There are people who feel the same way about the death penalty and war as you do about destroying embryos.
I fully recognize that. My argument in no way denies this fact.
Let me rephrase. Security is an intrinsic government function. Research is not. I think the distinction between intrinsic government functions and peripheral functions is an important one. Perhaps you don't.
As for "defensive war" that is a particular idea or policy preference within the larger government responsibility for security. In my last post I agreed that people may see specific security choices as a bad idea or even extremely immoral. They are of course free to argue that a particular war is immoral or otherwise a bad idea, but few would argue, and IMO it isn't reasonable to argue that the government should not be involved in security. IT is IMO far more reasonable to argue either that the government should not be involved in areas peripheral to the central reason for government, or to argue that it should be more circumspect about getting involved in highly controversial situations in those peripheral areas.
I would make the same argument about state funding of religion. Of course with religion there is the whole constitutional issue as well and a number of practical historical examples that imply that its likely to be a bad idea, but even without the establishment clause, and even if establishment of religion didn't have a poor history I would still argue against such establishment as an example of forcing people to contribute to something they find abhorrent in an area that isn't a key central aspect of government.
Imagine someone who's religion says that it is improper for "infidels" to touch him or search him in any way. We would probably accommodate such a person by not trying to shake his hand and not giving him a "friendly hug" when we greet him. Such gestures are of peripheral importance. OTOH he would not and should not, be immune from searches at airports, or police patdowns ect.
An additional argument which I didn't mention before is that the states can fund research (or museums, or subsidies, or social welfare programs) and also research can be funded by the private sector. Having the states or the private sector provide for external security/military operations isn't very reasonable IMO, or in most other people's opinions.
All of the above has mostly been about the 3rd point I made. As for the first two -
You quoted Krauthammer as saying "By that logic we should never go to war, or impose the death penalty, except by unanimous consent of the entire population."
Point 1 was basically that unanimity wasn't an issue.
Point 2 was that the issue isn't really consent either. I said "There is a difference between not agreeing with something, and finding it to be the same as or equivalent to murder." And yes I am well aware that some people see the war in Iraq or the death penalty as being either murder or the moral equivalent of murder. But I was replying to Krauthammer who said "except by unanimous consent of the entire population." not "except if no significant minority strongly objects and considers the action to be the moral equivalent of murder". You could rephrase his statement to that if you wish but I was responding to the statement he actually made.
Tim
|
