Quote from: m0gliE on February 25, 2016, 01:52:58 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on February 25, 2016, 02:46:11 AM

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn?
Well it's already the case no?

And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law?

If a group of men have the power or the right to take the possessions of another person, then those men are not equal under the law. That is how socialism is not compatible with what I am saying.