Basic question for OCare supporter: After one sorts through all - TopicsExpress



          

Basic question for OCare supporter: After one sorts through all the back and forth, OCare hinges on granting the government the power to tax/take from one man for the benefit of another. Do you think that so long as the use of the money is good (as defined by a majority) then the taking is justified and is not subject to the voluntary participation of the one from whom the money is taken? If so, can you make the rational argument in favor of that position, in support of the legal taking of property from an otherwise law-abiding man? Or, must we accept the legality of that taking merely because you have asserted it as a moral imperative, unfounded in reason or logic? And, if anyone disagrees, tough luck, its the law of the land!! I guess. [BTW, naming 3 or 300 other similarly indefensible laws based on the same assertion of collective morality is not an argument in favor of this one.]
Posted on: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:28:41 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015