The world I would love to live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Good questions all, but I don't necessarily have answers. It's apparent to me though that the current solutions are compromising the original intent of the law, if you agree that the purpose of law is to protect property. Forcibly taking property from one without fair compensation, in order to give to another, is usually called theft, and seems to me to be a betrayal of the purpose of the law. Unless you believe the purpose of laws are to inflict harm upon those who elect legislators who make the laws. To me, that makes no sense, unless the purpose is to make laws that are expedient to any solution regardless of effect on the people. But once again, that also seems to go against the purpose of laws assuming you believe laws are there to protect and not harm. I suppose it also depends on your definition of harm. If you don't mind having your property taken from you, in other words you feel that your property is going to a good cause, then you might not feel harmed by the taking. But then why the need for a law forcing the taking of property when you can voluntarily give your property to the cause without coercion? In other words charity. And just because no one will voluntarily pony up and give to the cause, is that justification to steal? In your mind is there ever a justification to steal? Just because something is called a "tax" does that fool you into believing the "tax" is not really a theft? Do you know the difference? Do you believe solutions should avoid harming at all cost? Or do you believe that the ends always justify the means regardless of harm or burden. Consider the rule in medicine of "First do no harm." Should legislators be held to the same standard?

Who wouldn't gladly pay their share for national defense, police and fire services, roads maintenance, etc. all the things that the Federal and State Constitutions authorize? Anyone who thinks these things could be done privately needs to seriously rethink the issue. In fact, prior to the federal constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were attempting to do many of these things individually, and it wasn't working too well. Therefore creating a strong case for federalism which a majority of states eventually agreed to and ratified.

As to your last sentence, if you stopped paying your taxes you'd be in trouble, of course. But not all of your taxes paid are returned to you as a service. Some of that money pays for things having nothing to do with you. I make too much money to qualify for EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc. But I certainly contribute as a tax payer to those programs. It's still theft no matter how you cut it. Social Security? Am I getting the ROI I would have gotten had I invested on my own? Probably not even close. The loss in returns, not due to risk but due to government intervention, is probably an SEC violation at least, under any other circumstance. Placing government in between you and those who benefit from your money, or causing you to loose money makes it no less of a theft or violation. Rationalizing it however you want changes nothing.

---

You use a somewhat interesting but inconsistent definition of "stealing". When applied to the process of government tax collection and spending you believe if your taxes are spent on services you personally agree with then the taxes were collected legally. Conversely if spent on services you disagree with they magically become illegal. The act of spending doesn't determine the legality of the assessment and collection process. Laws do. Specifically tax law. Rationalizing it as a theft however you want doesn't change the fact that it is not theft.

I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage. Imagine the social ramifications of not having these programs. What's the likely result? Increased unrest? Crime? Desperation leads normally law abiding people to cross socially acceptable lines. Some may have a direct affect on you personally. If your tax dollars help to keep this from happening would you still consider if theft or would you rather spend more tax dollars on increased policing hoping to never hear the sound of breaking glass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenngun

You use a somewhat interesting but inconsistent definition of "stealing". When applied to the process of government tax collection and spending you believe if your taxes are spent on services you personally agree with then the taxes were collected legally. Conversely if spent on services you disagree with they magically become illegal. The act of spending doesn't determine the legality of the assessment and collection process. Laws do. Specifically tax law. Rationalizing it as a theft however you want doesn't change the fact that it is not theft.

I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage. Imagine the social ramifications of not having these programs. What's the likely result? Increased unrest? Crime? Desperation leads normally law abiding people to cross socially acceptable lines. Some may have a direct affect on you personally. If your tax dollars help to keep this from happening would you still consider if theft or would you rather spend more tax dollars on increased policing hoping to never hear the sound of breaking glass?

---

From reading your post it appears you've either misread or misunderstood by posts. My belief on taxation has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone else, agrees with a service. In other words you think I'm saying, 'it's OK to take my wallet if you're going to feed your kids, but not OK if you're just going to buy booze for yourself' as though there are acceptable and unacceptable conditions for taking my wallet! That is a completely bogus argument. You've twisted the emphasis away from the wrong, the taking of the wallet, and placed the emphasis on what the wallet would be used for. That was not my argument at all!

