I'm going to translate that to "how would you know where to set tax levels?" Its not that huge a challenge. Again there are currently thriving examples to draw on. Not a plan breaking roadblock.
I disagree with the notion that I automatically have a right to take property which I did not earn and you did by mere virtue of the fact that I exist.
I don't have a right to anyone's earnings or property, regardless of how bad I need it
He believes charities would arise to care for the innocents currently relying on government aid.
Or that parents would then work harder...either way, I don't gain a right to my neighbor's property just because my wife gives birth
And who gave you the right to the property to begin with? God? The government? "Dibs?" We collectively built this nation and its wealth. I am not a socialist in the least, but I do realize the importance of government giving everyone a fair shot to succeed. Without government my family would have starved to death back in the depression. If we as a society decide, via the democratic process, to give people a little help when they need it, that is more than enough of a right
Damn I feel bad for orphan children. If they don't receive charity they are left to starve?
If we want to nail him reductio style gotta say orphans! Then their suffering can't be morally placed on the parents.
That's not true when you immediately move on to justify socialist welfare programs. You have a right to your opinion but have the stones to admit to it
You can do what I do, which is support an orphanage. What you can't do is steal from your neighbor to feed them and call yourself charitable.
And what happens when not enough people do what you do? When the support can only save half the children? Is it then preferable to watch the other half starve than to vote for taxes on yourself and your neighbor?
Sorry according to your strict definition than yes as someone who advocates who social welfare programs I am a socialist. See I admitted it? No need to call into question my stones. I'd prefer the term liberal, or even social democrat, or someone with common sense, but fine I'll proudly wear your label of socialist
And here we disagree. If I had to steal $100 from a rich man to save a child's life I'd do it. Its absolutist ethics with value in property ownership vs consequentialist ethics with value in happiness and well being. These are why the argument is forever circular.
I know several people that find MD easier than undergrad
Summer break...and no, suffering doesn't justify theft even if you outsource the theft to the government
There is no way to ever go further in this discussion. Property ownership > human life is something many here will disagree with but having finally boiled down your axiology to that, all your views do follow totally logically from such a basis.
Some med students (but not all) can get by without going much over 50 hours/week of classes and studying on average (maybe even less) if they either are exceptionally intelligent or are okay with passing and not too picky about what kind of residency they want.
There's a good bet that most physicians are significantly smarter than the average person, because the average person really isn't that bright.
It is unwillingly seizing money from some to spend on others, pretty much theft by government proxy - whether it's justified is the question. Sb believes it can never be justified, even if it were pure excess being moved to save innocent lives. A very unique axiology I've never before seen!
You have to remember that in his universe all the tax dollars previously being stolen for aid would not now be kept by those with excess, but instead freely given as charity. For him people having the choice not to give matters more than the potential consequences of not enough people giving.
The welfare queen is a strawman....i'm not pushing that concept
I had thought I was clear, no. I can buy them food myself (I do buy food for the homeless and my churches have always had food pantries) or advocate for others to give voluntarily but I don't have the right to take other people's property against their will.
Do you view rights as absolutely wrong to violate in all conditions, or are they forfeited in some circumstances? Eg would you kill a man about to kill a child?
Everyone has a right to life, if I found someone trying to kill you (and I wasn't on my school campus, disarmed) I would shoot them because they are violating your rights.
So you aren't a hard core absolutist, you just find difference in positive vs negative immoral acts. By that I mean, you see a difference between a man with excess taking a child's food and watching him starve, vs a man with excess finding a starving child and refusing to feed them. To me as a consequentialist, these acts are equally heinous as they both result in a killed child with no/meaningless gain for the man. To you however the first act could be met with death, while the latter should be tolerated by the government?
I'm interesting in probing the blend of moral codes he has going, it's way past "how would you vote" or anything else realistic at this point!
