What should be subsidized besides health care?

No. As I said...I oppose anyone stealing from another. Why is this such a struggle for you?

 

That's not really what I asked. I asked whether or not you support some people taking the property of others. I didn't use the word stealing, so I'm not sure why you responded to that.

 

No! Society is the object, not the subject.

 

Nobody. The circumstances do. This is why it's objective.

What determines what promotes the existence of the community of human beings is logic. But if there is no agreement, the majority determines what to do. The majority is not always right, though. But that's OK, IF the debate is based on the moral principle.

 

Yes. Society. The subject. Anything that society (the subject of this sentence) deems necessary to ensure social cohesion is moral. This is your position?

 

The majority or society? Which is it?

 

If someone takes my car (property) then that is stealing, correct?

 

Awe shucks.
Little progressive tax rate boy gets called out and cries strawman.

 

But you love getting subsidized by paying lower rates on those taxes

 

Yes, if they took it without your assent.

 

No human being determines that. The circumstances determine that.

 

So then you agree taking someone’s property is stealing. Cool.

 

No. If the subject determined that, it would be subjective. We want an objective action.

 

Circumstances is what, like an intelligent agent? Yeah, no. Nice try.

 

Yes, we agree. Taking someone's property against their consent is stealing. I'm glad we agree.

So taxation is stealing right? It fits our definition?

 

We should be solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner under our form of Capitalism; the legal and physical infrastructure is already available in our Republic. It involves equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.

In our case, we could solve simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. With a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage to provide Labor to our markets, and the equivalent to fourteen an hour for simply being unemployed, any Individual should be able to increase their participation in our markets.

Normal market forces should apply to the Commerce sector.

 

I think, Thou dos't protest to much. Are you a protestant? We should abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror as the waste of money they are, to abolish our income tax.

We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity not the general warfare.

 

I think that I heard someone say that they heard retards.

https://imgflip.com/i/2zhcni

 

No it doesn’t. I don’t believe the teachers who taught my kids should work for free. I don’t believe the guys plowing the streets after a snow storm should work for free. I don’t think the first responders helping to keep citizens safe should work for free. Now, maybe you believe everyone should work for free but then that would be slavery, right? Are you saying you’re ok with slavery?

 

Nobody should work for free. Why should they?

I'm not sure how that relates to the question of whether certain super-special people have the right to take the property of their neighbor by force.

 

I don’t know who these “super-special people” are and what property of their neighbor they are stealing. Seems you live in a odd neighborhood.

 

Stealing is bad. Who would want to live in a society where stealing is allowed. So would stealing always be morally wrong? Not necessarily Ancient Sparta was almost constantly at war. Children lived in the streets while their fathers were at work. Their mothers were out hunting for food for weeks, or trying to grow crops. So they would die hungry. So it was not morally "wrong" for these children to steal food. They were necessary for the survival of society, as they would grow up to conform the Spartan armies, or be spartan mothers.

It was still illegal to steal. Ethically, it was wrong. But morally, it was not. People decided what the laws were, but not what the morals are. Usually we want Ethics and morals to coincide. But don't confuse the two.

Circumstances, not people, determine what is morally wrong. This is why the moral principle is objective (dependent on the object), not subjective (dependent on the subject)

 

You don't know? Really? You don't know which people force their neighbors to hand over their property? I'll give you a hint: The government.

 

So 51% of the people get to determine what is and isn't moral. And the other 49% have no choice in the matter. That sounds pretty arbitrary. But I guess that's the best I can get from someone who can't share any actual morality.

 

But I thought you said teachers shouldn’t work for free? That first responders shouldn’t work for free? That people plowing snow shouldn’t work for free? Are you now saying they should work for free???