From the comments:
"I feel like I'm missing something because there are a lot of posts here that seem to be against collectively paying for education/healthcare/renewable-resources.
Do people disagree with the idea of AOCs post - that we have a responsibility to support all members of our society (and people joining our society) with healthcare, education, and a habitable environment?
Could someone that is calling for the reduction of taxes or the eschewing of socialism pick one of the topics (healthcare, education, clean planet) and explain to me how our society is better off if not everyone has it? or why it is not their responsibility to help provide it?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a world of finite resources, you have to prioritize how you spend your money. And people of good will disagree on what those priorities should be.
Maybe for you and AOC, the highest priorities are education, healthcare, and climate risk reduction. But for others, it might be reducing the risk of nuclear war, anti-aging research, or pro-immigration advocacy.
Whose priorities should win out? In the absence of state coercion, everyone could spend the money on the priorities they value the most, instead of being forced to spend on the priorities of authoritarian politicians.
Left leaning folks tend to be quite adamant that consent requires an explicit "yes means yes" and that silence is not consent when it comes to sexual interactions. In my opinion, that standard should apply to _all_ human interactions, not just those of a sexual nature.
"I feel like I'm missing something because there are a lot of posts here that seem to be against collectively paying for education/healthcare/renewable-resources.
Do people disagree with the idea of AOCs post - that we have a responsibility to support all members of our society (and people joining our society) with healthcare, education, and a habitable environment?
Could someone that is calling for the reduction of taxes or the eschewing of socialism pick one of the topics (healthcare, education, clean planet) and explain to me how our society is better off if not everyone has it? or why it is not their responsibility to help provide it?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a world of finite resources, you have to prioritize how you spend your money. And people of good will disagree on what those priorities should be.
Maybe for you and AOC, the highest priorities are education, healthcare, and climate risk reduction. But for others, it might be reducing the risk of nuclear war, anti-aging research, or pro-immigration advocacy.
Whose priorities should win out? In the absence of state coercion, everyone could spend the money on the priorities they value the most, instead of being forced to spend on the priorities of authoritarian politicians.
Left leaning folks tend to be quite adamant that consent requires an explicit "yes means yes" and that silence is not consent when it comes to sexual interactions. In my opinion, that standard should apply to _all_ human interactions, not just those of a sexual nature.