>I wrote a long post in response
I'd still love to see it.
>but then I remembered that when a person uses their feelings to argue, you cannot counter-argue them with logic.
My last post listed facts... and you didn't exactly address them. Also there is nothing more frustrating when arguing with libertarians, neo-reactionaries, republicans, etc. than when they bust out the "stupid liberal emotions" trope. Try to be honest with your argumentation, you don't believe what you believe because you're more honest or smarter or more logical than I am. It's just your belief. You may have facts to back them up but I do as well, why we find those facts comes from our belief system.
>what if you are wrong? what then? what if the morality you speak of here is actually injustice and evil itself disguised as goodness and justice? what remedy do I have against your tyranny?
You mean to ask do I take responsibility for being an evil tyrant if I am secretly an evil tyrant? I suppose I do but reject the premise.
>Ever stopped to think about that? I get that you believe that society's role is to take from X and give to Y. But what IF that belief is wrong? aren't you then responsible for all the pain and suffering that is to take place due to your beliefs?
I openly advocate for redistribution and if redistribution is "wrong" and causes all sorts of pain and suffering then sure I'll take my share of responsibility. Once again though, I reject the premise.
*
Now that I've answered that let me pose the same to you. What if you are wrong? If redistribution is a vital tool in order to give people a fair shot at life, do you take responsibility for depriving them of that? What if your beliefs are evil and used by powerful interests to entrench the already powerful?