How is forcing someone to pay for something you are morally against NOT forcing your beliefs on them

[Drawdown]

The law enforcement museum site disagrees.



Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing – National Law Enforcement Museum

No it does not. "An early form" is not the same thing as "The first form" or "The earliest form".

"During the American colonial period prior to the American Revolution the first type of police in the colonies were county sheriffs. The sheriffs not only kept the peace and fought crime, but also performed various legal functions such as serving court papers, collecting taxes, maintaining jails, and supervising elections. To assist sheriffs were undersheriffs, jailers, county clerks, and deputy sheriffs. The towns, still small in size, had volunteer constables and night watchmen.

Colonial governors often appointed the sheriffs and constables. Boston was the first colonial settlement to use night watchmen beginning in the 1630s. Besides watching for crime and spotting fires, night watchmen would also announce the time and weather conditions. Constables delivered warrants, supervised the night watchmen, and carried out the routine local government functions of the community. Over time, cities added town marshals, city councils, and justices to backup the constables and watchmen."

Policing - Early Policing - Police, Night, Watchmen, and Constables
- JRank Articles

 

[uptower]

Or religion in schools or tax cuts for the rich or forcing someone to pay the rest of their lives for a child they don't want...externalities like pollution, or guns all over the place, the list goes on.

 

[Craig234]

I guess from the thread title someone is against democracy, and if one American objects to a spending item, then the rest of the is prohibited from spending tax dollars on it. There's always civil disobedience, object by leaving the country or not paying taxes and going to jail.

 

[roguenuke]

Early American cops were charged with slave patrol and retuning runaway slaves.

This was not the purpose of officers everywhere though nor their origin, nor did most "police" do this. Modern police evolved much more from city "watchers", who were kinda like jury duty and community watch. Not only could you pay someone to take your watch (so well off people didn't need to do it, they paid others, which is actually a reason for the Irish/Scottish heritage integrations in most modern city police forces), but the well off business owners and politicians could also pay officers to watch out and do things specifically for their interests.

Slave patrols existed only in slave states, but modern policing has its roots in the northern cities, urban areas far more than the Southern, slave states.

This is a very disingenuous view of the modern police origins, claiming it evolved from slave patrols, as it fails to recognize so much more that went on and the differentiated origins of policing in our country and it infers that this is the principles that modern policing is based off of. It actually isn't.

Sir Robert Peel is seen as the "Father of Modern Policing". He set forth the principles that even our own country does use, in part/places, when it comes to policing, just not to the same extent as others countries. We do have a lot of work to do within our country to adhere better, but that is one reason training should be emphasized, and include these things, as they were included when I studied criminology.





Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[ElChupacabra]

'

Once they receive the actual paycheck, legally that's their business. If I have to pay for your healthcare coverage to fund it, or pay for it through taxes, that's mine. May I add that I said previously on these boards that I support privatizing the military.

Then in that case, the individual can obtain whatever procedure they wish with the money that's been deducted from their pay check to date. What you're proposing makes no practical sense since by the logic you proposed above, someone could still choose whatever procedure they wish since employees are active contributors to their healthcare.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, benefits are not part of your salary. Your employer still pays for it. If they pick out what benefits to give you, than it's their business.

Your salary and benefits are calculated in the cost of the company to employ you. The company is subsidizing part of health insurance cost of which you pay a portion that's deducted from your paycheck. Depending on the company, you may have a choice in which plans are available, but often it's a small selection of providers and plan options. The employee then chooses from the provided plans which vary in coverage.

What if I stated that guy down the street is constantly harassing me. He's bad for my health. Hence, my insurance should pay for him to be killed. Same difference.

Weird that you choose death as the solution.

 

[HonestJoe]

For example on abortion (but it can go for many things): Leftists like to say it's not their employer's business whether or not their employee has an abortion. Okay, I'll go with that. But part of them saying that it's "not their business" is that when their employer gives her health insurance, that it should include paying for abortions. Can you say hypocrisy!?!? If you are making your employer pay for your abortion, you ARE FORCING IT on him.

Indirectly maybe, but what it the practical alternative? You can't have a situation where an employer is involved in clinical decisions for an employee just because the insurance came via their job. What if an employer objects to blood-transfusions, organ transplants or female doctors? What if they oppose modern medicine entirely? What if the employer suddenly changes their mind on what they disprove of?

And what about other things employers are required to support; religious accommodations, health and safety regulations, licencing and registration, checking for illegal immigrants etc. By your argument, any employer should be able to avoid having those moral beliefs forced on them too.

 

[Bodi]

Some people say abortion doesn't benefit society.

Abortion has nothing to do with benefiting society... although I would say that it can easily benefit society more to abort than to keep the baby.

Also some people say that abortion is forcing your beliefs on the unborn baby, saying he/she has no right to live.

Nobody has a right to live... we have a right to not be murdered.