Thread: The world I would love to live in.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.