Results 1 to 10 of 302
Hybrid View
-
07-16-2014, 06:50 PM #1
Originally Posted by honedright
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
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.
-
07-16-2014, 10:53 PM #2
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369I 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.
-
07-16-2014, 11:02 PM #3
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.
-
07-16-2014, 11:06 PM #4
-
07-16-2014, 11:33 PM #5
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369
-
07-16-2014, 11:47 PM #6
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'...
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).
-
07-17-2014, 12:08 AM #7
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 2,516
Thanked: 369You speak in half truths. The Constitution does give the authority to tax, but just because Mom said you can have one cookie doesn't mean you can take five. Even if big brother says it's OK.
I agree that American voters who are the product of the heavily progressive left American public education system have made some really stupid choices over the years. And that the representatives that they have elected have taken full advantage of their powers of office and, in many cases, exploited their positions to the fullest extent possible. You have no argument from me there.
-
07-17-2014, 12:21 AM #8
I gave you specific example showing the number of cookies the constitution and the very people who wrote it intended us have is not restricted by a limit you think exists.
If you want to continue pursuing this direction of argument, I would request that you address this issue. Just repeating that it's the progressives' fault for making the country stupid doesn't make it so.
Benjamin Franklin supposedly said that it's up to the rest of the country to keep (and therefore change if it chooses so) the system of government from the constitution (or whatever way the founders wanted it). It would seem to me they were fully aware of the possibilities that the constitution allows and didn't want to restrict them any further than they did.
Or as I said at the very beginning of my participation in this thread - this country is the result of the constitutional framework and the voting of the people (yes the one big exception is the civil war which directly violated the constitutionally established processes when it didn't produce the outcome desired by the union states).