Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by gugi

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.


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.

Primarily you've made an appeal to authority ie - the legislature, the supreme court, says it is so, therefore it is so. This assumes that both of those branches of the federal government, and including the executive, are infallible, which is obviously untrue.

My point all along, with few exceptions, has been the immoral nature of taking wealth from one, without just compensation, for the purpose of giving to another, and for the sole benefit of that other person. Show me somewhere within the text of the Constitution where congress is authorized to tax for such a thing.

Here is the text from the Constitution Article I, sec 8 giving Congress the authority to tax:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Originally Posted by honedright

Primarily you've made an appeal to authority ie - the legislature, the supreme court, says it is so, therefore it is so. This assumes that both of those branches of the federal government, and including the executive, are infallible, which is obviously untrue.

That's the only constitutionally acceptable argument as it is a foundational document for everything else.
The fallibility of the elected and appointed government officials is supposed to be corrected at the polls - this is the only constitutionally sanctioned process. Yours or my opinion in 2014 are not valid methods.

Originally Posted by honedright

My point all along, with few exceptions, has been the immoral nature of taking wealth from one, without just compensation, for the purpose of giving to another, and for the sole benefit of that other person. Show me somewhere within the text of the Constitution where congress is authorized to tax for such a thing.

Right in the section you quoted - those are general categories without specifics - common defense and general welfare. Whether something falls under common defense or under general welfare is to be decided by the elected representatives and the supreme court.
Obviously if they thought that simply itemizing the items that qualify as common defense and the items that qualify as general welfare they'd have done so and not bother with creating a judicial branch to settle disputes.

If you don't like the result from the constitutional process that's one thing - either convince enough elected representatives to do as you would like or take up your arms and fight the constitutional process, like they did over slavery. But arguing that your understanding of the constitution supersedes that of the constitutionally authorized bodies to make determination is simply invalid. Get appointed to the Supreme Court and your opinion will count as 1/9th to 1/5th towards the constitutionally acceptable answer.

Why do not you guys just let this thread die.is just getting ugly.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Why do not you guys just let this thread die.is just getting ugly.

What do you mean "getting"?

Bob

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Why do not you guys just let this thread die.is just getting ugly.

Are you kidding, this is better than an episode of Springer.

Unsubcribed, thread is getting wack as most do.

i was trying to find the words myself pixel, i think your let the thread die post was what i was looking for, oh and the unsubscription bit too for that matter

Ditto, this horse has been dead for days, is starting to stink now.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Why do not you guys just let this thread die.is just getting ugly.

Originally Posted by edhewitt

i was trying to find the words myself pixel, i think your let the thread die post was what i was looking for, oh and the unsubscription bit too for that matter

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

Ditto, this horse has been dead for days, is starting to stink now.

No disrespect to all comments above but this is only 1 thread of hundreds on this forum. If you feel the subject has been played out or just not interesting any more than with all due respect move on. Unless it's like a train wreck and you can't look away. I agree that decorum needs to be maintained but I for one find this dialog fascinating. We live in a society with diverse beliefs. Some founded on facts and others on distortions. You can agree or disagree with any of the comments entered but please don't discount it's educational aspects. A divisive issue between people like mold is never better left covered. If we have any chance as a civilization we must find common understanding based on agreed upon facts. Without this no solutions can be found. It may be hard sledding and seem hopeless but consider the alternative. Not pleasant. Having said this I fully understand that the world is not going to change based on a thread on SRP but for those of us who choose to participate it's an interesting thread.

So Honedright if you're still participating in this discussion, I asked you a question earlier that you haven't answered. Help me to understand your point of view as I don't want to wrongly determine it for myself. I'll ask again.

Do you believe tax collection by the government to be lawful or unlawful (stealing)?