The world I would love to live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

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.

---

I learned to think for myself and to not rely on others to do my thinking for me, constitutionally appointed or not. I have pointed out the specific immoral act of theft, but as you admit, others whom you deem to have a greater authority over you, and apparently have bigger brains than you, have decided differently, as they have said so. Therefore you are lead wherever they see fit, as you have given in to subjugation. Sad as you seem so against slavery, yet allow your mind to become a slave to the whims of your betters.

Yes, you're absolutely right, I did decide myself that I like living in this country and this society enslaved by its rules. I did and still have that choice and I'm perfectly fine with it.

I do wonder why you're not fending for yourself in say Somalia - the government there doesn't steal from the citizens, not for the lack of want, but for the lack of means and you could simply pay for the services you need to the non-government entities of which there are plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, you're absolutely right, I did decide myself that I like living in this country and this society enslaved by its rules. I did and still have that choice and I'm perfectly fine with it.

I do wonder why you're not fending for yourself in say Somalia - the government there doesn't steal from the citizens, not for the lack of want, but for the lack of means and you could simply pay for the services you need to the non-government entities of which there are plenty.

---

i think you and i are of a like mind on this one gugi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edhewitt

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

---

You make a false argument because no one is forced to live in America, and America is one of, if not the most, charitable nations in the world. There is no evidence that here everyone just looks out for their own interests and to the detriment of anyone else, in fact there is much to the contrary. And nothing I said suggests that I propose such a state of living. All that I have suggested is a search for ways and means of helping those in need without relying on acts of immorality. You and some of your supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is no other way to repair society but through the strong arm taking and redistribution of others peoples property against their will. Is it because the good intentions of the left are creating, via unintended consequences, an expanding class of welfare dependents to the point where voluntary charity can no longer meet the needs of those less fortunate? And common sense dictates that more of the same will continue to only exacerbate the problem. Over 80 years of progressive "do good" policy from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" and now "Hope and Change" seem to prove my theory as things seem to be getting worse and not better.

"You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there." Or I could stay here and do my part to end the insanity that left wing progressives have started. What was it that Burke said? Something about the only requirement for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. So thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, you're absolutely right, I did decide myself that I like living in this country and this society enslaved by its rules. I did and still have that choice and I'm perfectly fine with it.

I do wonder why you're not fending for yourself in say Somalia - the government there doesn't steal from the citizens, not for the lack of want, but for the lack of means and you could simply pay for the services you need to the non-government entities of which there are plenty.

---

Ah, but another false choice, this time it's either your way or anarchy. Why not the rule of law as written in the Constitution. Nice try, but no cigar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

You make a false argument because no one is forced to live in America, and America is one of, if not the most, charitable nations in the world. There is no evidence that here everyone just looks out for their own interests and to the detriment of anyone else, in fact there is much to the contrary. And nothing I said suggests that I propose such a state of living. All that I have suggested is a search for ways and means of helping those in need without relying on acts of immorality. You and some of your supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is no other way to repair society but through the strong arm taking and redistribution of others peoples property against their will. Is it because the good intentions of the left are creating, via unintended consequences, an expanding class of welfare dependents to the point where voluntary charity can no longer meet the needs of those less fortunate? And common sense dictates that more of the same will continue to only exacerbate the problem. Over 80 years of progressive "do good" policy from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" and now "Hope and Change" seem to prove my theory as things seem to be getting worse and not better.

"You could always move to a country that doesnt tax so highly and see how you like the lifestyle there." Or I could stay here and do my part to end the insanity that left wing progressives have started. What was it that Burke said? Something about the only requirement for evil to exist is for good men to do nothing. So thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

---

So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then? I suppose all companies could be nationalised with the profit going to the government to do with as required. Your wages adjusted to you post tax income and then not charge you any tax on the remainder.
Firstly I sho I lo clarify that I grew up in the uk, and am now living in Australia, but my opinion of your ideal society would be equally abhorrent to me wherever I lived.
Secondly I did not bring into question the generosity or otherwise of present day America, my comments were addressing your ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

All that I have suggested is a search for ways and means of helping those in need without relying on acts of immorality. You and some of your supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that there is no other way to repair society but through the strong arm taking and redistribution of others peoples property against their will. Is it because the good intentions of the left are creating, via unintended consequences, an expanding class of welfare dependents to the point where voluntary charity can no longer meet the needs of those less fortunate? And common sense dictates that more of the same will continue to only exacerbate the problem. Over 80 years of progressive "do good" policy from the "New Deal" to the "Great Society" and now "Hope and Change" seem to prove my theory as things seem to be getting worse and not better.

---

See, the problem is that you do not recognize all this immoral taxation is established in the very creation of this country and has been around since the beginning.
Even if you think the earlier taxation was fair, the excise act of 1791 is the type of immoral redistributive theft you have problem with and it's 2 years after the constitution - it was defended with a very real threat of violence by one of the most prominent founders. Way, way before your big enemies of 'new deal', 'liberals', 'great society', 'progressives', 'hope and change'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Ah, but another false choice, this time it's either your way or anarchy. Why not the rule of law as written in the Constitution. Nice try, but no cigar.

---

That's your own set up of choice because you are rejecting the constitutionally established rule of law in form of taxes enacted by the lawfully elected representatives, challenged in the constitutionally ordained court and reaffirmed (you know the "big brains I've deemed to have greater authority over me" and who have "enslaved me to their whims").

The only lawful way for this to change is if the american people vote different politicians in office, who would appoint different supreme court and then pass and affirm as constitutional laws to your liking. But as you can notice the country has been collectively choosing to go in a completely different direction.
BTW Somalia is not an anarchy - it does have a government but it's a very weak one - seems it is a lot closer to what you want than USA is (or ever were).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edhewitt

So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then? I suppose all companies could be nationalised with the profit going to the government to do with as required. Your wages adjusted to you post tax income and then not charge you any tax on the remainder.
Firstly I sho I lo clarify that I grew up in the uk, and am now living in Australia, but my opinion of your ideal society would be equally abhorrent to me wherever I lived.
Secondly I did not bring into question the generosity or otherwise of present day America, my comments were addressing your ideas.

---

"So how do you propose that these in need are assisted then?" - Just like any problem, first we have to discover the cause of the problem then decide on the cure.

So in Australia your natural right to defend your life, life itself being a natural right worth defending, has been infringed upon by your government by means that I'm not allowed to discuss on SRP. Do you not find that policy abhorrent? Do you think a government that thinks so little of it's citizens to relegate them to the status of helpless and dependent victims is part of an ideal society?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

See, the problem is that you do not recognize all this immoral taxation is established in the very creation of this country and has been around since the beginning.
Even if you think the earlier taxation was fair, the excise act of 1791 is the type of immoral redistributive theft you have problem with and it's 2 years after the constitution - it was defended with a very real threat of violence by one of the most prominent founders. Way, way before your big enemies of 'new deal', 'liberals', 'great society', 'progressives', 'hope and change'...



That's your own set up of choice because you are rejecting the constitutionally established rule of law in form of taxes enacted by the lawfully elected representatives, challenged in the constitutionally ordained court and reaffirmed (you know the "big brains I've deemed to have greater authority over me" and who have "enslaved me to their whims").

The only lawful way for this to change is if the american people vote different politicians in office, who would appoint different supreme court and then pass and affirm as constitutional laws to your liking. But as you can notice the country has been collectively choosing to go in a completely different direction.
BTW Somalia is not an anarchy - it does have a government but it's a very weak one - seems it is a lot closer to what you want than USA is (or ever were).

---

You speak in half truths. The Constitution does give the authority to tax, but just because Mom said you can have one cookie doesn't mean you can take five. Even if big brother says it's OK.

I agree that American voters who are the product of the heavily progressive left American public education system have made some really stupid choices over the years. And that the representatives that they have elected have taken full advantage of their powers of office and, in many cases, exploited their positions to the fullest extent possible. You have no argument from me there.

I gave you specific example showing the number of cookies the constitution and the very people who wrote it intended us have is not restricted by a limit you think exists.

If you want to continue pursuing this direction of argument, I would request that you address this issue. Just repeating that it's the progressives' fault for making the country stupid doesn't make it so.

Benjamin Franklin supposedly said that it's up to the rest of the country to keep (and therefore change if it chooses so) the system of government from the constitution (or whatever way the founders wanted it). It would seem to me they were fully aware of the possibilities that the constitution allows and didn't want to restrict them any further than they did.

Or as I said at the very beginning of my participation in this thread - this country is the result of the constitutional framework and the voting of the people (yes the one big exception is the civil war which directly violated the constitutionally established processes when it didn't produce the outcome desired by the union states).