Zarniwoop wrote:Article I, Section 8 of the consitution itself says the federal government can collect taxes.
So who is this directed at? 99.9% of conservatives and libertarians would absolutely say the federal govt has the consitutional right to collect taxes.
So are you trying to convince the whackos who live out in the woods in their pathetic little militia compounds?
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Zarniwoop wrote:Article I, Section 8 of the consitution itself says the federal government can collect taxes.
So who is this directed at? 99.9% of conservatives and libertarians would absolutely say the federal govt has the consitutional right to collect taxes.
So are you trying to convince the whackos who live out in the woods in their pathetic little militia compounds?
99.9% of Libertarians don't think taxation is theft?
My bad. I withdraw.
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Oh, so SOME taxation is theft.
They really need to be more specific. Would have saved me an hour arguing against a mantra that nobody believes in, yet gets sprayed all over the Internet.
"First, the government does not exist outside of the market. As a matter of fact, the government created it."
The fact that these laws remain has enabled the libertarian to add the modifier "Legalized theft" to their argument. But the problem with that is that theft by it's very nature is illegal and taxation levied by a democratically elected government is.
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Thank you, Jonny for taking on the premise of my essay. I relish the thought of a substantive discussion after this empty headed election.
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to defend my position due to a family emergency. Feel free to craft an argument of your own here on the topic and I might be able to engage perhaps during the holiday weekend.
I'd only be able to give 3 sentence rebuttals right now. If we postpone, maybe we can do better.
Thanks
Zarniwoop wrote:Article I, Section 8 of the consitution itself says the federal government can collect taxes.
So who is this directed at? 99.9% of conservatives and libertarians would absolutely say the federal govt has the consitutional right to collect taxes.
So are you trying to convince the whackos who live out in the woods in their pathetic little militia compounds?
MJW wrote:I don't actually remember signing the Constitution. Or the social contract, for that matter. Is that relevant, or should I simply submit to those who have claimed a monopolization on legitimate violence?
Mountaineer Buc wrote:MJW wrote:I don't actually remember signing the Constitution. Or the social contract, for that matter. Is that relevant, or should I simply submit to those who have claimed a monopolization on legitimate violence?
This perspective angers me as it is morally reprehensible.
It claims the rights protected by our Constitution, yet shirks any responsibility to uphold the society created by it. It wishes to prosper under the protection our national founding protected, yet do nothing for the man beside them.
It is a perspective I hold lower than a welfare Queen.
Perhaps I am biased having sworn an oath to defend a document that I didn't sign, but in my fervor, I felt as though I was a part of something bigger than myself. Part of a nation that declared that there was no divine right. No aristocracy.
Perhaps I bought off on the notion that this land was my land, and this land was your land. I bought off on pledging allegiance to the republic for which it stands.
People can debate forever the amount required to preserve our way of life. People can debate the VALUE received from their government for their taxes.
But I will not abide those who declare themselves above and beyond our society and greedily declare themselves above the rest of us and selfishly refuse to contribute to our societies effort to provide a better life for the people in it.
Those who do should remove the flag from their homes as the only allegiance they have is to themselves.
HamBone wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote:This perspective angers me as it is morally reprehensible.
It claims the rights protected by our Constitution, yet shirks any responsibility to uphold the society created by it. It wishes to prosper under the protection our national founding protected, yet do nothing for the man beside them.
It is a perspective I hold lower than a welfare Queen.
Perhaps I am biased having sworn an oath to defend a document that I didn't sign, but in my fervor, I felt as though I was a part of something bigger than myself. Part of a nation that declared that there was no divine right. No aristocracy.
Perhaps I bought off on the notion that this land was my land, and this land was your land. I bought off on pledging allegiance to the republic for which it stands.
People can debate forever the amount required to preserve our way of life. People can debate the VALUE received from their government for their taxes.
But I will not abide those who declare themselves above and beyond our society and greedily declare themselves above the rest of us and selfishly refuse to contribute to our societies effort to provide a better life for the people in it.
Those who do should remove the flag from their homes as the only allegiance they have is to themselves.
****ing drama queen...
The Outsider wrote:HamBone wrote:
****ing drama queen...
Only in our intellectually defunct society, one which celebrates morons and derides the learned would we get someone viewing eloquent, passionate, and verbose writing as mere "drama".
Would this be easier for you if MB made you some flash cards?
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Need a safe space, snowflake?
MJW wrote:I don't actually remember signing the Constitution. Or the social contract, for that matter. Is that relevant, or should I simply submit to those who have claimed a monopolization on legitimate violence?
HamBone wrote:Mountaineer Buc wrote:Need a safe space, snowflake?
Love Trumps hate...
deltbucs wrote:HamBone wrote:
Love Trumps hate...
Awww....Maybe you and Trump can have your safe space. Were the theater kids mean to you, too? LOL!!
HamBone wrote:deltbucs wrote:Awww....Maybe you and Trump can have your safe space. Were the theater kids mean to you, too? LOL!!
Theater kids? Is that anything like the Cabbage Patch Kids?
Jonny wrote:Now here is my effortless beatdown of your critique of free market philosophy:"First, the government does not exist outside of the market. As a matter of fact, the government created it."
Wrong. The government can be a mediator and a currency regulator in a market, but the existence of government for a market is not mandatory. Barter system has existed for entire human existence. Looks like you have made a huge assumption there and ran with it. Your insinuation that the constitution allowed congress to create market suggests that there was no market before the constitution was drafted. I guess no trade deals happened between Native Americans and European settlers, because they did not have the dollar bill.
Also just because a law has remained in the books for over 100 years, it does not necessarily make it moral or reasonable from a libertarian perspective. There are many laws that were unjust, that remained unchallenged for a long time. Eg: Slavery.The fact that these laws remain has enabled the libertarian to add the modifier "Legalized theft" to their argument. But the problem with that is that theft by it's very nature is illegal and taxation levied by a democratically elected government is.
Horrible argument. Your argument makes the following assumption: Any act of coercion by a democratically elected government cannot be violence or theft if it is in the form of a legislation.
What you just did was make a circular reasoning that religious people do to justify their beliefs. God exists because bible says so; bible is true because god wrote it. If the government has monopoly on legislation, any act by government is of course legal.
The holocaust and forced sterilizations were legal in Germany and it was done by a democratically elected government.
Mountaineer Buc wrote:
I really wish you would have taken the time to read the OP and debate it rather than argue with your strawman.
I already said that it is a seemingly instinctive thing for humans to engage in commerce. On that, we seem to agree. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that the market that exists in this country was established and justly regulated by the government. The market is where this commerce takes place. The alternative is referred to as the "Black market". I'm guessing you aren't employed there.
Now lets talk about this "coercion" nonsense. You are not coerced to pay taxes. You are obliged to pay them. The government has and will continue to exist to protect our individual liberties from everything from an abusive parent, to a drunk driver, to an exploitative corporation, to aggression by a foreign power. These things cost money and the government must collect taxes to do these things. And the constitution authorizes the government to do so and then is nice enough to allow you a say in who shall serve in it and what it should do. Almost seems like a transaction to me. Failure to pay after the receipt of services sounds a lot like theft.
Finally, you delve into some of the horrors of things performed by governments. I assume as evidence that Government power unchecked leads to tyranny, and that tyranny by government can be prevented when government is limited. I agree.
Now let me ask you this, If unregulated government leads to tyranny, wouldn't an unregulated market do the same? Plutocracy anyone?
Return to Politics and Religion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests