[Grovenet] Situational Ethics and private property WAS Future of Downtown Forest Grove

[Ron D'Eau Claire]

G'morning David:

You cover a lot of ground from personal profit to national politics and
foreign policy. All I can tell you is what I believe.

About personal profit, I believe that 'speculative profits' - money gained
by making investments that show a profit later such as buying land because I
believe it will be worth more some day - is money owned by the landowner who
risked his/her wealth buying it. If I have to accept the fact that the land
I buy today for $100,000 might be worth nothing some day after a landslide
shows the geology it unstable, so I must accept a $100,00 personal loss,
then I get the benefit if the land is worth more in the future. If my
government comes along while I own my land and limits what I can do to it in
a way that reduces those profits, that's a "taking" of my wealth not allowed
under the fifth amendment in my view. If that were allowed, then the
government would be responsible for reimbursing everyone for any
unprofitable investments they may make. I don't think that is desirable or
possible. 

Such speculation is how our economy works. People put up their fortunes to
build a railroad across the nation speculating that the land the government
gave them along the right of way would be worth enough to show a profit if
they succeeded. The fact that they did succeed and became extremely wealthy
does not mean that the system was flawed. It means the system worked. That
is the way we attract people to take huge risks to provide the resources for
new ideas to be tried out. Some work, some don't. If they work some people
call the successful investor a crook. If they don't work those people call
the destitute investor a bum. Most days an investor can't win in the eyes of
the public. Is it any wonder many investors are rather fed up with "public
opinion"? 

About national and personal ethics, what you say about our need to assess
what the President is doing assumes those of us throughout the land know
everything the folks in the Oval office and the Pentagon knows. 

>From where I sit, we're at the mercy what the press can find out, and the
press then tells us whatever they know that they think will best sell papers
or draw us to the TV screen. That's their function. 

Of course, if we did get all the details it presumes each of us has the
ability to sort it out and come to a proper meaning. 

As we rolled up to the Iraq war I expressed at least as much skepticism as
you about the threat Saddam was supposed to have posed to America but I also
felt that as a citizen of the USA I had an obligation to believe the
President when he said he had information the press and public didn't that
contradicted those stories. 

At that time I wrote that if the President was wrong, if there were no WMD,
the only ethical thing for him to do is to "fall on his sword": resign in
disgrace. 

Of course, this wasn't an ethical President by my standards. He tried to
rewrite the rules, saying our mission in Iraq had noting to do with WMD. And
a huge number of Americans believed him.

Whose fault is that? I responded appropriately for myself. He became
disqualified for my vote in the future, and I wrote my Senators and
Congressmen asking for impeachment. 

While I don't believe it's up to us individuals to sit in judgment of the
President's daily choices, there are two whole branches of government
charged with that responsibility: the legislative and judicial. I haven't
seen anything substantive from them except a good case of "situational
ethics" from the congress in which impeachment was opposed on the grounds
that we'd end up with a President Cheney! That's a good point. From where I
sit, it demands impeachment of both of them *or* accepting that idea of a
President Cheney - for as long as he'd last. 

But we got neither. 

Then we went on to re-elect the President for a second term! Either the
President was doing something right in the eyes of most Americans or the
Democrats were doing something so wrong the people preferred President Bush.
I agree with you that the results of an election - the decision of the
voters - is not necessarily based on ethics. You said "political". I don't
know what that means. I think voters react to impressions and their
individual fears and desires, which are seldom based on facts. I believe
even the most "logical" of us function mostly from beliefs and emotions
rather than from logic. 

I also agree that I do not like the idea of "pre-emptive strikes". President
Bush didn't invent the idea. The USA has used it often in the past. It's how
we acquired Hawaii, taking over a world-recognized nation for our own
purposes. It's how we acquired most of our southwestern states including
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, after staging a war with Spain.
It's how we got access to the land needed to build the Panama canal and how
we controlled the fortunes of Cuba until Castro wrested it from our hands. 

That policy had remained dormant throughout the Cold War. President Bush
just reinstated it. 

And the American people applauded. That doesn't make it right by my
standards, but it makes it right by the standards of our nation. For that,
I'm embarrassed and disappointed. 

The President is currently unpopular NOT because he stormed into Iraq on a
flimsy pretext that was unethical. He is unpopular because it hasn't worked
out to the advantage of the average American citizen. 

That's something to consider.

The whole situation exposes a personal conflict that each of us faces to one
degree or another, from comfortable and eager agreement to total abhorrence.
The conflict is whether our nation expresses our personal standards of
ethical behavior. We individuals have virtually no personal control over the
acts of our country. So what do we so when our country fails to express our
personal beliefs and desires? What is our ethical response? 

