Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by Birnando

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.

You are just arguing the same "The ends justify the means" argument.

Originally Posted by honedright

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.

I don't see in what way you can't see it as not redistributive - a small group 'farmers making whiskey' were forced to pay for the debts of the Revolutionary War that everybody incurred together. Why would a particular sin be singled out to pay for this 'common good' why not charge a tax for every curse word, for working on the sabbath day, for prostitution, for adultery, for worshiping false idols, for disrespecting one's parents, etc.?
It's highly redistributive and highly oppressive, just like multitude of other taxes, and yet you don't find any fault with it.

Originally Posted by honedright

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?

I was very clear, so trying to put words in my mouth (again) is not going to help you. I only claimed that calling other members dishonest has crossed the line. If I wasn't participating in this thread I'd probably have warned you and on second offense banned you from this forum - it is that simple.
I don't think I have publicly accused anybody here of dishonesty or moral failure, have I?

Originally Posted by honedright

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.

I think I'm done since you now reject even the basics of normal argument - when one makes a statement the onus is on them to back it up with evidence.

Originally Posted by honedright

You are just arguing the same "The ends justify the means" argument.

Bah, that was weak.
I'm arguing that in a people like ours, we have voted for our government with our eyes open and the alternatives fully known to us.
what we chose is what we got.
A functioning social-democracy most of us are darn proud of.
Because it works! For all.

Originally Posted by Birnando

Bah, that was weak.
I'm arguing that in a people like ours, we have voted for our government with our eyes open and the alternatives fully known to us.
what we chose is what we got.
A functioning social-democracy most of us are darn proud of.
Because it works! For all.

Not perfect but it's better than alternatives.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't see in what way you can't see it as not redistributive - a small group 'farmers making whiskey' were forced to pay for the debts of the Revolutionary War that everybody incurred together. Why would a particular sin be singled out to pay for this 'common good' why not charge a tax for every curse word, for working on the sabbath day, for prostitution, for adultery, for worshiping false idols, for disrespecting one's parents, etc.?
It's highly redistributive and highly oppressive, just like multitude of other taxes, and yet you don't find any fault with it.





I was very clear, so trying to put words in my mouth (again) is not going to help you. I only claimed that calling other members dishonest has crossed the line. If I wasn't participating in this thread I'd probably have warned you and on second offense banned you from this forum - it is that simple.
I don't think I have publicly accused anybody here of dishonesty or moral failure, have I?

Just of being a "developmentally stuck pre-teen" and whatever else that condition might further imply.

Originally Posted by gugi

I think I'm done since you now reject even the basics of normal argument - when one makes a statement the onus is on them to back it up with evidence.

No, your argument was that my stance must be false unless I can prove to you that it is true. Which is false. But if we are to continue discussing the issue based on falsities, then I'm perfectly fine with discontinuing. After all, what's the point?

Originally Posted by Birnando

Bah, that was weak.
I'm arguing that in a people like ours, we have voted for our government with our eyes open and the alternatives fully known to us.
what we chose is what we got.
A functioning social-democracy most of us are darn proud of.
Because it works! For all.

And that was my point, you do it with eyes wide open. Just commenting on a situation that doesn't really make sense to me. I understand what you are doing, but just questioning the methodology. Suggesting that there may be better way of accomplishing the same goals. But we can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by honedright

And that was my point, you do it with eyes wide open. Just commenting on a situation that doesn't really make sense to me. I understand what you are doing, but just questioning the methodology. Suggesting that there may be better way of accomplishing the same goals. But we can agree to disagree.

Indeed we can!

Originally Posted by honedright

Just of being a "developmentally stuck pre-teen" and whatever else that condition might further imply.

Calling people who believe in particular idea immature (and I explained and gave specific examples why that idea has nothing to do with reality), is drastically different from calling people with a viewpoint different from yours dishonest.

Originally Posted by honedright

No, your argument was that my stance must be false unless I can prove to you that it is true. Which is false.

I most certainly didn't word it this way, but if you prefer that emotional coloring yes, that's exactly what burden of proof implies - unless you prove that it is true it is false by presumption. The fundamentals that are not prove-able are called axioms, or first principles and when you are claiming something as (non)constitutional the actual text of the constitution is those first principles.
I already demonstrated on multiple occasions that your positions are in direct discord with the text of the constitution, especially the institutions and practices it establishes.