My argument is that a theft is a theft is a theft regardless of how the proceeds of the theft are used. You seem unable to recognize what theft is, and have learned to rationalize and justify theft, just so long as YOU agree with the the reasoning for the theft. You are the one arguing that agreeing, or disagreeing, is the issue. You make an argument that thieves should be able to keep stolen property as long as the property is spent wisely ("I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage."). Therefore, had John Dillinger decided to wisely redistribute the proceeds from his bank robberies, and give back the money to those he deemed needful in his community, he should have been considered a hero and not a criminal. Your argument seems to support this. As long as a majority consensus agrees (votes) that under certain circumstances it's OK to take other peoples property (theft) and give it away to other people (redistribute) then hey, it's no longer theft, it's wise spending! What a bunch of sophist hogwash!

You then argue a either or "lesser of two evils" rational of 'you better let us pick your pockets, or worse things will happen!' As though being held hostage under threat is an acceptable alternative to finding solutions that involve no corruption. And this you call "progress."

You know the old saying "your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts". You have conveniently altered the term theft to define your own objectives and then go from there. Most would not agree with you. Maybe that's the tea party line of reasoning, I don't know.

It's ain't mainstream.

How about this fact:

A crime is usually defined as an act (actus rea) coupled with intent (mens rea).

Definition of Theft: The felonious, or unlawful taking/ removal, of personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property.

The intent of redistribution is absolutely to deprive the rightful owner of his/ her property and to give that property to others for whatever reasons deemed appropriate.

You could argue that "legalizing" the act of taking property for the purposes of redistribution changes the act such that it is no longer an "unlawful" act. But changing the legal status of the act does not change the moral status of the act (Remember our discussion about slavery? It was legal, but not moral). Taking is still taking.

Apparently there are those who prefer to ignore morality in favor of gain, which was the argument of the slave owner. And some of you seem to agree with the reasoning of the slave owner. Morality seems to be your whole argument against the Constitution (the 3/5's clause/ slavery), but in the case of redistribution, acting immoral is just fine. Very inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

How about this fact:

A crime is usually defined as an act (actus rea) coupled with intent (mens rea).

Definition of Theft: The felonious, or unlawful taking/ removal, of personal property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property.

The intent of redistribution is absolutely to deprive the rightful owner of his/ her property and to give that property to others for whatever reasons deemed appropriate.

You could argue that "legalizing" the act of taking property for the purposes of redistribution changes the act such that it is no longer an "unlawful" act. But changing the legal status of the act does not change the moral status of the act (Remember our discussion about slavery? It was legal, but not moral). Taking is still taking.

---

That is not what you've been arguing so far. Until now what the money was spent on determined whether you consider it legitimate or illegitimate tax (your own words).

Post 169:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Some people seem honestly confused regarding legitimate tax and illegitimate tax. The Constitution authorizes Congress to tax for certain common authorized services (Title 1, sec 8) things such as national defense and postal roads. These are services that we all want our government to provide, and we all gladly pay for. It is the same for state and local taxes/ services such as fire and police. We all want those common service and have no issue paying for them.

Since about the time just before 1920, the federal government started imposing taxes that violate the Constitutions original intent in giving Congress the power to tax. This is what I think most people are, or should be, upset about. It is one thing for taxpayers to pay a tax for a common service of which they all benefit. It's completely another issue when taxpayers are forced under fear of penalty, to pay a tax for a service that is delivered to others who may have paid little to nothing.

---

Post 184:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

A common service we all use: Police and Fire services - we could all be individually responsible for our own policing and fire, but we as a society have agreed that such a system would be chaotic and inefficient, therefore we gladly pay a tax to government in order to provide those services for us. True that there will be those that benefit from those same services and have not paid into the system, but at least those who have paid get exactly what they paid for. And in this system, no one is forced to buy anything.

---

Post 189:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Who wouldn't gladly pay their share for national defense, police and fire services, roads maintenance, etc. all the things that the Federal and State Constitutions authorize?

