GOP attempting to purge 1 in 7 black voters from voter rolls

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But what is the political philosophy of and derived from the social and material conditions of the so-called Enlightenment to us now?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

muh immaculate supernatural founding fathers

Well, of course that's how AggregateDemand actually thinks, but, much as with his homophobia, I'm perversely interested to see what his on-paper excuse is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nor, I submit, do you have to be a revolutionary socialist to understand that deadweight loss may in many instances be an acceptable price to pay for living in a society.

One of the chief conceits of Enlightenment thought was the idea that a person should or at least could be more or less fully described and understood without reference to other people or social relationships. Developments in sociology and psychology since that time have discredited that idea. (This isn't a falsely 'progressive' view of history, as I think this was recognized in some form or another at various points in the past and in various other societies as well.) An individual does not, as it turns out, really exist in the fullest sense without reference to others, and individual property does not really exist except with reference to collective social and resource-allocation dynamics. Individual rights are important in the sense and to the extent that the feelings of personal well-being and mutual respect that they engender have salutary effects on everybody, not just on the one person exercising a right at any given time.

That being the case, it would be immoral for most forms of government not to engage in taxation, since it remains the easiest way to correct for morally repugnant allocation of resources.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nor, I submit, do you have to be a revolutionary socialist to understand that deadweight loss may in many instances be an acceptable price to pay for living in a society.

You're not making a legitimate argument. If the cost is acceptable, the economic gains will outweigh the economic losses, and opportunity cost will be minimized. What you're arguing is that you reserve the right to substitute basic mechanisms of economic accountability with your own conscience and limited-understanding.

Yes, that's called morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a result, not the only possible result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Individualism run amok' is an extremely odd characterization of medieval and Renaissance social systems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've contradicted yourself within the same paragraph.