[mundo]

> "Nobody should go hungry, so everyone should be able to eat anywhere they want and not look at the tab".

This is a violation of the most oft-ignored HN guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

What the moral argument side is saying is that it is immoral for a country this rich to not provide socialized healthcare up to a certain level. What level, specifically? I don't know. I'm guessing it would probably include a diabetic's insulin, and would not include a smoker's lung transplant. The point is, (according to the argument you're disagreeing with) there is a level and it should be higher than it is now.

What you did with your straw-man quote - "everyone should be able to eat anywhere they want and not look at the tab" is set the level at infinity, so that the argument is trivially wrong and easy to defeat. You've done the same elsewhere: "The logical consequence of this is that any cost must be paid" and "If its rationed then some people are going to be left out, and the moral argument crumbles, as people that need it don't get it." This doesn't get us anywhere.

Try, before responding to an argument, paraphrasing it such that the person who you're arguing with would agree. If you can't do that - if you can't restate their position in a way that they would say, "Yeah, that is indeed my position" - then you don't understand it well enough to argue against it.

[conanbatt]

Lets do that excercise "It is immoral for wealth to exist in a way that, properly distributed, would solve the fundamental necessities of people. Thus, wealth should be confiscated until this goal is achieved for morality"

And I answer "the very application of that goal will be immoral because it will take from all and give to all, and will do so unevenly on both ends while also destroy a part of everything levied."

[mundo]

> "It is immoral for wealth to exist in a way that, properly distributed, would solve the fundamental necessities of people. Thus, wealth should be confiscated until this goal is achieved for morality"

I don't believe anyone in this thread would say, "Yes, that is what I was arguing." I don't believe you do either. Stop trying to jujitsu random passersby in to discussing your preferred topic with you and the downvotes will abate.