Thread: The world I would love to live in.

I am amazed by some of the attitudes in this thread. At one point several posters condemn the US Constitution based on the immorality of slavery. At the same time they support the immorality of the involuntary taking of wealth from one to give to another, redistribution. While the taking involved in redistribution may have been legitimized via legislation, just as slavery was, the taking is still immoral, just as slavery is. It appears that many of the posters here will support immoral acts just as long as they either agree with the ends justifying the means, or agree because they have something to gain from the immoral act. No different than the mindset of the slave owners of the old south. And some of the most blatant hypocrisy and greed that I've ever encountered.

Then I pointed out how some governments blatantly infringe upon their citizens natural rights, and I'm met in turn with some kind of weird "Stockholm Syndrome" rationalization and support of the infringement! A false "sour grapes" type argument such as - "Well I don't really need that anyway" or "I don't want to live in a place like that anyway." That's not the point! The point is that your rights have been stepped on and you are arguing in favor of those that have screwed you! It's nonsense!

Finally another poster, who is master of the false argument, logical fallacy and double talk (giving him/ her the benefit of the doubt here), meant to confuse, twist and obfuscate the truth, argues that it is the fault of the voter. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The US Constitution was set up with checks and balances, and rules of law, to prevent arbitrary "Majority rules" voting. The founders were very aware of the pitfalls and dangers of pure democracy and the threat of "tyranny of the majority." True the Constitution can be amended, but only through two very tedious processes designed to make it difficult to achieve and prevent frivolous and/or factious changes to the law. The answer is that the rule of law has been violated by subversive representatives hateful of the Constitution and bent on reform, the rule book has been adulterated and opportunists have taken over. Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest (but I'm sure you mean well and have the best of intentions).

Originally Posted by honedright

While the taking involved in redistribution may have been legitimized via legislation, just as slavery was, the taking is still immoral, just as slavery is.

Well, you know, how these two issues were resolved. The first in 1850 the second in 1791.

Originally Posted by honedright

Finally another poster, who is master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth, argues that it is the fault of the voter. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The US Constitution was set up with checks and balances, and rules of law, to prevent, and make it illegal to allow arbitrary "Majority rules" voting. The founders were very aware of the pitfalls of democracy and the threat of "tyranny of the majority."

First let me note that your calling me "master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth" reflects more on you than on me.
Instead of empty assertions and general platitudes, may be you could offer logical reasoning as to why when something has ben done entirely in the constitutionally established manner, you still call it anticonstitutional? You may not like the way the elected representatives, have understood and applied the constitution, but still that's who is appointed to make those calls and not you personally.

I understand your rejection of taxation based on immorality, but it has been vetted by those very checks and balances.
And like it or not, the constitution establishes majority rule, even if it's not in the most simplistic 50%+1 form. When a big majority of the voters want something it simply gets done through the legislation process. Frankly, I find far more troubling "minority rules", but again this political corruption happens only because the voters allow it to happen.

Originally Posted by honedright

Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest.

Arguing your position better would be far more productive than simply calling people names.

Originally Posted by honedright

At one point several posters condemn the US Constitution based on the immorality of slavery. At the same time they support the immorality of the involuntary taking of wealth from one to give to another, redistribution.

See, this is were you are assuming things on others behalf that is simply put wrong.
There is no immorality in redistribution.
I live in a country were taxes are way higher than most any American would be able to accept.
And you know what? I voted for the party responsible for most of them.
I see quite the opposite of immorality in taxes, and taxing the wealthier more than the poor.

What I see is a community were everybody gets the same chances in life, be it healthcare or education to name a couple things.
And lo and behold, that seems to work just fine and dandy for the vast majority of us.
In short, I pay my taxes with pride, send my kids to public school everyday without any fear of a Sandy Hook incident and when my neighbour gets sick I'm happy that I have contributed in some small ways to her speedy recovery..
Viewed in that light I don't mind one bit paying USD12 per gallon of fuel.

The ego-centricity and lack of social conscience in the system you describe is something I would never want to be part of.
Me, myself and I, screw all them others, right?

Originally Posted by gugi

First let me note that your calling me "master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth" reflects more on you than on me.

Well, I never mentioned your name, but if the shoe fits...

And what is that last part? "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"? Funny, but a bit juvenile.

Originally Posted by gugi

Instead of empty assertions and general platitudes, may be you could offer logical reasoning as to why when something has ben done entirely in the constitutionally established manner, you still call it anticonstitutional? You may not like the way the elected representatives, have understood and applied the constitution, but still that's who is appointed to make those calls and not you personally.

And you are speaking in generalities. What was done in a "constitutionally established" manner? Established by who and when? And since when is ignorance an excuse to violate the law?

Originally Posted by gugi

I understand your rejection of taxation based on immorality, but it has been vetted by those very checks and balances.
And like it or not, the constitution establishes majority rule, even if it's not in the most simplistic 50%+1 form. When a big majority of the voters want something it simply gets done through the legislation process. Frankly, I find far more troubling "minority rules", but again this political corruption happens only because the voters allow it to happen.

Once again you falsely rationalize immorality. And the majority can only vote for those things allowed by law. Once the law becomes perverted, the "checks and balances" become meaningless.

Originally Posted by gugi

Arguing your position better would be far more productive than simply calling people names.

Another false argument (big surprise!) No facts as to what is wrong with my argument beyond your opinion,

Originally Posted by Birnando

See, this is were you are assuming things on others behalf that is simply put wrong.
There is no immorality in redistribution.
I live in a country were taxes are way higher than most any American would be able to accept.
And you know what? I voted for the party responsible for most of them.
I see quite the opposite of immorality in taxes, and taxing the wealthier more than the poor.

What I see is a community were everybody gets the same chances in life, be it healthcare or education to name a couple things.
And lo and behold, that seems to work just fine and dandy for the vast majority of us.
In short, I pay my taxes with pride, send my kids to public school everyday without any fear of a Sandy Hook incident and when my neighbour gets sick I'm happy that I have contributed in some small ways to her speedy recovery..
Viewed in that light I don't mind one bit paying USD12 per gallon of fuel.

The ego-centricity and lack of social conscience in the system you describe is something I would never want to be part of.
Me, myself and I, screw all them others, right?

You talk about high taxes like it's a good thing. Like you're proud that more of your stuff gets taken from you than anybody else in America. Like "yeah baby, I could give it away all I want, to anyone I want, but man, they just take it from me, and...yeah...that's cool."

There is no immorality in redistribution? Prove your claim as I think you moral compass is off. Just because you, and everyone else vote for and agree with something immoral does not make it less immoral. And you also generalize falsely. I never said that taxes in general are immoral. In fact I argued that some taxes are completely moral and justified. But taking something from somebody just because they have more of it than others is OK with you? Once again, check your moral compass. And my arguing against immoral solutions in favor of a system that solves it's problems without harming others is ego-centric and lacks social conscience?? Yeah, your compass is broked.

And that part about "it works fine for the vast majority of us" implies that there is a minority that it does not work for at all. But to hell with them right? Some social conscience.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, I never mentioned your name, but if the shoe fits...

You very specifically referenced something that only I posted, 'voter', even though you added your own emotional coloring to it 'fault', so no, you can't not hid behind an ambiguity because you were very specifically addressing me.

Originally Posted by honedright

And what is that last part? "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"? Funny, but a bit juvenile.

See above - when you resort to the characterizations you made towards me instead of arguing with reason, logic, and facts, that does reflect on you.

Originally Posted by honedright

And you are speaking in generalities. What was done in a "constitutionally established" manner? Established by who and when? And since when is ignorance an excuse to violate the law?

Laws about taxation were created by the legislative body created by the constitution in order to pass laws.
Enforcement of these laws is done by the executive body created by the constitution in order to execute them.
Disputes as to the constitutionality of these laws were resolved by the judicial body created by the constitution in order to resolve such disputes.
As far as immorality - I posed to you the case of "Whiskey Rebellion" - that resulted from the same redistributive amoral taxation that you hate. You still haven't explained the lack of outcry from all of the people who wrote the constitution just a couple of years earlier, if this was so opposite of what they intended.

Originally Posted by honedright

Once again you falsely rationalize immorality. And the majority can only vote for those things allowed by law. Once the law becomes perverted, the "checks and balances" become meaningless.

According to the constitution the laws are created by the US Congress - they can create any law they want. If anybody thinks a particular law is unconstitutional they can challenge it in the Supreme Court and the result is the only constitutionally sanctioned answer. This is what 'check and balances' actually means and how it works - it is not an abstract ideological phrase.
The constitution doesn't appoint you as the authority of when a law is perverted - that's for the Supreme Court to decide, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by honedright

Another false argument (big surprise!) No facts as to what is wrong with my argument beyond your opinion,

When you post an argument I have addressed it. However, "Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest." is not an argument it is an assertion/accusation and in my view one that has crossed the line of acceptable behavior on this forum, but as a participant in this discussion I can not exercise my moderator powers.

Originally Posted by honedright

In fact I argued that some taxes are completely moral and justified.

You did, but failed to explain the difference. All taxes are redistributive because tracking everybody's usage and taxing them accordingly is too much overhead. So there will always be people who pay more than they get back and those get more than what they pay for.

You explicitly stated that "My argument is that a theft is a theft is a theft regardless of how the proceeds of the theft are used." which can not be reconciled with
"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."

Even if you're not among them there are in fact people who do not want to pay for those common services that you think everybody is gladly paying for, and would prefer to be left alone in what you consider chaotic system, but they think would be perfectly fine.
Furthermore 'we as a society' have also agreed on these taxes and services you consider immoral, so that part of your argument is also invalid.

You are completely entitled to view taxes as immoral, but so far you have completely failed at explaining:

(1) the distinction between moral and immoral taxes - as I pointed out your differentiation based on redistribution is invalid
(2) when you make that distinction why is your morality superior to anybody else's
(3) that the constitution or people who wrote it agreed with your morality
(4) that part of the current taxation is not constitutional

Originally Posted by gugi

You very specifically referenced something that only I posted, 'voter', even though you added your own emotional coloring to it 'fault', so no, you can't not hid behind an ambiguity because you were very specifically addressing me.

Maybe. But I still say if the shoe fits..

Originally Posted by gugi

See above - when you resort to the characterizations you made towards me instead of arguing with reason, logic, and facts, that does reflect on you.

And when you argue against reason, logic and facts it also reflects on you.

Originally Posted by gugi

Laws about taxation were created by the legislative body created by the constitution in order to pass laws.
Enforcement of these laws is done by the executive body created by the constitution in order to execute them.
Disputes as to the constitutionality of these laws were resolved by the judicial body created by the constitution in order to resolve such disputes.
As far as immorality - I posed to you the case of "Whiskey Rebellion" - that resulted from the same redistributive amoral taxation that you hate. You still haven't explained the lack of outcry from all of the people who wrote the constitution just a couple of years earlier, if this was so opposite of what they intended.

Yes, but all three branches of the federal government are sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution, which is above them all. And that is the heart of the problem, in my opinion, portions of the federal government betraying it's oath to the Constitution.

No, the Whiskey Rebellion resulted from farmers disagreeing with a tax to repay debt for the Revolutionary War. A tax that was in legal conformity with the taxing powers of Congress per Article 1, section 8. This was not redistributive in any sense that I've been arguing, but was more of a "sin" tax which is a whole other argument. Interesting though that the tax was supported by Hamilton, a Federalist, and more supportive of "big government." But I think even Hamilton would be shocked by today's expansion of Congressional power to tax beyond the original authority of the Constitution he helped to write. Interesting choice, Gugi.

Originally Posted by gugi

According to the constitution the laws are created by the US Congress - they can create any law they want. If anybody thinks a particular law is unconstitutional they can challenge it in the Supreme Court and the result is the only constitutionally sanctioned answer. This is what 'check and balances' actually means and how it works - it is not an abstract ideological phrase.
The constitution doesn't appoint you as the authority of when a law is perverted - that's for the Supreme Court to decide, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Actually, the Constitution does reserve ultimate authority and sovereignty to the people, of which I'm one.

Originally Posted by gugi

When you post an argument I have addressed it. However, "Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest." is not an argument it is an assertion/accusation and in my view one that has crossed the line of acceptable behavior on this forum, but as a participant in this discussion I can not exercise my moderator powers.

So you are claiming that you, as a moderator, can make assertions and accusations, but if anyone else does the same it constitutes "crossing the line of acceptable behavior" on this forum, and if you could, you'd exercise your moderator power to what? Ban? Delete? Take your ball and go home? Knock all the chess pieces off of the board?

Originally Posted by honedright

You talk about high taxes like it's a good thing. Like you're proud that more of your stuff gets taken from you than anybody else in America. Like "yeah baby, I could give it away all I want, to anyone I want, but man, they just take it from me, and...yeah...that's cool."

There is no immorality in redistribution? Prove your claim as I think you moral compass is off. Just because you, and everyone else vote for and agree with something immoral does not make it less immoral. And you also generalize falsely. I never said that taxes in general are immoral. In fact I argued that some taxes are completely moral and justified. But taking something from somebody just because they have more of it than others is OK with you? Once again, check your moral compass. And my arguing against immoral solutions in favor of a system that solves it's problems without harming others is ego-centric and lacks social conscience?? Yeah, your compass is broked.

And that part about "it works fine for the vast majority of us" implies that there is a minority that it does not work for at all. But to hell with them right? Some social conscience.

Yes, I talk about sufficient taxes as it is a good thing. Because it is.
Noone, and I do mean noone goes without proper and full health care in this country.
Noone.
Why?
Because of taxes.
Noone is denied an education here.
Why?
Due to the same. Taxes.
Noone will have to starve or live outside if they don't want to.
The reason as I'm sure you have figured out by now is...
You guessed it, taxes.

You want proof of redistribution and the morality thereof?
Read what I just wrote above.
You seem to think that those less fortunate than you are in that situation because they deserve it.
I'm not that hard on my fellow man, as I have seen many a times fine folks loose it all due to anything but their own doing.
Fessing up the tax required provides for such people.
If that is immorality, then I'm proud to wear that hat!

Any hobo, drug-addict and rapist are entitled to the very same as I.
That means health care, housing, a minimum to live off of and a whole slew of other stuff.

Yes, there are those up here that wants that changed, so that is why I said the vast majority likes our current arrangement.
But all of those opposed are also entitled to the services provided

Seems mighty convenient to blame it on immorality when the fact of the matter is that it is simple greed and egoism.

And finally to your claim about a system that fixes stuff without harming others:
What system might that be?
And taxes are in your opinion harming people??
That was a samarithan attitude towards your fellow man...
No Sir, there are compasses in need of adjustment in this thread, but it is not mine.

Originally Posted by gugi

You did, but failed to explain the difference. All taxes are redistributive because tracking everybody's usage and taxing them accordingly is too much overhead. So there will always be people who pay more than they get back and those get more than what they pay for.

You explicitly stated that "My argument is that a theft is a theft is a theft regardless of how the proceeds of the theft are used." which can not be reconciled with
"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."

Even if you're not among them there are in fact people who do not want to pay for those common services that you think everybody is gladly paying for, and would prefer to be left alone in what you consider chaotic system, but they think would be perfectly fine.
Furthermore 'we as a society' have also agreed on these taxes and services you consider immoral, so that part of your argument is also invalid.

You are completely entitled to view taxes as immoral, but so far you have completely failed at explaining:

(1) the distinction between moral and immoral taxes - as I pointed out your differentiation based on redistribution is invalid
(2) when you make that distinction why is your morality superior to anybody else's
(3) that the constitution or people who wrote it agreed with your morality
(4) that part of the current taxation is not constitutional

Your entire argument that my argument is false because I have failed to prove to you, or have failed to provide evidence to you that my argument is true, is in itself, a false argument.