MT, there is hope for you still. The older European responders, eh...not so much. They've been indoctrinated a little too long. You answered the question correctly. What was missing from your answer was the shame and longing for restraint.
Listen guys, contrary to some of my own statements (hyperbole I assure you) those of us who understand this moral truth and who have posted repeatedly trying to get the socialists/altruists to understand it, we are not idiots. We too live in a real world where everyone is not perfect and true morality is NOT everyone's guiding principle. Yes taxes are necessary. Social programs DO help. Rich people are not all brilliant and poor people are all not stupid. Our Utopia is NOT pure capitalism or the libertarian ideal of voluntary everything. We want an America who is as ashamed of our socialist programs. I'll explain.
We operate on several basic moral premises we believe should define "The American Way" and wish more Americans were brought up with and understood. We start with the premise that it is immoral to take anything from someone forcibly. The corollary to this statement is that it is immoral to receive something forcibly taken from another. Based on these premises much of what the government does would be immoral considering the majority of its funding is not self generated (it makes very few products or services for a profit). It would logically follow that we believe all taxes are immoral. Not so. Here is the reality twist that empowers the altruist.
By living in a civil society and needing a government to enforce laws and keep the peace we willingly pay the government to cover those needs. It is very capitalistic. We pay for the benefits we receive. This is why those of our political mindset rarely cut defense, fire, and police budgets and why raising taxes to fund those items is so much easier than to build a park or a homeless shelter. We don't use homeless shelters and too often don't get to use the park either.
Some people want us to spend less on defense, fire and police. (I don't know why, maybe they are criminals, arsonists or communists bent on world domination) Here is where the battle cry "No taxation without representation," is actually VERY IMPORTANT. In order to make the immoral, moral we decided (a little over 200 years ago) that as a citizen we would be allowed to vote (or our representative will vote for us) on what the government will be allowed to take from us and how it will be used. This mitigated the immorality.
PLEASE NOTE: IT DID NOT NEGATE IT, JUST MITIGATED. It is still immoral, just a necessary evil.Two hundred years ago fair taxation was everyone pays the same because the federal government was small and what it did benefitted ALL citizens. Through the years our government has grown in response to new challenges and realities. Slavery ended and equal citizenship needed to be established/protected. Women required the same establishment/protection. The environment and natural resources touching many states required a national solution. Infrastructure including roads and energy needed a unifying authority and regulation. This is NOT BAD! We generally all recognize this. What too many forgot, was that it was
STILL IMMORAL. Too many lost the trepidation and indignation that should come along with these necessary acts. (this may seem like an unrelated tangent, but its not) Representative democracy was chosen over pure democracy for a reason. Our founders were worried about individual rights. It was ALWAYS to the fore of their minds when debating about a system of governance. Majority rule becomes mob rule when individual rights aren't protected. It is explained by saying that the majority will do what is in it's interest regardless of the moral impact on the minority. A representative in a
plurality voting system as opposed to an apportioned one must represent ALL the people in their district instead of just those that elected them (the majority). They too should have individual rights always in the fore of their minds when considering the requests and needs of the people. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
More and more our politicians don't realize these Truths. They believe their job is to help as many people as they can and that is what the government is there for. That is the indoctrination that our European brothers have received and much, too much our own children as well. To that end, they will obfuscate and ignore the fundamental immorality of what they propose and support and try to say anyone opposed is immoral for opposing it.
Now to answering responses:
Yanoda wrote:If you see someone injured/sick that can be life threatening if nothing is done and you are fully aware of the circumstances. What will you do?
A. Would you help the individual to save his/her life, knowing you will likely not receive anything back in return?
Or
B. Would you leave the individual alone, knowing that you will not receive anything in return and knowing that he/she will die if the proper care is not provided?
Is it Moral to put a price tag on a human life?
Hopefully you realize that you asked two DIFFERENT questions and that both of your questions assume no one has taken away my free will in the
er. To answer your first question, I have done both. I won't explain other than to say that is what war is. In civilian life my answer is A. Is it Moral to put a price tag on a human life?: no, but I don't play God, I figure he has his own plan I'm not qualified to administrate
Kren wrote:I can appreciate that the way health care is operating does not work but to start thinking along the lines of ignoring suffering etc. isn’t the way forward.
I (We?) don't ignore suffering. I'll bet I have given MUCH more to charitable organizations (money/time) than almost anyone else who has posted. What I have a problem with is someone FORCING me to do it. Also, please refrain from the Nazi hyperbole. None of us are Master Race folks.
Finally, to answer MT:
Minas Thirith wrote:yet it is also immoral to let a man die if he doesn't have money to get a health insurance.
Your statement has a problem. What the man needs is health care to live, not health insurance. If the doctors and nurses choose to treat him for free, fine. If you can afford to pay the doctors what they want to treat him fine. You are NOT allowed to put a gun to my head to make ME or ANYONE ELSE pay for it.
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
"Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."
