Level Extreme platform
Subscription
Corporate profile
Products & Services
Support
Legal
Français
Just wondering if you have contacted your Congress perso
Message
From
14/08/2009 12:23:02
 
 
To
14/08/2009 08:56:37
General information
Forum:
Politics
Category:
Health
Miscellaneous
Thread ID:
01416936
Message ID:
01418140
Views:
53
I think your analogy is way too forced to be worth replying to. Instead, I'll talk about how I think things should be. We've formed a society on the principle that we're better off together than separate. As a society, we need to decide which things every member is entitled to simply because they exist. We pretty much all agree that clean air and clean water qualify. We've also decided that every child is entitled to an education because it serves our purposes. Many of us believe that everyone (or at least every child) is entitled to be fed. And our current discussion is over whether everyone is entitled to health care.

To be provided by whom? And when you say, "we need to decide"....who is we?
Again, I ask you the same question - do you feel that your views should be placed into mandate?

I look at it from the other side. I think it's morally wrong for people to act in ways that are good for themselves while harming society as a whole.

You are advocating servitude - call it what you want, but you are advocating servitude based on need. There's plenty of evidence in the 20th and 21st centuries of what happens when this is put into practice. Simply because you tell men that they are pursuing a noble ideal does not change the fact that you've coerced them into doing so.

In the absence of a reply to my question, you default to advocating coercion (i.e. force) to achieve your goals. I'm not going to call you a Stalinst - I think that's silly - but I will say that unless you qualify your statements, you're advocating a system that is no different fundamentally than the systems that people wanted to tear the wall down over.

Let's review....I stated that I hold the sanctity of the individual as an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. I advocate that men deal with each by free, voluntary exchange for mutual benefit, and that men should be free to pursue their own rational self-interest and their own happiness. I assert that each individual's life is an absolute. You've directly replied that these statements are morally wrong. You replied that I'm morally wrong. Are you really prepared to open this door?
Previous
Next
Reply
Map
View

Click here to load this message in the networking platform