3 ms·

The state in the United States often represents the will of most people. Some governments represent whoever is most able to get and keep power. So if you suppor

The state in the United States often represents the will of most people. Some governments represent whoever is most able to get and keep power. So if you support the idea that "the state has an obligation to protect children by <insert value> and as such the parents contrary desire shouldn't matter one bit" could be replaced with the following values: - ensure meat is a regular part of their diet - ensuring they are not fed meat - teaching them about God - teaching them that there is no God - raising them in military training facilities away from immediate family - sterilizing them When you give power to the state, are you going to ensure that no one you don't like will ever come into power? What if we had given the previous president this power, how would the current one use it? Or the next one?

rootusrootus 8y ago
An important difference between vaccination and your examples is that vaccination definitely impacts more than just the person being vaccinated, it can have life or death implications for other people. That makes involving the state a lot more plausible.
- ixtli 8y ago
  As technology advances the easy problems are solved. As time passes we're left with just problems that have highly complex solutions that require collective effort to solve. The remaining problems aren't ones that you can avoid by opting out.
ixtli 8y ago
Unfortunately this hyper-individualist notion breaks down in our modern era because many of our big problems (access to healthcare, climate change, etc.) only have collective solutions. This argument was central to the obamacare fight and I think any reasonable person will realize after enough thinking that someones decisions have an implicit effect on the rest of society if we want to live in a place where hospitals don't turn away people in an emergency. EDIT: To specifically answer your question, which i think is a good one: > When you give power to the state, are you going to ensure that no one you don't like will ever come into power? Yes! As they say, democracy is a 365 day-per-year job, and it's not a spectator sport. The only way to have a moral society is to participate.

rootusrootus 8y ago

An important difference between vaccination and your examples is that vaccination definitely impacts more than just the person being vaccinated, it can have life or death implications for other people. That makes involving the state a lot more plausible.

ixtli 8y ago
As technology advances the easy problems are solved. As time passes we're left with just problems that have highly complex solutions that require collective effort to solve. The remaining problems aren't ones that you can avoid by opting out.

ixtli 8y ago

Unfortunately this hyper-individualist notion breaks down in our modern era because many of our big problems (access to healthcare, climate change, etc.) only have collective solutions. This argument was central to the obamacare fight and I think any reasonable person will realize after enough thinking that someones decisions have an implicit effect on the rest of society if we want to live in a place where hospitals don't turn away people in an emergency. EDIT: To specifically answer your question, which i think is a good one: > When you give power to the state, are you going to ensure that no one you don't like will ever come into power? Yes! As they say, democracy is a 365 day-per-year job, and it's not a spectator sport. The only way to have a moral society is to participate.