I guess I wasn't clear when I said this before so I'll condense what I've said:
I do not want "open borders" (that's when we don't even try to keep track of people coming and going) but I'm for open immigration (no limit to how many can come but they must assimilate - learn English, Civics and History of America) but as I said, I would ONLY be for open immigration on the PRE-CONDITION that we first END the welfare state.
Bullshat... a doctor calls the time of death when the body can no longer be resuscitated. Legally, that is when that life ended.
Irrelevant to my point because that's not a quantifiable, or verifiable, proof.
Her body was alive, regardless of whether or not her brain had function... if she were already dead, then unplugging her would not caused any change in her condition.
Besides, the quality, or the intelligence, or the cognizance, of being alive has zero bearing on whether or not the subject is alive or dead. If it did, we could start gassing the sick, the elderly, the insane because our standard of life is no longer quantifiable but subjective.
You asked if I could answer when life began, and I tried to point out that its a trick question. You can only pinpoint when life ends. However, you CAN identify the exact moment that LIFE becomes and INDIVIDUAL.
Please answer the following:
Is a sperm alive? Yes or No
Is an egg alive? Yes or No
If you agree that both are alive, which you'd be silly to claim otherwise, then the following should not be in any way controversial:
When the sperm and egg combine (conception), the existing life combines to create an individual life with DNA different from both of its parents.
"We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The point of conception is where we are created and from that point on we become individuals. Whether you want to call that "human" or a "clump of cells" is totally irrelevent because you cannot dispute that it is an individual.
I'll let the religious and philosophical scholars debate that, it cannot be empirically proven... My case can be and has been.
Why do I have to pay for a school levy when I have no kids? Every year or so they pass a new one and my taxes just go higher and higher. I agree some things have to pay their own way but we pay for a WHOLE lotta stuff we never get to see the benefit of having paid for.
Don't mistake what I'm saying... Fees for things like a fishing license and vehicle registration are fine but as you said, they need to go to fund that specific program and not into a general fund. Fees like that are not a tax like the ones previously discussed.
I agree. If the school levies were done as a fee, I wouldn't give a CRAP if they raised the fee every year because I wouldn't be forced to pay it, only those sending children to the school would have to pay it.
The direct taxes on fuel are two taxes rolled into one: Federal and State. I'm suggesting that Federal taxes be rolled into one sales tax.
States can continue to keep whatever system they like, current system, fair tax, flat tax, whatever... Point is, currently the lion share of road maintenance is done with the tax collected from the state gas tax and generally does fill the road budget first with spillover going to the states general fund.
On the other hand, the federal gas tax is just another revenue stream to the black hole of Washington and whatever the fed does send to a state for highway funding is paltry compared to what they've already collected and most often come with strings attached.
