Forcing people to be good, taken from Political Humor

[paladin.oa]

His answer, “Maybe we shouldn’t be saving those kids.” He looked embarrassed that he’d said it.

Maybe this asshole shouldn't be a doctor.

I'd have to seriously restrain myself from punching the fucker.

 

[ZiprHead]

His answer, “Maybe we shouldn’t be saving those kids.” He looked embarrassed that he’d said it.

Maybe this asshole shouldn't be a doctor.

I'd have to seriously restrain myself from punching the fucker.

It's ultimately what very many libertarian policies come down to.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'd have to seriously restrain myself from punching the fucker.

It's ultimately what very many libertarian policies come down to.

Yeah, like when you hear how some Libertarians advocate parents not taking care of their kids, like freedom to kick them out on the street to die. Even the thread title-"forcing people to be good..." Wow.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Once you strip out all the emotive language, we find that what I wrote and what you wrote are identical - X is good for you, therefore it should be mandatory.

That is your position. Your conclusion is that everyone who disagrees with it being mandatory also disagrees with what you list are the benefits of it being mandatory.

"Cucumberinassism is all about love and puppies and sunshine and happiness. You don't like Cucumberinassism? That means you hate love and puppies and sunshine and happiness."

No, his position is, like compulsory education, that it is not merely good for those being forced, but for everyone else, too.

You saving for retirement isn't just good for you. It's good for you AND me.

You having a basic education isn't just good for you, it is good for you AND me.

We absolutely have a right to expect and even compel people to do certain things that benefit society in general. It is a basic element of society to allow and compel such expected behavior to a certain degree.

Which is still the same as what I wrote, but I leave out the emotional baggage.

I understand compelling people to not murder, steal, rape, enslave, etc. But that isn't what we are discussing when we say "compel such expected behavior" to any degree.

By the way, I also think education is good for you and for me, but instead we have government schools.

 

[Jarhyn]

Once you strip out all the emotive language, we find that what I wrote and what you wrote are identical - X is good for you, therefore it should be mandatory.

That is your position. Your conclusion is that everyone who disagrees with it being mandatory also disagrees with what you list are the benefits of it being mandatory.

"Cucumberinassism is all about love and puppies and sunshine and happiness. You don't like Cucumberinassism? That means you hate love and puppies and sunshine and happiness."

No, his position is, like compulsory education, that it is not merely good for those being forced, but for everyone else, too.

You saving for retirement isn't just good for you. It's good for you AND me.

You having a basic education isn't just good for you, it is good for you AND me.

We absolutely have a right to expect and even compel people to do certain things that benefit society in general. It is a basic element of society to allow and compel such expected behavior to a certain degree.

Which is still the same as what I wrote, but I leave out the emotional baggage.

I understand compelling people to not murder, steal, rape, enslave, etc. But that isn't what we are discussing when we say "compel such expected behavior" to any degree.

By the way, I also think education is good for you and for me, but instead we have government schools.

No, it isn't "emotional baggage" you leave out, it's the social benefit. "Good for (subject)" is not equal to "good for (everyone)". Period. They ARE NOT the same statement. They are not the same classes of expectation.

"Good for (subject)" is widely agreed to as a thing that is within the purview of (subject) to consent to and accept or reject, mere suggestions. "Good for (society)" is something we widely as a society agree as something that may be compelled: education; vaccination; taxes; social security; selective services registration.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two prepositions means you don't belong in the discussion.

 

[bilby]

Which is still the same as what I wrote, but I leave out the emotional baggage.

I understand compelling people to not murder, steal, rape, enslave, etc. But that isn't what we are discussing when we say "compel such expected behavior" to any degree.

By the way, I also think education is good for you and for me, but instead we have government schools.

No, it isn't "emotional baggage" you leave out, it's the social benefit. "Good for (subject)" is not equal to "good for (everyone)". Period. They ARE NOT the same statement. They are not the same classes of expectation.

"Good for (subject)" is widely agreed to as a thing that is within the purview of (subject) to consent to and accept or reject, mere suggestions. "Good for (society)" is something we widely as a society agree as something that may be compelled: education; vaccination; taxes; social security; selective services registration.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two prepositions means you don't belong in the discussion.

Yup. The only thing Libertarianism has going for it is that it's so cartoonishly simplistic that even a total idiot can understand it.

It's not in any way connected to reality; But they don't let that stop them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is still the same as what I wrote, but I leave out the emotional baggage.

I understand compelling people to not murder, steal, rape, enslave, etc. But that isn't what we are discussing when we say "compel such expected behavior" to any degree.

By the way, I also think education is good for you and for me, but instead we have government schools.

No, it isn't "emotional baggage" you leave out, it's the social benefit. "Good for (subject)" is not equal to "good for (everyone)". Period. They ARE NOT the same statement. They are not the same classes of expectation.

"Good for (subject)" is widely agreed to as a thing that is within the purview of (subject) to consent to and accept or reject, mere suggestions. "Good for (society)" is something we widely as a society agree as something that may be compelled: education; vaccination; taxes; social security; selective services registration.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between these two prepositions means you don't belong in the discussion.

Yup. The only thing Libertarianism has going for it is that it's so cartoonishly simplistic that even a total idiot can understand it.

It's not in any way connected to reality; But they don't let that stop them.

Libertarianism fails much like Utopian societies failed in the US. Oddly enough, the two operate at different ends of the spectrum as one concentrates on the individual while the other does the group, but they both fail just the same as they just don't get human nature. They think they do, but they don't.