You can't have policy or laws without values being the foundation

[kinggovernor]

All policy decisions are based on our personal values, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist whatever, for several reasons.

1. Modeling or quantitative analysis are good but they are never perfect.
2. The government has limited resources and can only address a certain number of issues. Just by that virtue, we place importance on some issues which means others are not handled.
3. Values are the only answer for some of the policies that we have even if they are inefficient. A good example of this is ER rooms treating anyone who comes through the door, regardless of the ability to pay. We could design a more efficient policy, and some have tried, but it comes back to our values.

[Phantom]

To get things going, I'll counter that the government can limit it's regulation to the health and safety of its citizens without including any morals at all.

For your ER example, I think this is legislation for health and safety of citizens as well as a moral duty. Morals are not necessary to support such legislation.

I think the abortion topic is a good example. [Assuming a fetus is not a life] Outlawing abortion puts citizens at risk for crappy medical procedures, so allowing abortion makes sense. Morals play their part in that citizens can discourage abortions through advocacy, but the citizens are protected by the laws.

[David Octavius]

The problem is when one set of values or morals dominate policy

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Phantom

To get things going, I'll counter that the government can limit it's regulation to the health and safety of its citizens without including any morals at all.

For your ER example, I think this is legislation for health and safety of citizens as well as a moral duty. Morals are not necessary to support such legislation.

I don't like to use the term morals because it is such a loaded term. We could have a 20 page discussion trying to define exactly what morals are. Values is something that can be defined in a more direct sense.

I think the abortion topic is a good example. [Assuming a fetus is not a life] Outlawing abortion puts citizens at risk for crappy medical procedures, so allowing abortion makes sense. Morals play their part in that citizens can discourage abortions through advocacy, but the citizens are protected by the laws.

Your assumption is a value decision A large percentage of people value a fetus as a human life and a large percentage do not.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The problem is when one set of values or morals dominate policy

I disagree. Most people value human life, and thus murder is illegal. I am sure you could some extreme people who don't think that, is it a problem that the value of human life dominates policy dicussion?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I disagree. Most people value human life, and thus murder is illegal. I am sure you could some extreme people who don't think that, is it a problem that the value of human life dominates policy dicussion?

That makes no sense...a person or group can "value" human life and still be tyrannical, actually that has been the general lot of oppressive rulers throughout history.

There is nothing wrong in the general sense of values being injected into policy, it is inevitable, and does provide utility if there are checks in place. The problem is that your values are different then others in may areas besides the big stuff of murder. If your values and morals dominate and become law there is a good chance it will be corrupted and infringe on the liberty of others

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

That makes no sense...a person or group can "value" human life and still be tyrannical, actually that has been the general lot of oppressive rulers throughout history.

Yes, but being tyrannical is a negative value, hence it is shunned by our laws.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

All policy decisions are based on our personal values, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist whatever, for several reasons.

1. Modeling or quantitative analysis are good but they are never perfect.
2. The government has limited resources and can only address a certain number of issues. Just by that virtue, we place importance on some issues which means others are not handled.
3. Values are the only answer for some of the policies that we have even if they are inefficient. A good example of this is ER rooms treating anyone who comes through the door, regardless of the ability to pay. We could design a more efficient policy, and some have tried, but it comes back to our values.

Absolutely. The only people I've seen commonly argue this seems to be libertarians as if their political views are devoid of values and their "views" are just the way it should be. When you ask why, they give you a list of values including personal responsibility over communal aspect of government. Neither way is necessarily right or wrong, it is just preference of the individual within the society.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes, but being tyrannical is a negative value, hence it is shunned by our laws.

Not sure about that one..laws are mutable and malleable. Also, values are not static, it changes as society changes, so what may be shunned one day, may be accepted another. Finally, never underestimate what can change if society in the grips of fear

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Absolutely. The only people I've seen commonly argue this seems to be libertarians as if their political views are devoid of values and their "views" are just the way it should be. When you ask why, they give you a list of values including personal responsibility over communal aspect of government. Neither way is necessarily right or wrong, it is just preference of the individual within the society.

Exactly, Libertarians have values just like everyone else. Their belief that limited government is the way to go is a value.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Not sure about that one..laws are mutable and malleable. Also, values are not static, it changes as society changes, so what may be shunned one day, may be accepted another. Finally, never underestimate what can change if society in the grips of fear

of course values change, which is why one value system never completely dominates for a very long time.

When you are talking about fear it makes me think about the response to 9/11. The vast majority of people value national security and when that is threatened they agree to policies that are more restrictive but improve security. We are seeing a backlash against it the further we move from 9/11, because values are changing.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Not sure about that one..laws are mutable and malleable. Also, values are not static, it changes as society changes, so what may be shunned one day, may be accepted another. Finally, never underestimate what can change if society in the grips of fear

Exactly, but even still you're making the point for us. You're saying as the values of society changes the laws are likely change with it.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

of course values change, which is why one value system never completely dominates for a very long time.

When you are talking about fear it makes me think about the response to 9/11. The vast majority of people value national security and when that is threatened they agree to policies that are more restrictive but improve security. We are seeing a backlash against it the further we move from 9/11, because values are changing.

I think thats a good point but a lot of those laws/regulations should have never been in place regardless of sept 11th happening.

But as a general rule I think you're right that values dictate laws/policy. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes it is not. I believe government has to keep these values from directly infringing on the rights of others. Which many of our laws/values do directly infringe on the rights of others.

Someone may value healthcare for all because it is the "Right" thing to do. But it also unwillingly takes money out of the pockets of everyone working. So where/how do you find that balance?

[A_C_E]

The way in which you are defining "values" here is incredibly broad.

What you are essentially saying, it seems, is that values = personal preferences. And, in a democratic republic, the aggregated vote of people agreeing with one set of personal preferences versus another produces policy.

In that case, you appear to be merely stating what is already common sense to all of us. It would be more interesting if you were to try and prove that there is a particularly dominant value system, and from whence that value system came, which dominates American government.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

The way in which you are defining "values" here is incredibly broad.

What you are essentially saying, it seems, is that values = personal preferences. And, in a democratic republic, the aggregated vote of people agreeing with one set of personal preferences versus another produces policy.

In that case, you appear to be merely stating what is already common sense to all of us. It would be more interesting if you were to try and prove that there is a particularly dominant value system, and from whence that value system came, which dominates American government.

of course it is a broad definition, it has to encompass a large amount information.

there isn't one value system that dominates for too long, with a Republican President and Democratic Congress

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

there isn't one value system that dominates for too long,

That is my point, you see no harm in a value system dominating, I do, it doesn't have to be long in order for people to be harmed or for the republic to be being destroyed. You assume it will always correct itself, I assume that sometimes it doesn't and the power that is created when a certain value system (or more correctly, an ideology) dominates never really goes away, it just lays dormant until another ideology dominates and uses that power to create more harm.


Using the same power to check power is a poor check. Power needs to be fragmented and that does not happen when an ideology dominates.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

All policy decisions are based on our personal values, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist whatever, for several reasons.

1. Modeling or quantitative analysis are good but they are never perfect.
2. The government has limited resources and can only address a certain number of issues. Just by that virtue, we place importance on some issues which means others are not handled.
3. Values are the only answer for some of the policies that we have even if they are inefficient. A good example of this is ER rooms treating anyone who comes through the door, regardless of the ability to pay. We could design a more efficient policy, and some have tried, but it comes back to our values.

I would agree that polcies need to be based on an idea, but it does not have to be just values, though they need to play a role. The idea that basing something on values without proper evaulation is bad.

1. Modelling isn't perfect, but it owuld be a hell of a lot better without having to fit into a political viewpoint
2. Resources are limited only by capability, which is limited by knowledge. Expanding knowledge will ultimately provide more resources, and right now there are more resources than is required, and that is just on this planet.
3. Values are important, however values shouldn't be mistaken for politics too much.