What should be subsidized besides health care?

Just as I thought. My point stands.

 

I'm sure you think it does.

 

Just by asking me what the moral principle is? Ok.... I guess kicking my ass is not that hard to do after all, then.

But, in any case, that won't help you much. You were incapable of even making a point. I had to make it for you. And from your answer, and seeing how you're left playing cheerleader for other posters (how embarrassing for you), looks like I was spot on, and I just... how did you put it?... kicked your ass. And that was pretty easy too.

 

You sure do...

 

OMG ... fellas, back to the healthcare!

 

Uhm...yes, you did.

"objective (dependent on the object)"

 

yes, especially if the right wing believes they have the right to force others to pay for their alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

 

I dont think it.
What's your point?

 

we should be solving for a simple poverty of money under our form of Capitalism. more social programs merely distort markets and make it less efficient.

 

What should be subsidized besides health care?

Hmm, this'll almost be as much fun as itemizing the litany of things subsidized, that SHOULDN'T be...

SUBSIDIZED...
- Fed. & State tax breaks for qualified & armed former LE, Vets, etc. that provide X number of hours in our schools, 'hardening' them
- Fed. & State tax breaks for individuals within Civilian organizations & groups that lawfully help patrol our borders providing intel to LE / BP.
- ... ... ... to CDL buss drivers / pilots who volunteer to drive / fly for LE deporting our illegal alien, grifting 'surplus' after their court date
- .... ... for licensed job counselor volunteers who work within the communities, hardest hit by the Dem's entitlement communities of generational welfare subsistence level citizens - providing direction for training / job placement
- etc. etc. U get my drift, lol.... Senior day care - after school programs - maintenance - grounds work - State & National Parks work .... ...

There are select tasks / services that many proactive & giving citizens would love to do (esp. retirees), contributing to society in a big way - w/o receiving a Gov. paycheck for doing so. Many of these services are done through subsidies, carried out by unmotivated worker 'drones' within the Gov. bureaucracy - at disgustingly low proficiency & financial solvency levels.

- It begs the question, do a portion of our Gov. jobs exist for the sake of their own, for the sake of providing someone a job at tax payer expense? It Certainly seems that way when looking close. If a select % of 'non essential' (thing gov. shutdowns) Gov. jobs were farmed out to willing & eager qualified citizens wanting to give back - asking only for a tax break in doing so - wouldn't that be better for society! Let those gov. employees try the real world private sector out & hopefully flourish ADDING economically to our GDP, while simultaneously shrinking the bloat of Gov. & our collective tax burden.

 

It never bothers me to repeat a simple thing like a universal moral principle. For instance, mine is that it is never just to initiate aggression against peaceful people. If someone asks me, I'm happy to repeat it over and over again.

I am thinking that perhaps your UMP is some complex, difficult principle to translate it and, in fact, you fear actually repeating it because defending it something you are unable

If I had the power to end those things right now and return to a free market for services that people want, rather than are forced to take, I would.

A shopkeeper who doesn't pay protection money to the mafia is stealing from that mafia, by your logic.

There's a joke. The judicial system is far from prompt. It is broken in many areas, leads to the incarceration and economic destruction of millions of people, and is unjust more often than not. But you won't take responsibility for the lives damaged because, as a socialist, you only account for the good things and blame someone else for the bad things.

No they aren't. If they must be provided by force and paid for by strangers, then they are privileges. You have no right to force anyone to do anything, and therefore cannot claim it's a right to get something from them that they don't want to provide to you. Otherwise, owning slaves was a right, by your "universal moral principle."

Actual rights are free.

Society is not government and government is not society. Who are you to speak for society?

Says the busybody who wants to shove his "universal moral principle" down the throats of everyone else. Do you also use that line on the fundamentalists who want to shove their religiosity onto you? If so, you're a hypocrite.

If you don't like us speaking up against your holy state and freedom of speech (a free right that you don't have to pay for) triggers you, then go somewhere. Start by leaving this forum, since you obviously cannot handle it. There are plenty of forums where you can sing in harmony and praise the socialism-that-has-never-been-tried.

 

In the post to which I replied you said:

That looks like a definition to me. Do you need me to define definition for you?

You claim that in some places and time people have preferences. That is subjective, not objective. It's not like those morals exist outside those people, so how can they be dependent on any object?

But you won't provide that universal objective moral standard. Apparently, it is so complex that you cannot be bothered to repeat it more than once. I think, in fact, that it is entirely subjective to you and you think that everyone ought to believe like you do, so you call it objective. Just like a Christian would say that an objective truth is that the only way to salvation is through Jesus. To him, it may seem objective, but to someone who isn't a trinitarian, it's quite subjective.

