She talked about a society that makes life possible for people which coexists with personal responsibility. Whether you like it or not, when you are a member of society, a bunch of people are making your life possible. That's an undeniable truth. Opinion comes into this depending on how much you think everyone should contribute to the lives of their fellow citizens. I think everyone should contribute to healthcare for themselves and their fellow citizens and there's absolutely no reason why that can't coexist with personal responsibility.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
Theoretically speaking, you could be permanently enslaved by people constantly hanging off a cliff. Now, your entire life is spent saving them, and you're never entitled to live your own time or exercise your own energy or attention.
By the same token, weak ones would be expected to save people hanging off a cliff, even if they couldn't afford to do so without falling off themselves.
No... that's prejudiced. You should have to exert equal simultaneous effort saving both.In your scenario, yes, I'd save the person I knew better. And the reason is because, ethically, it makes no difference who I save. Unless I know that one of them is some sort of serial killer or something, they are equals. I can't save both, so I must pick one. I would pick the one who would hurt the least for me to lose. Because ethically, there is no clear-cut answer, so I can decide for whatever arbitrary reasons I like. Either way, I will lose one of them.
No, that's coercion.Again, what are you talking about?
If you hate this society so much, leave. That's the choice you have. I don't. I like it here. It could be a lot better, but at this point in human history, this is where we are. And when I say, "I like it here," I don't mean America in the generic. I like Minnesota, because it's a state that functions very well and takes extraordinary care of its people.
Almost everyone does contribute something. The people who don't are few, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt in order to provide for the overwhelming majority who contribute. We can never totally eliminate people who take advantage or cause harm, but that's a crappy reason to punish the majority.
Nobody asks to be born into society. Therefore, we are all hostages. A hostage is not obligated to so much as lift a finger for one's hostage takers.
Your statement sounds politically correct, but that's just because you're making an appeal to cohesion (people living together), not an appeal to foundations (people making individual decisions).
Unfortunately, cohesion doesn't exist without foundations, so that's an argument by stolen concept.
Last edited by Daktoria; 06-29-12 at 07:44 PM.
If there's a god, damn it she won't mind.
If there's a god, baby she won't mind.
Need I say more?
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. The phrase is meant to exemplify the "inalienable rights" with which all human beings are endowed by their Creator and for the protection of which they institute governments