3 ms·

"Z" is a premise I disagree with; especially when government/force is involved. If you want to ride the subway to a determent of yourself for society's benefit

"Z" is a premise I disagree with; especially when government/force is involved. If you want to ride the subway to a determent of yourself for society's benefit, that's your decision. Hell, I might even be sharing the subway with you. However, I'm not about to make that decision for others. Pushing aside the individual for the collective is something I am vehemently opposed to on moral grounds. So, I guess I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with the premise.

infinite8s 10y ago
On what moral grounds? Just because your chosen morality puts the individual above the group in all cases doesn't mean everybody else subscribes to that morality (in fact, I highly doubt most people subscribe to that morality fully, given the society we have built up).
- djschnei 10y ago
  Putting the individual above the collective is a very simplistic, and quite inaccurate, summation of my morality. My morality is that I can't use violence in an aggressive manner, only defensive - this is often described as the non-aggression principle or "NAP". You might be fine with the idea that as long as the majority agree, we can delegate aggression upon the minority via a central governing body; but I am not. I also hope (and suspect) most people subscribe to the idea you can't initiate coercive force against others - however we've for some reason agreed you magically can as long as we vote about it. I'll never understand that... It seems like a logical disconnect to me... Maybe I am weird... idk.
Retric 10y ago
It's not about forcing people to ride the subway it's building and subsidizing a subway so people will ride it. Abstractly, it's little different from building and maintaining a bridge. Supose you save 1/1,000th of a second of commute time on average per driver that takes the subway * 1,000,000 drivers taking the subway. That's 16 minutes eat way or 30 minutes a day. Ethics or not that is actual value. Now if you you feel morally opposed to subsides and are not willing to pay for them fine, but that does not mean they can't work. Further, building and maintaining infrastructure has been one of the hallmarks of government for 8,000+ years it's not going to change any time soon. But hey, if you want to argue for less efficient systems that's your right.
- djschnei 10y ago
  I don't oppose subsides, per se; I oppose the involuntary collection of tax money, or any involuntary transfer of property. If for example, a subway is inherently more efficient than other means of travel, and it can be funded via ticket sales, I am SO for it. If it can't survive or exist without the involuntary collection of property, then I oppose it. And infrastructure has been a major role for governments for quite some time, and I completely agree it's a legitimate role. However, it should be based on usage fees.

infinite8s 10y ago

On what moral grounds? Just because your chosen morality puts the individual above the group in all cases doesn't mean everybody else subscribes to that morality (in fact, I highly doubt most people subscribe to that morality fully, given the society we have built up).

djschnei 10y ago
Putting the individual above the collective is a very simplistic, and quite inaccurate, summation of my morality. My morality is that I can't use violence in an aggressive manner, only defensive - this is often described as the non-aggression principle or "NAP". You might be fine with the idea that as long as the majority agree, we can delegate aggression upon the minority via a central governing body; but I am not. I also hope (and suspect) most people subscribe to the idea you can't initiate coercive force against others - however we've for some reason agreed you magically can as long as we vote about it. I'll never understand that... It seems like a logical disconnect to me... Maybe I am weird... idk.

Retric 10y ago

It's not about forcing people to ride the subway it's building and subsidizing a subway so people will ride it. Abstractly, it's little different from building and maintaining a bridge. Supose you save 1/1,000th of a second of commute time on average per driver that takes the subway * 1,000,000 drivers taking the subway. That's 16 minutes eat way or 30 minutes a day. Ethics or not that is actual value. Now if you you feel morally opposed to subsides and are not willing to pay for them fine, but that does not mean they can't work. Further, building and maintaining infrastructure has been one of the hallmarks of government for 8,000+ years it's not going to change any time soon. But hey, if you want to argue for less efficient systems that's your right.

djschnei 10y ago
I don't oppose subsides, per se; I oppose the involuntary collection of tax money, or any involuntary transfer of property. If for example, a subway is inherently more efficient than other means of travel, and it can be funded via ticket sales, I am SO for it. If it can't survive or exist without the involuntary collection of property, then I oppose it. And infrastructure has been a major role for governments for quite some time, and I completely agree it's a legitimate role. However, it should be based on usage fees.