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.