>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?

We is our society, and we do it by voting.

>Again, I ask you the same question - do you feel that your views should be placed into mandate?

Mine alone. Though I (of course) think I'm right <s>, no. I think we decide these things by choosing our representatives.


>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.

No, I'm not advocating servitude. I'm advocating thoughtful living, making choices about how we behave based not only on its effect on ourselves and our families, but based on its impact on our communities and the world. I can't imagine living any other way.


>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?

You said that you think your decisions about how to live should be based on what's good for you and your family with no concern about its impact on others. I consider that immoral.

Perhaps that isn't what you meant.

Tamar