A germ of a thought: Insofar as I have one, my basic political principle is something along the lines of “The government’s level of access to resources should significantly, though not directly, constrain government action.” More colloquially: “If you can’t afford to do something, you generally shouldn’t do it, no matter how badly you want to.”
This sets me at odds with both parties in practice, though I could reconcile myself with segments of either in theory.
In a utilitarian scheme, what’s the proper way to compare not doing something about present suffering against putting those who come after you in an impossible position?
I should be less vague and centrist-cowardly before trying to adapt this for the big blog.
04 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment