If right-wing politics is about opposing sharing, is it wrong to need shared logic? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15006291
Thomasmariel wrote:Is it rational, and fair, if while right-wing politics celebrates private ownership it simultaneously needs shared logic across peoples?


Dear @Thomasmariel
the opposition is against Abusing Govt to FORCE sharing against people's free choice and beliefs.
However, if people form contracts and decide DEMOCRATICALLY the AGREED TERMS of services and sharing
by "consent of the governed" then this is NOT oppressive or abuse of govt.

Does this clarify the difference?

When conservatives Christians and Constitutionalist promote sharing
it is VOLUNTARY through charities like church or nonprofit programs.

For laws to be public and mandatory through govt, then there
must be CONSENT of the public to prevent "taxation without representation" or tyranny.

In other words, even when you WANT to establish a common agreement or shared logic/beliefs,
this MUST be achieved by FREE CHOICE, free will, reasoning, informed consent or educated choice.

It cannot be FORCED on people through govt or it's not truly the will of the people.
#15006357
MrWonderful wrote:I wondered how a post could have more than 3,700 views and not one reply. Now I know.

"That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." - Famous physicist's reply to something like this OP.

It's election season again. Look to see roboposts and roboresponses from NPCs. Notice the sudden increase in participation from people who post, but have a hard time carrying on a conversation? It's paid political posting. Some of it is mostly programmatic and you can see the same posts across many forums all designed to try to shape your opinion.
#15129157
emilynghiem wrote:
Dear @Thomasmariel
the opposition is against Abusing Govt to FORCE sharing against people's free choice and beliefs.
However, if people form contracts and decide DEMOCRATICALLY the AGREED TERMS of services and sharing
by "consent of the governed" then this is NOT oppressive or abuse of govt.

Does this clarify the difference?

When conservatives Christians and Constitutionalist promote sharing
it is VOLUNTARY through charities like church or nonprofit programs.

For laws to be public and mandatory through govt, then there
must be CONSENT of the public to prevent "taxation without representation" or tyranny.

In other words, even when you WANT to establish a common agreement or shared logic/beliefs,
this MUST be achieved by FREE CHOICE, free will, reasoning, informed consent or educated choice.

It cannot be FORCED on people through govt or it's not truly the will of the people.



So this sentiment of yours would include *this* action, correct?



Unprecedented in size and scope,[9] the legislation is the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history,[14] amounting to 10% of total U.S. gross domestic product.[15] The bill is larger than the $831 billion stimulus act passed in 2009 as part of the response to the Great Recession.[15] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will add $1.7 trillion to the deficits over the 2020–2030 period, with nearly all the impact in 2020 and 2021.[16]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARES_Act
Election 2020

@ingliz I find these clips in black and white o[…]

@Wellsy one should the Socratic method when tryi[…]

November 26, Wednesday President Lincoln goes d[…]

I did say that he governed like a 4chan troll once[…]