Correct. And you said ethics and morality are different. They are not. Ethics are morals, and sometimes moral principles.

You're right. I am not making arguments. I'm shredding the unsound claims that you use to back up your assertions. I can't argue against illogic, I can only point respond by point out where the logic is flawed or based upon faulty assumptions.

 

Corporate welfare do it in much greater proportions, social programs are nothing comparing to government gifts to wealthiest enterprises.

 

I wouldn't call that a moral principle. Sounds like it doesn't cover much.

Mine is not difficult, but it took a long time to explain on this thread. I have explained it several times, and you're one of several who have come in after 50+ pages to ask for it. It is not particularly complex, but it is a bit more complex than yours. I guess because mine is much more objective.

Just for your sake, I'll give you a quick summary at the end of this post. And you can ask for clarification, if you want.

If I had the power to end those things right now and return to a free market for services that people want, rather than are forced to take, I would.

Nope. Not unless the Mafia was freely elected by popular majority to be the protector of the community in a democratically held election. And were checks and balances are established that guarantee that they are acting in the best interest of those that are being governed and not in their own self-interest. And other similar conditions that would take a long time to enumerate here.

On the other hand, it looks to me like your "moral principle" would consider it so. Is it projection?

.
If that is the case, you have a proper claim to a violation of your right. The judicial system must account for any unjustified delays.

And as a typical right winger, you are unable to make a rational argument without resorting to strawman arguments. Only difference between your statement and mine is that you have provided no evidence whatsoever of your claim about what I "only account for", and I only have to quote you to prove mine. Easy point for me.

Nobody is forcing anybody to pay for them. Nobody forces you to live in this society.

You had me confused there for a second. I had some hope that you would not be just another one of those extremists who can't make an argument without a strawman.

There is no such thing as "free" if you choose to live in a society. Living in a society has benefits, but it also demands obligations. Freeloaders need not apply.

You can choose not to live in a society and then... you're fine. Only way I can think you can do that would be an uninhabited island in the Pacific. Can't think of any other way. So don't go stepping on my socialist roads.

Of course it's not!

Speaking for society? Rarely does one see so much projection coming from a single human being. Society speaks for society. Society sets the rules. Rules such as: you pay taxes buddy! I don't set that rule. Society does. In a complex democratic process which, is not perfect, but works ok... You;re the only one deciding on your own that you don't want to follow the rules that society decides to adopt.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I'll send a separate post with the Universal moral Principle

 

Increasing market participation by Labor will mean more people circulating more money more easily. Higher paid labor spending more money and paying more taxes, is what we are looking for.

Corporate welfare can happen, for a Mission to Mars, for example.

 

This is not "my" universal moral principal. It's simply the Universal Moral Principle. Not because I want to "impose" it. I'll explain why it's universal" and why it's objective. I don't know if there are others that could be called "Universal" and "Objective". If there are, I'd like to hear them.

Read with attention please.

By "Ethics" I will refer to any list of "good" or "bad" actions. Examples: laws, codes of ethics, the ten commandments, the Constitution, etc. Basically you could view them as a two-column chart. One column for "Good" the other for "Bad". By morals, and more specifically, by "moral principle", I am referring to the reason why a specific action is placed in either the "Good" or "Bad" column. In order for a moral principle to be "objective", the reason it is placed on either must be implicit to the object. In other words, to everything that is in the object (time, place, nature, circumstances, ...) . It would be "subjective" if the reason it is placed in a column is influenced by the subject making the determination (ideology, desires, preferences, ...)

Universal: In order for a moral principle to be Universal, it must be based on something that every rational human being can agree on when they set aside subjective considerations (ideology, preferences, etc.)

Objective: For the moral principle to be "objective" ii is necessary that anybody and everybody who is judging an action, would arrive at exactly the same conclusion as to whether the action is good or bad if they base their judgement exclusively on the moral principle. And setting aside subjective considerations (ideology, preferences, etc)

Example of an objective moral principle?. Immanuel Kant would say: "Whatever God, says is good, that goes in the 'good' column". It's objective. Because anybody can go to the Bible and look up just about any action to verify if it's "good" or "bad". But, of course, it requires the assumption that God exists. And if God exists, which God? Therefore, even though it can be argued that it's objective, it's not Universal.

So we need something that is objective and universal.

