Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by honedright

While the taking involved in redistribution may have been legitimized via legislation, just as slavery was, the taking is still immoral, just as slavery is.

Well, you know, how these two issues were resolved. The first in 1850 the second in 1791.

Originally Posted by honedright

Finally another poster, who is master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth, argues that it is the fault of the voter. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The US Constitution was set up with checks and balances, and rules of law, to prevent, and make it illegal to allow arbitrary "Majority rules" voting. The founders were very aware of the pitfalls of democracy and the threat of "tyranny of the majority."

First let me note that your calling me "master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth" reflects more on you than on me.
Instead of empty assertions and general platitudes, may be you could offer logical reasoning as to why when something has ben done entirely in the constitutionally established manner, you still call it anticonstitutional? You may not like the way the elected representatives, have understood and applied the constitution, but still that's who is appointed to make those calls and not you personally.

I understand your rejection of taxation based on immorality, but it has been vetted by those very checks and balances.
And like it or not, the constitution establishes majority rule, even if it's not in the most simplistic 50%+1 form. When a big majority of the voters want something it simply gets done through the legislation process. Frankly, I find far more troubling "minority rules", but again this political corruption happens only because the voters allow it to happen.

Originally Posted by honedright

Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest.

Arguing your position better would be far more productive than simply calling people names.

Originally Posted by gugi

First let me note that your calling me "master of the false argument and logical fallacy, meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth" reflects more on you than on me.

Well, I never mentioned your name, but if the shoe fits...

And what is that last part? "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"? Funny, but a bit juvenile.

Originally Posted by gugi

Instead of empty assertions and general platitudes, may be you could offer logical reasoning as to why when something has ben done entirely in the constitutionally established manner, you still call it anticonstitutional? You may not like the way the elected representatives, have understood and applied the constitution, but still that's who is appointed to make those calls and not you personally.

And you are speaking in generalities. What was done in a "constitutionally established" manner? Established by who and when? And since when is ignorance an excuse to violate the law?

Originally Posted by gugi

I understand your rejection of taxation based on immorality, but it has been vetted by those very checks and balances.
And like it or not, the constitution establishes majority rule, even if it's not in the most simplistic 50%+1 form. When a big majority of the voters want something it simply gets done through the legislation process. Frankly, I find far more troubling "minority rules", but again this political corruption happens only because the voters allow it to happen.

Once again you falsely rationalize immorality. And the majority can only vote for those things allowed by law. Once the law becomes perverted, the "checks and balances" become meaningless.

Originally Posted by gugi

Arguing your position better would be far more productive than simply calling people names.

Another false argument (big surprise!) No facts as to what is wrong with my argument beyond your opinion,

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, I never mentioned your name, but if the shoe fits...

You very specifically referenced something that only I posted, 'voter', even though you added your own emotional coloring to it 'fault', so no, you can't not hid behind an ambiguity because you were very specifically addressing me.

Originally Posted by honedright

And what is that last part? "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"? Funny, but a bit juvenile.

See above - when you resort to the characterizations you made towards me instead of arguing with reason, logic, and facts, that does reflect on you.

Originally Posted by honedright

And you are speaking in generalities. What was done in a "constitutionally established" manner? Established by who and when? And since when is ignorance an excuse to violate the law?

Laws about taxation were created by the legislative body created by the constitution in order to pass laws.
Enforcement of these laws is done by the executive body created by the constitution in order to execute them.
Disputes as to the constitutionality of these laws were resolved by the judicial body created by the constitution in order to resolve such disputes.
As far as immorality - I posed to you the case of "Whiskey Rebellion" - that resulted from the same redistributive amoral taxation that you hate. You still haven't explained the lack of outcry from all of the people who wrote the constitution just a couple of years earlier, if this was so opposite of what they intended.

Originally Posted by honedright

Once again you falsely rationalize immorality. And the majority can only vote for those things allowed by law. Once the law becomes perverted, the "checks and balances" become meaningless.

According to the constitution the laws are created by the US Congress - they can create any law they want. If anybody thinks a particular law is unconstitutional they can challenge it in the Supreme Court and the result is the only constitutionally sanctioned answer. This is what 'check and balances' actually means and how it works - it is not an abstract ideological phrase.
The constitution doesn't appoint you as the authority of when a law is perverted - that's for the Supreme Court to decide, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by honedright

Another false argument (big surprise!) No facts as to what is wrong with my argument beyond your opinion,

When you post an argument I have addressed it. However, "Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest." is not an argument it is an assertion/accusation and in my view one that has crossed the line of acceptable behavior on this forum, but as a participant in this discussion I can not exercise my moderator powers.

Originally Posted by gugi

You very specifically referenced something that only I posted, 'voter', even though you added your own emotional coloring to it 'fault', so no, you can't not hid behind an ambiguity because you were very specifically addressing me.

Maybe. But I still say if the shoe fits..

Originally Posted by gugi

See above - when you resort to the characterizations you made towards me instead of arguing with reason, logic, and facts, that does reflect on you.

And when you argue against reason, logic and facts it also reflects on you.

Originally Posted by gugi

Laws about taxation were created by the legislative body created by the constitution in order to pass laws.
Enforcement of these laws is done by the executive body created by the constitution in order to execute them.
Disputes as to the constitutionality of these laws were resolved by the judicial body created by the constitution in order to resolve such disputes.
As far as immorality - I posed to you the case of "Whiskey Rebellion" - that resulted from the same redistributive amoral taxation that you hate. You still haven't explained the lack of outcry from all of the people who wrote the constitution just a couple of years earlier, if this was so opposite of what they intended.

Yes, but all three branches of the federal government are sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution, which is above them all. And that is the heart of the problem, in my opinion, portions of the federal government betraying it's oath to the Constitution.

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.

Originally Posted by gugi

According to the constitution the laws are created by the US Congress - they can create any law they want. If anybody thinks a particular law is unconstitutional they can challenge it in the Supreme Court and the result is the only constitutionally sanctioned answer. This is what 'check and balances' actually means and how it works - it is not an abstract ideological phrase.
The constitution doesn't appoint you as the authority of when a law is perverted - that's for the Supreme Court to decide, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Actually, the Constitution does reserve ultimate authority and sovereignty to the people, of which I'm one.

Originally Posted by gugi

When you post an argument I have addressed it. However, "Some of you are either blind to the truth, ignorant about what's going on, or just plain dishonest." is not an argument it is an assertion/accusation and in my view one that has crossed the line of acceptable behavior on this forum, but as a participant in this discussion I can not exercise my moderator powers.

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?

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 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.