3 ms·

> so people could freely move to the government that best fit their needs. That requires a certain level of callousness. If New York State got universal healt

> so people could freely move to the government that best fit their needs. That requires a certain level of callousness. If New York State got universal health care (for instance), I'd be happy—but I would still push for it to be supported at a national level, so that people in other states could benefit.

freedomben 8y ago
I think your heart is in the right place, but this is the same mentality that has the US trying to "export democracy" all over the world, and it's causing tremendous damage and suffering. I think we need to accept that we Americans don't know what's better for everybody else. Different culture, different values. Why not instead work toward universal health care in New York, and then invite people to move there? Then you get to help people, but you aren't being tyrannical against the people that don't want universal healthcare.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > Why not instead work toward universal health care in New York, and then invite people to move there? Like I said, that requires a certain level of callousness.
  - freedomben 8y ago
    Would you support having New York State work toward forcing all other states and countries to adopt universal healthcare that meets your standards? If so, then I think you're being consistent but I would also suggest that you look into the history of colonialism and how many of the residents of the countries under rule felt about it (Gandhi did a lot of writing on this for example). If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well?
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > If so, then I think you're being consistent but I would also suggest that you look into the history of colonialism and how many of the residents of the countries under rule felt about it (Gandhi did a lot of writing on this for example). Colonialism and health care aren't the same thing, though—colonialism was an attempt to exploit other people for your own profit, the point of spreading universal health care would be to let people have better medical treatment at more affordable prices. There is actually a difference between good things and bad things. > If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well? Well, the simplest metric would be this: that there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to.
      - freedomben 8y ago
        > colonialism was an attempt to exploit other people for your own profit This is a significant over-simplification. There was an element of this, but it was also broadly understood to be "civilizing" lesser cultures and bringing them into modern standards. There were quite a few arguments put forward that it was the compassionate thing to do. One could make a case that cultures who reject universal healthcare are uncivilized, therefore we should go in and force them to become enlightened like us. > There is actually a difference between good things and bad things That's quite the straw man, and also seems to pre-suppose that there is objective morality, or objective good and bad, and that the viewpoint you have arrived at is the only objectively correct view. > there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to It sounds like you are saying "it's too hard or complex" because they are different political bodies (please correct me if I misunderstand you here) so it's not worth doing. If you truly cared, would it not be worth taking over their political body to force them to be more compassionate to their people? Perhaps another thought, what if someone in a heavily Christian southern state, who knows that they have the truth of Jesus Christ on their side (i.e. they are certain of their morally superior position), decides that New York is immoral and calloused for permitting abortion. Would you support them working at a federal level to ban it nationwide? Surely they believe not doing so is callous. How do you argue against that? By the way, thanks for the conversation. I love being able to talk to people with different viewpoints :-)

freedomben 8y ago

I think your heart is in the right place, but this is the same mentality that has the US trying to "export democracy" all over the world, and it's causing tremendous damage and suffering. I think we need to accept that we Americans don't know what's better for everybody else. Different culture, different values. Why not instead work toward universal health care in New York, and then invite people to move there? Then you get to help people, but you aren't being tyrannical against the people that don't want universal healthcare.

mcphage 8y ago
> Why not instead work toward universal health care in New York, and then invite people to move there? Like I said, that requires a certain level of callousness.
- freedomben 8y ago
  Would you support having New York State work toward forcing all other states and countries to adopt universal healthcare that meets your standards? If so, then I think you're being consistent but I would also suggest that you look into the history of colonialism and how many of the residents of the countries under rule felt about it (Gandhi did a lot of writing on this for example). If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well?
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > If so, then I think you're being consistent but I would also suggest that you look into the history of colonialism and how many of the residents of the countries under rule felt about it (Gandhi did a lot of writing on this for example). Colonialism and health care aren't the same thing, though—colonialism was an attempt to exploit other people for your own profit, the point of spreading universal health care would be to let people have better medical treatment at more affordable prices. There is actually a difference between good things and bad things. > If not, how do you avoid being labeled "callous" using your own standard? Do you not care about the people in other countries as well? Well, the simplest metric would be this: that there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to.
    - freedomben 8y ago
      > colonialism was an attempt to exploit other people for your own profit This is a significant over-simplification. There was an element of this, but it was also broadly understood to be "civilizing" lesser cultures and bringing them into modern standards. There were quite a few arguments put forward that it was the compassionate thing to do. One could make a case that cultures who reject universal healthcare are uncivilized, therefore we should go in and force them to become enlightened like us. > There is actually a difference between good things and bad things That's quite the straw man, and also seems to pre-suppose that there is objective morality, or objective good and bad, and that the viewpoint you have arrived at is the only objectively correct view. > there's no political body that someone in another country and I both belong to It sounds like you are saying "it's too hard or complex" because they are different political bodies (please correct me if I misunderstand you here) so it's not worth doing. If you truly cared, would it not be worth taking over their political body to force them to be more compassionate to their people? Perhaps another thought, what if someone in a heavily Christian southern state, who knows that they have the truth of Jesus Christ on their side (i.e. they are certain of their morally superior position), decides that New York is immoral and calloused for permitting abortion. Would you support them working at a federal level to ban it nationwide? Surely they believe not doing so is callous. How do you argue against that? By the way, thanks for the conversation. I love being able to talk to people with different viewpoints :-)