We start at the most fundamental level. The human species, must live in communities in order to survive as a species. If nothing else, we need others in order to reproduce. We need a large enough gene pool, so that there is variation. We also need to live in communities to protect ourselves. Communities are of several types. For example: Country, region (state), city, neighborhood, family, .. So the more stable these communities are, the more likely it is for people to want to form part of them, and the more likely it is for them to continue existing. Which, at the most fundamental level, is the ultimate goal.

So we can all agree that living in a community of human beings is beneficial to the continuation of the species. So making that community more cohesive is good.

Therefore, the universal moral principle could be stated as: "Anything that favors the continuation and cohesion of the community of human beings is morally and ethically good. Anything that opposes it is bad."

Note that this could be worded in many other ways. It could just as well be worded as "In order to form a more perfect Union..."

Now, is it objective? The best answer is that it can be. What would be required is that we use it as the guide. If a question about wheter a particular action, law or ethical rule is goo or bad is good or bad is based on whether it favors or opposes the contination of the human community, then the resulting ethical decision will be objective.

Is murder good or bad? People would not want to live in a community where murder were considered acceptable
Is running around the pool good or bad? People would not like to be in a community were they can be injured by others who are just fooling around

But whether an action is ethically good or bad is not set in stone. It depends on the circumstances.

In general, theft is bad. Because people might not want to live in a community where it would be acceptable for others to take their hard-earned possessions. Is theft always morally bad? Earlier I gave the example of Ancient Sparta. Where able bodied men were almost constantly at war. And women were always out harvesting or hunting. Children were out on the street, often with nothing to eat. It was ethically wrong to steal, but morally it was acceptable for children to steal. Because these children would later become defenders of Sparta. So it was not seen as "good" to the community if they were left to die hungry..

 

If is proper to call it a definition. Not the definition. Your response was absurd. I am explaining in what sense I am using the word.

The rest is addressed in my previous post.

 

There are several issues that are debatable, with reasonable arguments on both sides, that are not solved by your simplistic "continuation of the human community" criterion. Euthanasia is one, abortion another, exceptions to abortion another, manner of funding healtcare another, immigration another, legalization of drugs another, prize fighting another, public housing another, voting age another. Your certitude and inflexibility makes it obvious that there is no possibility of engaging you in reasonable debate, which us why your exchanges on the board quickly devolve into name calling.

Fortunately you dont get to make the call on every issue with your lofty pronouncements and insults, even assuming everyone shares your view of "the universal moral principle." I doubt that they do.

 

The moral principle is not meant to "solve" every action in existence because we don't all know all the objective aspects of all the possible actions. But it provides the basis to discuss them objectively.

It provides the perfect basis to discuss euthanasia. It forces us to look at euthanasia objectively. If euthanasia were acceptable, would that favor or oppose social cohesion? In other words, would living in a community that allows you to decide under certain circumstances, such as a terminal illness, that you wish to terminate your life now, instead of facing unnecessary pain, so long as you don't make that decision to evade responsibilities, draw you nearer to that community?

Can you answer that question independent of any religious beliefs, personal preferences, ideologies, etc? If you can, then you can come to an objective conclusion. What would that be?

Similar reasoning can be applied to any question in your list.

 

We are talking about two different things. I am talking about the reasonable debate that can be had on the front end to decide whether and under what circumstances it is acceptable in the first place. Both advocates and opponents can make reasonable arguments ("every life has intrinsic value and the patient is a member of the community" versus "keeping this person alive is keeping him in pain against his wishes and with no demonstrable benefit to the community" and as you see, "continuation of the the human community" can be invoked by both sides.

If we start with the proposition that euthanasia is acceptable and everybody's happy, then there would appear nothing to debate from the social cohesion standpoint. Obviously the debate will and should continue, as it did when the death penalty was socially acceptable in states and countries where it is now prohibited.

We went through the same exercise on the public health care debate. People just disagree sometimes. They have different values, and sometimes one side is no better than the other.

 

We are talking about exactly the same thing. Except you are using subjective arguments, and I am advocating for using objective ones.

We start by deciding objectively if euthanasia is acceptable or not according to the moral principle. And then we simply apply what we decided.

You didn't answer my question.

 

Independent of personal preferences? We all have our biases, and if we had no preferences we wouldn't be posting here. We wouldn't be human either.

 

We have arrived at the conclusion that none of us has the right to force others to provide us healthcare, right?

 

Of course they have to pay taxes. If they don't, certain people will throw them into a cage.

Pay taxes to which particular individuals?

Great. So individuals can create their own society and ignore those who wish to impose taxes. That sounds like a great option.

 

Why would those people who have been asked by other people then have any right to impose protection money?