What should be subsidized besides health care?

No. They can't take my money without my consent.

No. They can't take my money without my consent.

No. They can't take my money without my consent.

No. They can't take my money without my consent.

Yes. They are some of the special people, apparently.

Yes. They are some of the special people, apparently.

No. They can't take my money without my consent.

 

Nope. They thought they were creating coherence by eliminating the witches.

Society always acts in a way that promotes social cohesion. Therefore, according to your rule, society always does the right thing.

 

Ok. Not sure where hat got us but...

 

Ok. Now you have abandoned all pretense of making sense.

Thanks for trying....

 

And society, which we all live in, decides our rights. And whatever society decides is right?

So, a society decides that in order to ensure social cohesion, that they are going to hang witches. This is right, in your opinion?

 

Already responded

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...es-health-care.554318/page-17#post-1070492075

 

Duh, that's what's being debated.
"Tell it to the ballot box" is hardly discussion.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry

 

For those reading this in the future, here's the response: "Ok. Now you have abandoned all pretense of making sense.

Thanks for trying...."

Apparently, that explains why it's right for society to hang witches in order to ensure social cohesion.

I don't buy it, obviously. Some of us opposed the fascists, just for the record.

 

Right to life is not government protecting your life.
It's your right to have your life protected from government

 

These boys think government creates our rights

 

I wonder whether they think we had any right to establish the government in the first place.

 

Yeah really, who'd we make pay for it?

 

I find it at the same time both hilarious and quite telling that you had to clarify that. I wouldn't have to. All I need to do is point to an objective moral principle (which I described) and it follows from there that I oppose facism, hanging witches, racism, giving easy access to guns to violent criminals, separating children from their parents, .... oh and, of course, expecting services from the government for free without paying my taxes.

All those things and more I oppose, not because I enumerate them "for the record". But because ,my opposition is an obvious and an unavoidable consequence of the moral principle that I explained.

 

Your moral principle is that anything that society deems necessary to ensure social cohesion is moral. That's what you said, right?

 

Which individuals get to ask and answer this question of yours?

 

Sneaky, sneaky. People who specifically take measures to hide themselves from others clearly have something to hide. They're probably Russian.

 

You neglected to mention that you expect services from government at a lesser tax rate than you expect others to pay, thereby getting a chunk of yours for free

 

And he thinks he opposes fascism

 

Cognitive dissonance?

I'm sure a lot of prison guards have thought that they where ensuring social cohesion.

 

I do want you to pay for my insurance, and my beer, but I don't expect it, nor do I think I have a right to it.

 

Please clarify your "objective moral principal", because I've not seen one from you.The closest attempt was this:

Morally "bad" things can promote the existence of a community of human beings- such examples are legalized murder (this was @Longshot point about the witches that you failed to realize), war, genocide, etc. Usually it involve sacrificing the rights of another community or destroying the rights of specific members within said community

A country can go to war for resources such as land, gold or (the very favorite of America) oil.

Genocide can also promote the well being of a community.

I can go on.

If this is your standard, you need to re-evaluate. If your opinion is based upon Kant's view of community, you need to re-examine his stance on univeralizability. Your position on healthcare, for example, fails the test for your maxim to be universalized, as witnessed in this thread.

 

Lol...You'd be a fool to think that a private, for-profit insurance company is going to offer patients better healthcare than a national health service.

 

Solving simple poverty and letting markets "float within the goal posts fixed by Government", is more easy and more convenient.

 

Anything that allows him to get access to other people's money is "good for community".
It's all about you paying for his stuff so he has more money to spend on fun stuff.

 

Lol...You'd be a fool to think that a private, for-profit grain company is going to offer customer better food than a national grain service.

Does anyone remember the Ukrainian famine?