Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Laws & Morals
Message-ID: <3267@alice.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 10:37:29 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3267
Posted: Sun Jan 13 10:37:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:35:18 EST
References: <307@uf-csg.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 22

Bruce Hardie gives three examples of laws he claims are incorrect
moral judgments:

	The auto industry defeating the airbag requirement even though it
		would save lives.
	The above mentioned tobacco industry staying in business at all, when
		there are *no* benefits from smoking.
	The lack of (until recently) an excess profits tax on the oil companies'		huge income from petroleum.

I wish he had chosen better examples.  The first two are examples of
MORALLY CORRECT stands taken by the government: doing otherwise requires
adoption of the principle that the government has the right to decide
what's good for people whether or not they agree, and that way
lies totalitarianism.

As for his third example, the idea of an "excess profits tax" requires
adoption of the principle that financial success beyond some government-
determined threshold is bad.  I can hardly consider the government's
present policy of penalizing success and glorifying failure to be
a moral one.

Further discussion of this in net.politics, please.