Personally, I bring the issue home to my personal life. I live my personal
life by my own ethical standards and I understand that may not be how my
country behaves. By accepting the benefits of citizenship in the USA I agree
to support my country and the decisions it reaches. I struggle to find
financial security, but I pay my taxes fully and without complaining. I hate
war, but I served in my nation's armed forces because it was my obligation
as a citizen. I think President G.W. Bush is the worst President the USA has
ever had, but I accept that he is President under the rules of our land. 

If my country ever demands that I, personally, renounce what I believe in by
demanding I behave differently, I'd leave. So far that hasn't happened, so
I'll continue to try to be a positive force in my country in the hope and
belief that will never happen. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 



-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of David Morelli
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:58 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: [Grovenet] Situational Ethics and private property WAS Future of
Downtown Forest Grove



On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> Ron, when the United States proposed invading Iraq, you did not  
> join  me in opposing that illegal action because you felt that the   
> government must know something that we didn't.  On occasion, you
> do  accept situational ethics.  We all do.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> ... It is, for most of us, the ethical response to deadly force,
> just as  fighting off an attacker on a street corner is an ethical  
> response. ...

Certainly, except in this case there was no attacker, and we knew or  
should have known that.  The intelligence community had already  
discounted the "yellow cake" story.  The United Nations was on the  
ground in Iraq and they said that there were no weapons of mass  
destruction.  The embargo was limiting the ability of the government  
to maintain their military.  There was no cause for us to invade a  
country at a time that that government was actually behaving better  
towards its citizens than it had in the past, when we supported that  
government and its actions.
>
> I consider war a lousy option and one that we should do everything
> possible to avoid because it has huge costs - human and financial -  
> associated with it.

That may contribute to the American policy of "no first use" of  
force.  We have traditionally held off initiating an attack until we  
were attacked by an act of war.  Granted that sometimes it was a bit  
tenuous, like the Gulf of Tonkin attack, but we at least held to the  
illusion of holding to the principle.  This was a pre-emptive attack  
against a nation that had not done anything against our citizens or  
homeland, and had no capacity to attack our homeland.  North Korea  
certainly is gaining that capacity, so shall we attack them?
>
> To me, it wasn't an "illegal action" until it became clear that the
> reasons the President gave for going to war - that Saddam was about  
> to attack "America and Americans" with weapons of mass destruction  
> in the wake of 9/11 - were false. Unlike others, including  
> yourself, I felt an obligation - that it was required ethically -  
> to give the President the benefit of the doubt.

We differ on that.  I feel that it is ethical to support your  
government when it is right and oppose it when it is wrong.  I didn't  
see any reason for doubt, based upon the information available at the  
time.  And it turns out that there was no hidden information to  
conflict with the known condition.

> ... Some seem to claim that having your bank call you to say the
> government just decided to clean out your personal account because  
> they "needed  the money" is okay if it seems to serve some public  
> good, even though those required to pay are selected solely on a  
> random basis. I understand and respect their belief. I don't agree  
> with it, but I respect it.

Your example may be an situation of improper government action, or  
not, depending upon the situation.  I don't believe that the land use  
process that triggered M37 is similar.  The M37 wealth you describe  
was not in the bank.  It didn't exist until the property was  
subdivided, and the subdivision had not taken place.  It was a  
speculative profit.  We don't tax people on the value of their stock  
when the price goes up, we tax them on the value of the stock when  
they sell the stock.

By the way, in different situations, the government has restricted  
the property rights of citizens, and it did not justify compensation  
for lost wealth or lost property values.

At one time subdivisions could be "white only", and people bought  
houses based upon that standard.  When the government removed that  
"right" to restrict their neighborhood to "white only", people were  
concerned that integration of their neighborhoods would lower  
property values and take away their wealth.  Property values did  
decline as "white flight" to the suburbs depressed urban home  
prices.  Should the government compensate land owners when laws that  
enforce the 14th Amendment lowered their property values?

When  the government passed the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery,  
slave owners lost real wealth.  Slavery had been legal and had  
remained legal in some Union states.  Slaves were private property.   
Do you wish to argue that the government should have compensated the  
slave owners?  Or can we agree that the ethics of compensation of  
property owners for removal of their property or their property  
rights depends upon the actual situation?
>
> ...
> Frankly, I'm as dismayed that the people of the United States
> didn't throw the President out of office when it became patently  
> clear he was not telling the truth as you seem to be that the  
> people of Oregon embraced M37. The fact that we have sincere  
> beliefs about what is right doesn't really mean a thing except to  
> us. If we want to see success, we have to work with the real power  
> in our society. In this case, it's the voters.

If a decision is made by majority vote, the decision is more likely  
to be political than moral.

David

_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet