Don’t be silly. Nobody is harmed when students don’t pray. When people don’t provide for their health care responsibly, we all pay and are thus harmed by it.
By this logic, nobody is forcing drivers to comply with stop signs or red lights, as long as they can afford to pay the fines.
From what I can tell, the left generally favors some degree of broad individualism while the right favors selective individualism, where personal freedom is a commodity (you are welcome to have as much individualism as you can afford to pay for).
Everything you labeled as not being anti-individual is in fact anti-individual. But your breathless admiration of the speaks to very clouded judgement.
Neither Ike nor Bush (41 or 43) were conservative by the by.
The left champions PC culture, where people are ostracized for deviating from acceptable opinion. In much of Europe this censoring of thought has the force of law.
You claim the left values freedom of religion, but the left lashes out at religious business owners who refuse to serve same sex couples. It lashes out at religious people who oppose abortion, hence the “war on women” canard.
The left in no way values diversity of opinion, only diversity of skin tone and sexual orientation.
In a free society, nobody would be forced to pay for another’s health care. You wrote “your care will be paid by the rest of us”. If that never happened in the first place, the raison d’etre for the ACA as you stated it is moot.
What else do you call taking money people don’t want to part with?
That’s your opinion. I disagree. But I won’t force others to pray just because I think they should. Conversely, you shouldn’t force people to do things you find beneficial.
What do you call people who take services and don’t pay for them? The absence of taxes would either mean the absence of services…or theft.
You really don’t have to pay taxes: there are ways of disappearing. And, in fact, even so, you’ll receive services. If you’re hurt, you’ll be treated.
The “taxation is theft” fantasy is an attack on the principles of civilization itself. It is not a convincing political philosophy.
You misunderstand the meaning of “diversity of opinion”. A business owner refusing to serve homosexuals is not an opinion, it is an action. An adverse action. Opinions are just fine, as long as they do not result in an adverse effect. The left advocates tolerance, but trying to hide behind the vestments your buggerist priest to further intolerance trespasses the frontier of freedom of religion. You are welcome to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but using your beliefs to justify adverse behavior violates the general principle of tolerance. There is no double standard here.
And when you speak of “lashing out” at opponents of abortion, should we discuss who plays the violent action card in that game?
You failed to answer the question. If money is taken from a person who doesn’t want to part with it, how is that not theft?
Don’t skirt the question, answer please.
He’s not skirting the question. He’s not answering it because it’s moronic. It’s not theft because it is legal. Theft is not. You might as well ask why it’s not theft if a repo man comes and takes your car away even though you don’t want to part with it.
You wasted no time insulting people. Very classy.
Diversity doesn’t mean anything if everybody has to act the way you deem okay. The idea that a baker or caterer refusing to service a gay wedding imposes an adverse impact on anybody is risible.
Your post essentially proves my point, freedom of religion and diversity of opinion is of no value to the left.
[QUOTE=eschereal]
when you speak of “lashing out” at opponents of abortion, should we discuss who plays the violent action card in that game?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, let’s have that discussion. Every abortion ends in the murder of a child. The body count of opponents of abortion isn’t even close.
Who deems what is and is not legal? It’s the same people who exact taxation. You see no conflict of intrest?
Yes. We call it “government.”
Anarchy is becoming a political movement again?
It’s not as if private property is anything more than a legal fiction to begin with. You own your house because it says so in a government record somewhere. If the government changes the record, it won’t be yours any more. Same thing for money in a bank account. Scary when you think of it, but true.
You post vacuous boilerplate, yet you accuse me of being insulting? My apologies for my tactlessness, but thank you for the snert.
You want freedom of religion to be a white card. You want it to mean that you can behave in whatever manner pleases you and name your behavior as according to divine edict. That no one else’s freedom matters but your own. I am not convinced that you even understand the very concept of liberty in general. There must be balance to freedom, a consideration toward each other’s needs, or it is of no value.
In other words, the right seems to want to destroy freedom with more freedom, whereas the left seems to want to preserve it through restraint and dignity.
This is the best answer so far - though there are forms of authoritarianism right and left that have no room for individualism of any sort.