Message from @Undead Mockingbird
Discord ID: 542780497122557963
That would not lie within any sort of rights. That would be a personal obligation (personal meaning that the person holding such obligation does so because they feel they need to, not out of any sort of forced or coerced obligation) to do so and feel it would be better of in their interest than in the child's or incapacitated person's best interest. Children are still of a developing mind, and do to this, and lack of experience, they require guidance from their parental figures. A person that is incapacitated is not of the right mind, or are unconscious. It is understandable that a person that cares for this individual would feel some sort of obligation to get that person out of harms way.
Sorry, I've no idea of these cases you are speaking of, and cannot address them directly in any matter as of right now.
That's okay, there were very high profile cases in the World media, but like I said it was reported on very poorly.
I see.
ive come to expect that from msm
Im back
Also the health is becoming a human rights issue. Vaccinations
Vaccinations moves into the category of greater good
But even here not all vaccines are free
I would have to pay £150 for rabies vaccinations
Yea. Itd be a problem if it wasnt enforced thoo
CDC and WHO are important
So certain things must be enforced on the basis of health
People have to remain healthy for everyone to stay healthy is what im trying to say.
The problem arises in that you don't want to have an enforced nanny state
like we have here
Somewhere in the middle really
It's difficult because damage to third parties can be hard to calculate.
But complications are arising.
Homeless ppl spreading diseases etc
In an ideal capitalist system, you would have to compensate others for the damage you do to them, such as pollution or spreading disease.
But, it's hard to measure damage to another sometimes, such as the amount of pollution you cause.
But wherever we can keep the state out of people's lives, we should.
Especially moralizing legislation. If people would not engage in some "greater good" under a free system, then that means you have to force it onto them if the state mandates it. You cannot position yourself as the moral superior and at the same time force people to be moral. That is what the state proclaims to do all the time, though.
Hete is another thing. The average median is about what you can value a human life. What they could be expected to both earn in a lifetime. The problem is most people can cause more damage around them or to themselves that far exceeds that value in any economic system
It breaks both the free market and socialism
That's not the only value.
I would still be valuable to my family if I was sick and could no longer work.
People think that we no longer value human life in a capitalist system.
But a capitalist system only expresses the values people place on things within it.
My family still values me. I have value and that value is expressed in the money they would exchange for my life.
Capitalism expresses whatever values the people within it hold it.
It's like electricity. It's not good or bad. It's whatever people choose to do with it.
I agree with that. In a free market the cost of living shouldnt exceed values
It wouldnt work, right?
It cannot exceed it.
Any system of economy simply "economizes" what value there is.
If you are on an island and have a 100 coconuts, you can put whatever price on them you like, but it doesn't mean you ever have more than 100 coconuts.
I can miscount, and as long as i never correct myself, ill have more
100 coconuts is alot to keep track of.
Im sure you know why i said that