MediumTex wrote:It's worth re-reading 1984 if it's been a while. I read it a couple of years ago and I found it much more chilling than I did when I had read it years before.
I re-read
Animal Farm within the past couple of years. Brilliant stuff. It has been a bit since I read
1984, but I'll put it on the list.
moda0306 wrote:Not to put you on the spot, but in what ways is our federal government less moral than when it was holding a gun to young men's heads forcing them to go fight Germans in trenches? Detaining Japanese-Americans? Not allowing us to have a beer at the end of the day? Not allowing women to vote?
I realize it has new tools to do shady things, but how directly is it infringing on freedoms to those levels?
At the very least, could we not agree that our government is a "different kind" of immoral than it used to be to the degree that it might be tough to measure it on a quantitative level?
I think it is fairly easy to demonstrate progress as a nation on the things you mentioned (by trenches I assume you mean WWI, Japanese internment was shameful but short-lived, as was prohibition, women were, eventually, permitted to vote). As a nation, on major social issues we have made progress, are less repressive, and have "fixed" some major problems. And we continue to make progress in many areas.
When I lived in Texas one could not purchase beer on Sundays before 1pm. Stupid, repressive, but a minor inconvenience. And ironic, since at the time you could legally drive with an open container. One of my first memories of arriving in Texas was seeing some guy driving a giant pickup truck drinking a 16 oz. Budweiser. I think Texas has subsequently "fixed" both of those things.
And I think we can agree that today's kind of "immoral" is a different kind. It is powered by a technologically sophisticated system with, at best, extreme "nanny" inclinations and at worst a desire to regulate every aspect of life. Take sugar:
USDA wrote:Raw cane sugar, refined sugar, sugar syrups, and specialty sugars enter the United States primarily under two tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), which are provided for in Chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Under these two TRQs, U.S. importers pay either a nominal or zero duty. Sugars that receive preferential tariff treatment under free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Central American/Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA/DR), the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, or the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences enter at a zero duty. The HTS permits the importation of sugars outside these TRQs, but at considerably higher duty rates. The HTS may be found on the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Web site at
http://www.usitc.gov/tata/index.htm.
Chapter 17 of the HTS (Additional U.S. Note 5) establishes a minimum TRQ for raw cane sugar of 1,117,195 metric tons and a minimum TRQ for refined sugar (also termed “other sugars, syrups, and molasses”?) of 22,000 metric tons. Additional U.S. Note 5 also authorizes the establishment of higher TRQ amounts whenever the Secretary of Agriculture "believes that domestic supplies of sugars may be inadequate to meet domestic demand at reasonable prices." The Secretary usually establishes TRQs for raw and refined sugars in August or September for the upcoming U.S. fiscal year beginning each October 1. Raw sugar, as defined by HTS Chapter 17 Subheading Note 1, is a sugar with a sucrose content by weight, in a dry state, corresponding to a reading of less than 99.5 degrees on a polarimeter.
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) allocates the raw cane sugar TRQ among supplying countries, currently using a formula based on their share of exports to the United States between 1975 and 1981. Anyone may import raw cane sugar at the TRQ duty rate from any of these supplying countries as long as the sugar is accompanied by a "Certificate of Quota Eligibility." These certificates are issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and validated by the exporting countries’ certifying authorities. Rules governing the importation of raw cane sugar under the TRQ are found in Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2011, Subpart A.
In recent years the refined sugar TRQ has been allocated by USTR to Canada, Mexico, a portion which is open to all importers on a first-come, first-served or “global”? basis, and a portion for specialty sugar.
Specialty sugars include organic sugar, brown slab sugar, pearl sugar, vanilla sugar, rock candy, fondant, caster sugar, golden syrup, golden granulated sugar, cake decorations, and sugar cubes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection first fills the global allocation of the refined sugar TRQ, before opening the portion of the refined sugar TRQ reserved for specialty sugars. The specialty sugar portion is filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Imports of specialty sugar require a certificate issued by the Foreign Agricultural Service. Rules governing the importation of specialty sugar are found in Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2011, Subpart B.
The "Harmonized Tariff Schedule"? Who thinks this stuff up? And who does this serve and who does it cost? I'm sure domestic sugar producers for the former and consumers for the latter.
Simonjester wrote:i am not sure the "more vs less moral" argument is one that can be made, i can spot immorality of all variety's and shades throughout the history of government.
i think a convincing argument might be made for modern problems to be more insidious and those of the past to be more blatant, having the minutia of everyone's life regulated and watched just seems so sneaky, who cares about the magician's rabbit if you are a plumber whose must conform to plumbers crack exposure belt height measurements? or who cares about the plumber if you are an investor whose font size in his spreadsheet is regulated? it is a way of getting into everything without the backlash that overt and big rules like slavery or the draft bring.
we seem to be in the era of the "death by a thousand cuts" you could never pass an all out ban on private plumbers and force all plumbing to be done by government plumbers but you can add regulation on top of regulation till there is no one willing to be a private plumber, you cant ban free speech but you can spy on journalists and prosecute whistle-blowers untill few are willing to exercise the freedom etc etc etc... and it seems to be progressing that way in almost every area of life.
Maybe couching the argument in moral terms is a stretch, but I don't think so. It is a matter of degree, perhaps. Your point about "death by a thousand cuts" is exactly right. Individually, much of the regulation that is dumped on the regulated public is almost trivial, but cumulatively it is significant.
