A: I agree and support free water movement in all F&B:
Mandate that businesses serve free water
B: Translated: Let's force businesses to act against their judgement/self-interest because I want free water
A: self-interest without consideration of the greater common good may destroy the very environment that keep us healthy if not alive.
B: If something acts against a restaurant owner's individual good - how can it be said to be for the "common/public" good? Unless you're saying that the restaurant owner is not part of the "common/public"?
A: individual benefit must not outweigh or compromise the common good.
B: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that individual benefit makes up the common good. The common good is nothing except for the collection of individual goods. If you deny one individual good - then it ceases to be for the common good.
Me: So we shouldn't ban smoking in hospitals. Even if 100 patients die it's bad to deny a smoker's rights
B: I’m sure private hospitals ban smoking too. See - I’m for private regulation, not public regulation.
Me: So private hospitals can ban smoking but not public ones?
B: At least where the “right to ban” is concerned. Because public ones are funded by all taxpayers (smoking ones included) - they have to serve them all equally. Private ones don’t have such moral obligations.
My stance applies equally for public schools - that because they take taxpayers monies, they should teach all ideas equally (both for and against the government). Private schools don't have such moral obligations either.
Me: Creationism?
B: If they are a private school, sure. Public schools, they are morally obligated to teach creationism and non-creationism, because there are both creationists and non-creationists funding them.
Me: There're flat earther taxpayers too. Time to expand the curriculum!
Ridiculous as this may seem, there're strong parallels with the stance that "if the government gives an organisation $1, that means the government endorses everything it does"