---

Your new position seem to be that all taxes are theft (actus rea), regardless of what they are later spent on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

That is not what you've been arguing so far. Until now what the money was spent on determined whether you consider it legitimate or illegitimate tax (your own words).

Post 169:


Post 184:


Post 189:


Your new position seem to be that all taxes are theft (actus rea), regardless of what they are later spent on.

---

Obviously you have difficulty understanding my posts. Maybe resulting from the same origin as your difficulty and inconsistencies with moral/ legal issues. :shrug:

You made a snide comment at one point about me expecting you to chew my food for me yet, you seem to expect the same from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Obviously you have difficulty understanding my posts. Maybe resulting from the same origin as your difficulty and inconsistencies with moral/ legal issues. :shrug:

---

May be, that's why I put your own quotes which to me seem to contradict your latest position.
Oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

May be, that's why I put your own quotes which to me seem to contradict your latest position.
Oh well...

---

Well, technically something immoral can be legitimate as I've explained. I chose the term illegitimate tax to distinguish between taxes collected morally and immorally. Maybe I used incorrect terminology and I'll admit that. But my point remains constant. But you were unwilling to concede, during our argument, to the legitimacy of slavery when discussing the 3/5's clause. Your entire case for dismissing the Constitution was based on the immorality of slavery when nowhere, in the Constitution, is slavery made legal, but only acknowledged for the purpose of counting votes for state representatives. So are you now admitting that slavery was a legitimate practice, although immoral?

And if so, how were the founders wrong, as you said "dead wrong," about the 3/5's clause? They did not create slavery. I suppose it's possible they could have just ended slavery with the Constitution and won the battle right there, but then probably lost the war of federalizing the states which to them seemed more important at the time. Fortunately the Lockean principals of natural rights, the protection of which were expressly codified into law via the Constitution, were largely responsible for the eventual end to slavery in the US.

And what do you say about current law, such as ACA, which, unlike the Constitution, expressly legitimizes and encodes into law certain acts of immorality? How can you defend the one while condemning the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

But you were unwilling to concede, during our argument, to the legitimacy of slavery when discussing the 3/5's clause. Your entire case for dismissing the Constitution was based on the immorality of slavery when nowhere, in the Constitution, is slavery made legal, but only acknowledged for the purpose of counting votes for state representatives. So are you now admitting that slavery was a legitimate practice, although immoral?

---

I thought it is obvious that the only argument about a foundational law such as the constitution can be from moral standpoint. The authority to write anything they wanted came from outgunning their former rulers.
Yes, I understand that it was done out of political necessity, but I don't think that makes it morally right, given their own moral viewpoints. I hope this finally clarifies my argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

And what do you say about current law, such as ACA, which, unlike the Constitution, expressly legitimizes and encodes into law certain acts of immorality? How can you defend the one while condemning the other?

---

I say it is constitutional because the constitutionally appointed authority to make the determination has said so.
You would have to point out the specific immoral acts which were expressly legitimized, but I suspect that when you determine what is moral you may be prioritizing different criteria differently and therefore come up with different outcome.

My earlier reference to the excise act illustrates the practice of taxing somebody to pay for somebody else's benefit dates from the beginning. Only the whiskey distillers were made to pay for something from which the bakers, smiths, cobblers, fishermen, etc. all benefitted.

honedright,
I sincerely hope i am never forced to live in the sort of society that you seem to want, where everyone only pays for and looks after their own interests.
I am going to make a presumption that not one member of your family has ever claimed any sort of assistance from the government to assist them financially, and i also assume that you wont be either, and that you pay for ALLof your own medical bils etc out of your own pocket, i truely hope that one day you dont find yourself in need of such assistance but if you ever do i am almost 100% positive you will be glad of it, well unless you want your family eating from rubbish bins and living under cardboard.

As a society it is that societies responsiblity to extend assistance to those in need of it, as a child of a single mother i grew up in council housing and benefitted from the fact that my mothers meagre income was bolstered by various government benefits. If i had grown up in the sort of society that you seem to favour i would probably be unskilled and potentially homeless.

I now earn very good money and pay a very large amount of tax, and i dont begrudge it at all.
You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there.

Regards ed