Of course, their 'feel good' is automatically akin to 'right'.

 

[Big Fitz]

Also, it is amusing the advocates of collectivism still have a hard time with dealing head on with this simple exercise in morality and ethics.

quelle suprise!

 

[dilloduck]

Riche pays the governor's wages via the taxes he pays. Whatever the governor does he had better check with Riche first to see if it's OK with him or he just might lose his job.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, I don't much feel like debating the origin of rights, at least not right now. This thread has already got me wanting to go vegetarian. But imo there's a reason those rights were recognized in the first place... because it's wrong to kill someone, and it wrong to steal from someone.

Oh there you go using those outmoded concepts of 'right and wrong' again. What a philistine! Don't you know collectivists have evolved beeyyyoooonnnndd right and wrong? It's now 'what makes you feel good and not feel good'. Of course, their 'feel good' is automatically akin to 'right'.

Are you saying the founders were collectivists?

 

[Big Fitz]

Ravi, I don't much feel like debating the origin of rights, at least not right now. This thread has already got me wanting to go vegetarian. But imo there's a reason those rights were recognized in the first place... because it's wrong to kill someone, and it wrong to steal from someone.

Oh there you go using those outmoded concepts of 'right and wrong' again. What a philistine! Don't you know collectivists have evolved beeyyyoooonnnndd right and wrong? It's now 'what makes you feel good and not feel good'. Of course, their 'feel good' is automatically akin to 'right'.

Are you saying the founders were collectivists?

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys, most have been able to keep this exercise relatively civil. The mods put it in the wrong forum but at least we've kept it out of the Flame Zone. I would be extremely appreciative if we don't start a food fight and get it kicked into the Flame Zone. Please? Just because somebody is wrong in our opinion should not necessarily make them evil.

In my opinion, I do agree with Fitz that the question does not involve 'right' and 'wrong' in the sense of morality despite many on the Left trying to frame it in that context.

And while Jillian is always competent in discussing case law, I do not see any case law or any law guiding the principle involved other than a concept of 'natural law' that the Founders embraced when they first conceived and forged out the original Constitution.

It continues to be interesting that most on the Right can easily deal with the problem as it is worded and have no problem deciding what the governor should do. I have been disappointed that no one has yet articulated the basic principle involved in their answer. All have a passing grade but nobody has merited an A plus yet.

It is also interesting that so far nobody on the Left has been able to accept the problem as it is written but all want to reword it, add to it, rephrase it, qualify it, insert it into some other concept, or do just about anything but deal with it as it is. A few have objected to the question being asked and one or two have attacked me for asking it. I suspect that most really can't wrap their minds around the basic principle involved because it is so foreign to much of Leftist ideology. I would imagine the same people would have a tough time in an exercise utilizing Occam's Razor.

So I'm still looking for the basic principle or concept that, in my opinion, should guide the governor in this and all similar issues.

 

[dilloduck]

Come on guys, most have been able to keep this exercise relatively civil. The mods put it in the wrong forum but at least we've kept it out of the Flame Zone. I would be extremely appreciative if we don't start a food fight and get it kicked into the Flame Zone. Please? Just because somebody is wrong in our opinion should not necessarily make them evil.

In my opinion, I do agree with Fitz that the question does not involve 'right' and 'wrong' in the sense of morality despite many on the Left trying to frame it in that context.

And while Jillian is always competent in discussing case law, I do not see any case law or any law guiding the principle involved other than a concept of 'natural law' that the Founders embraced when they first conceived and forged out the original Constitution.

It continues to be interesting that most on the Right can easily deal with the problem as it is worded and have no problem deciding what the governor should do. I have been disappointed that no one has yet articulated the basic principle involved in their answer. All have a passing grade but nobody has merited an A plus yet.

It is also interesting that so far nobody on the Left has been able to accept the problem as it is written but all want to reword it, add to it, rephrase it, qualify it, insert it into some other concept, or do just about anything but deal with it as it is. A few have objected to the question being asked and one or two have attacked me for asking it. I suspect that most really can't wrap their minds around the basic principle involved because it is so foreign to much of Leftist ideology. I would imagine the same people would have a tough time in an exercise utilizing Occam's Razor.

So I'm still looking for the basic principle or concept that, in my opinion, should guide the governor in this and all similar issues.

reality

 

[Ravi]

Oh there you go using those outmoded concepts of 'right and wrong' again. What a philistine! Don't you know collectivists have evolved beeyyyoooonnnndd right and wrong? It's now 'what makes you feel good and not feel good'. Of course, their 'feel good' is automatically akin to 'right'.

Are you saying the founders were collectivists?

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

 

[Big Fitz]

Are you saying the founders were collectivists?

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Because it's a waste of time trying to explain it to someone hostile to the answer.

I wonder why you can't answer the original question as asked.

 

[Ravi]

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Because it's a waste of time trying to explain it to someone hostile to the answer.

I wonder why you can't answer the original question as asked.

I did...pages back.

 

[dilloduck]

Ther governor has no authority other than the authority ceded to him by Riche and Pauvre.
He may give what he has but he may not steal.

 

[Big Fitz]

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Because it's a waste of time trying to explain it to someone hostile to the answer.

I wonder why you can't answer the original question as asked.

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."

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you saying the founders were collectivists?

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Okay Ravi. Thank you for pulling this back onto a civil track.

What inherent right is involved re Riche's cows?

 

[Foxfyre]

Because it's a waste of time trying to explain it to someone hostile to the answer.

I wonder why you can't answer the original question as asked.

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."

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

 

[dilloduck]

The day you have something of consequence ethically and politically in common with the founding fathers is the day I shit a gold brick.

But thanks for proving my point you can't deal with the thought experiment head on.

It must suck at times to be morally bankrupt.

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Okay Ravi. Thank you for pulling this back onto a civil track.

What inherent right is involved re Riche's cows?

His right to do what he wishes with the fruits of his labor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why didn't you answer my question? The founders did not base the bill of rights on morality, rather they based the bill of rights on our inherent rights.

Okay Ravi. Thank you for pulling this back onto a civil track.

What inherent right is involved re Riche's cows?

His right to do what he wishes with the fruits of his labor.

Oh so very close. . . .

 

[Big Fitz]

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."

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.