Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So are you also against roads and schools?
So you opposed the idea "running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government." Then when challenged, you come back with "roads and schools." So you're satisfied if he limit government to "roads and schools" and get them out of the charity, redistribution, welfare, medical and economic manipulation businesses?
Next, he'll start chanting "Somalia!"
So are you also against roads and schools?
So you opposed the idea "running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government." Then when challenged, you come back with "roads and schools." So you're satisfied if he limit government to "roads and schools" and get them out of the charity, redistribution, welfare, medical and economic manipulation businesses?
I never said it had to be limited to efficiency.
I have no problem with also having moral reasons behind policy like health care. There is a large efficiency component of health care as well. There is a moral component to education as well.
So you opposed the idea "running society efficiently isn't the purpose of government." Then when challenged, you come back with "roads and schools." So you're satisfied if he limit government to "roads and schools" and get them out of the charity, redistribution, welfare, medical and economic manipulation businesses?
I never said it had to be limited to efficiency.
I have no problem with also having moral reasons behind policy like health care. There is a large efficiency component of health care as well. There is a moral component to education as well.
You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.
Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.
I never said it had to be limited to efficiency.
I have no problem with also having moral reasons behind policy like health care. There is a large efficiency component of health care as well. There is a moral component to education as well.
You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.
Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.
One of the primary purposes of forming government is to defend rights which are just another name for morals.
Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.
I never said it had to be limited to efficiency.
I have no problem with also having moral reasons behind policy like health care. There is a large efficiency component of health care as well. There is a moral component to education as well.
You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.
Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.
One of the primary purposes of forming government is to defend rights which are just another name for morals.
Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.
You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.
Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.
One of the primary purposes of forming government is to defend rights which are just another name for morals.
Rights is a name for morals? What does that mean?
Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.
Public education is a key component in Marxism, which is why it's a plank of the communist manifesto. Christian schools teach love of Christ. Government schools indoctrinate people in government.
You're still not getting it. I don't want government preoccupied with my efficiency OR my morals. Or my 'education'. I want them to protect our rights, period. We can decide how to live, and what morals to live by, for ourselves.
Really it's that power - the power to tell people how to live - that you don't want government to be without. It seems as though, to you, it's the primary purpose of government.
One of the primary purposes of forming government is to defend rights which are just another name for morals.
Ahh... now I see the source of your confusion.
Public education is a key component to any modern society being economically relevant.
Your world view is worthless IMO because it is not based on reality.
Uh.... Google irony.
Rights are a type of moral belief.
Rights are a type of moral belief.
That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Rights are a type of moral belief.
That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Rights are a type of moral belief.
That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Bombur is a lo-lo poster. So "right" "moral" "just" "liberty" "freedom" etc all mean pretty much the same thing to him.
You are not educated. You are a lo-lo. Your first two sentences contradict each other.That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Bombur is a lo-lo poster. So "right" "moral" "just" "liberty" "freedom" etc all mean pretty much the same thing to him.
I didn't equate moral beliefs to rights. I pointed out that rights are a type of moral belief. Which they are.
I apologize for being educated.
Rights are a type of moral belief.
That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Which are moral beliefs. Rights are generally considered a special kind of moral belief but they are still moral beliefs by definition.
Some nations consider health care a right which is their moral belief. A nation could consider education a right as well. One nation could consider the ability to own a gun a right while another doesn't.
We can argue about what moral belief is the best until we are blue in the face but in the end that is just a matter of opinion. In the case of both education and health care there is also the matter of efficiency. In both cases there is far more evidence that UHC and universal education is more efficient than not.
That's not how I'm using the word. Seriously, this is the source of our disagreement. You're using an entirely different definition of rights, and I'm not really sure where it comes from.
Regardless of whose definition is 'correct', the difference is why you don't understand my posts. When I refer to a "right, I'm not talking about a moral belief. I'm talking about a liberty, a freedom of thought or action.
Which are moral beliefs. Rights are generally considered a special kind of moral belief but they are still moral beliefs by definition.
Some nations consider health care a right which is their moral belief. A nation could consider education a right as well. One nation could consider the ability to own a gun a right while another doesn't.
We can argue about what moral belief is the best until we are blue in the face but in the end that is just a matter of opinion. In the case of both education and health care there is also the matter of efficiency. In both cases there is far more evidence that UHC and universal education is more efficient than not.
Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
Which are moral beliefs. Rights are generally considered a special kind of moral belief but they are still moral beliefs by definition.
Some nations consider health care a right which is their moral belief. A nation could consider education a right as well. One nation could consider the ability to own a gun a right while another doesn't.
We can argue about what moral belief is the best until we are blue in the face but in the end that is just a matter of opinion. In the case of both education and health care there is also the matter of efficiency. In both cases there is far more evidence that UHC and universal education is more efficient than not.
Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.
Which are moral beliefs. Rights are generally considered a special kind of moral belief but they are still moral beliefs by definition.
Some nations consider health care a right which is their moral belief. A nation could consider education a right as well. One nation could consider the ability to own a gun a right while another doesn't.
We can argue about what moral belief is the best until we are blue in the face but in the end that is just a matter of opinion. In the case of both education and health care there is also the matter of efficiency. In both cases there is far more evidence that UHC and universal education is more efficient than not.
Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.
The consequence of being a lo-lo.Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.
Uh... ok. I'm not sure what I can say to clear things up for you. You're not getting anything like what I meant from my post.
Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.
Uh... ok. I'm not sure what I can say to clear things up for you. You're not getting anything like what I meant from my post.
Yes. Your definition of rights makes no sense to me. I told you the definition I was using in my post so you could understand what I meant. When I say I want government to protect rights, I mean I want them to protect freedoms, not moral values.
The key distinction I was making was between government that acts primarily as a policing agent, to protect us from violence and fraud, and government that tries to push people to behave in certain ways - imposing morals and values on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want the latter, whearas I prefer the former.
The real difference is not that one of us is basing our opinion on moral beliefs. The real difference is that one of us looks at the moral beliefs of everyone in the nation and the outcome of having those moral beliefs while the other only looks at their own moral beliefs and considered looking at outcomes to be fascism.
You've looked at the moral beliefs of 300M people, many of whom are immigrants from vastly different societies?
You're simply lying.
