Decius wrote:
] Is it moral to use tax payer dollars to fund things that a
] large group of people in a society feel are totally immoral or
] unethical? Stated another way, is it ok to force people to pay
] for something they think is immoral, or should we have a broad
] moral consensus on something before we spend public money on
] it.

Hnery David Thoreau.

Acidus wrote:
] Hnery David Thoreau.

What about him?

Decius wrote:
] Acidus wrote:
] ] Hnery David Thoreau.
]
] What about him?

Well, Thoreau is a perfect example for your question. Granted, his view was not the majority view, but Thoreau was very against the Mexican War. He felt the war was very wrong and that the reasons for the war given by the President were shady or down right lies. He considered the whole business immoral, and refused to pay his taxes to support an unjust war. He got thrown in prison for a night, before Ralph Wlado Emerson payed the debt for him. He profoundly influenced non-violent protestors around the world, including Ghandi and MLK Jr.

While it doesn't answer your question, it does show a way people have dealt with it in our past.

Acidus wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] Acidus wrote:
] ] ] Hnery David Thoreau.
] ]
] ] What about him?
]
] Well, Thoreau is a perfect example for your question. Granted,
] his view was not the majority view, but Thoreau was very
] against the Mexican War. He felt the war was very wrong and
] that the reasons for the war given by the President were shady
] or down right lies. He considered the whole business immoral,
] and refused to pay his taxes to support an unjust war. He got
] thrown in prison for a night, before Ralph Wlado Emerson payed
] the debt for him. He profoundly influenced non-violent
] protestors around the world, including Ghandi and MLK Jr.
]
] While it doesn't answer your question, it does show a way
] people have dealt with it in our past.

The problem is that now, you don't pay your taxes you lose your home, face crazy high interest charges, and go to jail for a lot more than a night.

We are so free in Amerika.

Decius wrote:
] Is it moral to use tax payer dollars to fund things that a
] large group of people in a society feel are totally immoral or
] unethical? Stated another way, is it ok to force people to pay
] for something they think is immoral, or should we have a broad
] moral consensus on something before we spend public money on
] it.
]
] Examples:
] On the right:
] Government funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Certainly this should be funded privately. Some people are horrified at the thought of using aborted fetuses for research, and ironically, most people who are against animal testing have no problem using fetuses (feti?) for the same thing.

] Government funding for abortions.

Again, PETA don't give too much of a shit about the unborn, unless it's an unborn eagle. Dissolve and suck the brains out of a nine-month old fetus and the government will pay for it. Smash an eagle egg and you pay a fine. Hmmmm?

] Certain tax benefits for homosexual life partners.

Again, people of most religions consider homosexuality a sin. This may change, but being that we live in a country where most constituents' religions define it as a sin, they probably don't want to give money to sodomites.

] NEA funding of offensive artwork.

Now here we have something interesting and debatable. The first ammendment does allow for freedom of speech, but let's not push our luck. I believe that the only artwork that should receive government funding should be (a) potentially profitable for the artist, since an investor that throws his money away is a beautiful thing in the private sector, but we should worry about a government doing such, (b) of a particular national value (Mount Rushmore being a prime example. We need more of these particular works of art to make us feel proud as a people, or (c) pictures of crosses in urine, paintings of the virgin mary smeared in shit and photos of children's genitals and fags with whips up their asses.
]
] On the left:
] The Iraq war.

A collossal waste of money. I would vote for the guy who would take us out of it and go back to the Monroe Docrtine (whoops! He ain't a choice this November!)

] Government vouchers for private religious schools.

Why not? If the liberals are pro-choice when it comes to whether or not my kid winds up in a biohazard bin, then why can't they be pro-choice when it comes to what happens after that kid is born?

] Government funding for faith based charities.

Why not fund some of these faith-based charities? If that is the only type of charity group being funded, then we have a problem. Non-faith based charities should receive matching funds. I wonder if the Church of Satan has applied for their grant yet?

] Tax credits for large SUVs.

Everyone who drives an SUV should be executed. That would be tax dollars well spent. In fact, abortion should be forced on anyone who has more than two kids, thus rendering SUV's unnecessary.

Decius wrote:
] Is it moral to use tax payer dollars to fund things that a
] large group of people in a society feel are totally immoral or
] unethical? Stated another way, is it ok to force people to pay
] for something they think is immoral, or should we have a broad
] moral consensus on something before we spend public money on
] it.

In an authoritarian society, this question might have some practical utility. In the United States, it seems rather academic.

A candidate for office is ethically obligated to present his/her views to the voting public. The people should be as inquisitive as possible, and no public or foreign policy question should be out of bounds.

Come election time, the people vote. You vote for the candidate of your choosing, with full awareness of the views and intentions of all the candidates. The winner carries out his/her stated policies.

Some candidates choose to separate their personal views from their public policy recommendations. Others do not. How any given candidate stands in this regard should be evident to the voters.

As a politician, one way to achieve such a separation is to make it your policy to defer to the public on certain matters. Call for a referendum and let the people decide for themselves regarding the outcome of a sensitive or highly charged issue.

Congress controls how money is spent, and it is supposed to represent the people in our society. If everyone in Congress had made known their views on stem cell research prior to being elected, then the collective outcome of a vote on a funding bill should be accepted by the public. If not, then the voters apparently didn't care enough to ask (and insist on an answer), because the topic has been part of the conversation for a while now.

Some of your examples are dubious. I don't think a majority of people "on the left" find the Iraq war immoral. The Congress voted in support of it, and they voted to continue funding it during the period of the occupation, even after we knew there were probably no WMDs. The morality of the action has nothing to do with the fact that the French opted not to help us pay for it.

I don't know your threshold for judging when we've reached "broad moral consensus" on an issue, but the whole idea strikes me as rather libertarian in the sense that it implicitly advocates for a smaller government.

Let's say the threshold is eighty percent. So then you go out and get one hundred voters who form a perfect cross section of the American public. You split them up, put each one alone in a room, and sit them down with a copy of the federal budget and a box of red pens. They are instructed to review the budget and redline anything they deem to be "immoral".

Once all of them are done, you compile the results, one line item at a time. If the item was redlined by more than twenty people, then it gets deleted from the budget. "No funding for you! Next!"