FYI that is not what ethics is. That is more an attempted statement of the most commonly sought goals of practical politics than a definition of ethics.
Very interesting topic.
Whilst certainly there is a connection between the moral and the legal, it is by no means necessary for justice.
Consider that all 4 combos of im/moral and il/legal are possible. (Note: I only use examples which can be rationally justified).
Immoral and illegal -...
Like it or not, the issue of fiat currency is a constitutionally permitted process. I do law at USYD (and my friend does law at ANU). We were talking about this based on our classes in constitutional law (which includes a section on foreign constitutions) and Article 1 of the constitution states...
Nothing of substance here
First, you are redirecting debate to whether government is efficient at all. Which is an implicit concession to my point that supporting some government involvement does not logically entail supporting its involvement in all areas.
But that's not totally true, you...
Your grasp on logic then is obviously pathetically feeble. I would like to say two things
First, in theory, what you say is false. You must understand why and for what purpose we want taxes raised or government intervention. The reason is because it is effective at achieving certain, commonly...
You specify in practice. Are saying that stagflation demonstrated Keynesian fiscal and/or monetary policy to be ineffective? This is demonstrably false as even a cursory look at economic data will testify to its efficacy
In theory, stagflation poses no problem either. Although, granted, you may...
Yes Keynesianism can handle stagflation well. Supply shocks combines with inefficient labour markets (the labour market is a BIG area of market failure, but also unions mess everything up as well). That's the basic gist.
1974-early 80's experienced rampant stagflation. It even overthrew all economic thinking up to that point. We had to wait for Milton Friedman to come to the rescue and explain it.
???
Do you mean ignore that it ever occurred? or ignore that it is happening now or has happened recently?
If the latter than I can ignore it because we are not experiencing stagflation and if the former I don't need to ignore it. Keynesianism can handle stagflation perfectly well.
Hyperbolic crap. To think that raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals is even commensurate to true, unbridled communism, is to have a pretty high view of communism.