Thread: The world I would love to live in.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'...

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).