Taxation Is Robbery

[Truth-Bringer]

You want me to answer 'will of the majority'?

And if I don't answer 'will of the majority' (which in itself, is a defective way of describing the democratic process), I am obfuscating?

I want you to answer honestly and in a straightforward manner. Why are you incapable of doing so? Is your answer indeed 'the majority' or the 'will of the majority'?

A democratic political association, by nature, is DYNAMIC.

LOL. Who ultimately decides the dynamics? Who makes the final call?

The majority can't simply make laws as they wish because these laws are still subject to CONSTITUTIONALITY and the practical necessities of ENFORCEMENT.

Talk about a straw man argument!

Talk about another dodge... Who created the Constitution to begin with? Who created the enforcement rules to begin with?

 

[Coyote]

Yes, it does. This is not "it's so cause you say so." You really need to grow a brain.

How sweet. Insults vs. debate.

All taxation is taken by threat of force or force if the threat isn't sufficient. This is a common trait with theft.

And not with taxation.

You cannot spell a two syllable word. That is not an ad hominem (which you again failed to spell correctly). That is a proven fact.

So yet again, you show yourself incapable of debating by resorting to insults and pointing out spelling errors when confronted. Why is that? Because you really don't have a leg to stand on? Guess so. How pathetic. And amusing.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

How sweet. Insults vs. debate.

You cannot spell a two syllable word. Again, this is not an insult. It's a verifiable fact.

And not with taxation.

Yes, it is the same with taxation. Your idiocy is that you believe you can disprove something merely by virtue of saying "Coyote says it's not so, so it's not." You're "reasoning" is absolutely laughable kid. You need to go back to junior high.

So yet again, you show yourself incapable of debating

Kid, in case you haven't noticed, I'm the one with the point you can't refute. I'm the one presenting questions that the rest of you keep dodging.

by resorting to insults and pointing out spelling errors when confronted. Why is that?

Because I think it's funny that you're trying to present yourself as a logician when you can't even spell a simple two syllable word.

Now that's pathetic...

 

[Coyote]

You cannot spell a two syllable word. Again, this is not an insult. It's a verifiable fact.

Which has what to do with any of this sweetie?

Yes, it is the same with taxation. Your idiocy is that you believe you can disprove something merely by virtue of saying "Coyote says it's not so, so it's not." You're "reasoning" is absolutely laughable kid. You need to go back to junior high.

You appear to be doing the same thing here...."it is so because I say so." Perhaps you need to graduate Junior High and come back when you can get beyond the insult game every time you are challanged.

Consider: Taxes are mandated by law. We are a law abiding people. We follow the law and pay our taxes. There is no force unless you choose to break the law. That is not theft regardless of how you try and stretch it.

Kid, in case you haven't noticed, I'm the one with the point you can't refute. I'm the one presenting questions that the rest of you keep dodging.

Sweetie, the only point you seem to have is the one on your head. You are certainly happy to call others on their bull****, but you sure don't like being called on your own do you?

Because I think it's funny that you're trying to present yourself as a logician when you can't even spell a simple two syllable word.

Now that's pathetic...

I find it funny that you have to resort to calling out spelling errors. Keep trying. Maybe you'll get lucky.

 

[numinus]

I want you to answer honestly and in a straightforward manner. Why are you incapable of doing so? Is your answer indeed 'the majority' or the 'will of the majority'?

I said POLITICAL DYNAMICS. Is it possible that decisions are made that are opposed to the will of the majority? Of course.

Your straw man has been exposed for what it is. Try another avenue of debate.

LOL. Who ultimately decides the dynamics? Who makes the final call?

CONSENSUS.

The SOVEREIGN WILL can only derive from consensus in any democratic political association.

Talk about another dodge... Who created the Constitution to begin with? Who created the enforcement rules to begin with?

The same people who entered into the social contract.

Who the hell else would they be, eh?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I said POLITICAL DYNAMICS. Is it possible that decisions are made that are opposed to the will of the majority? Of course.

Ultimately, no political decision can be made without the support of the majority in your system. A political leader might make an unpopular decision, yet if he's elected by the majority, the majority decided to place him in that position of authority.

CONSENSUS.

The SOVEREIGN WILL can only derive from consensus in any democratic political association.

And only the version of the consensus decided by the majority will ultimately be enacted.

The same people who entered into the social contract.

Which would have to be approved/accepted/supported by the majority.

Your dodges are obfuscation are really transparent. Why can't you just be honest?

I'll ask again:

I'm asking you how rules are determined in the "political association." If voting by the majority does not determine the rules, what does? Or is it indeed determined by the vote of the majority?

Again, how are the rules FINALIZED AND PLACED INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL BE ENFORCED? Is it by vote of the majority or not?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Which has what to do with any of this sweetie?

It speaks quite a bit to your credibility - or lack thereof. You really should walk away while you have some dignity remaining. Being unable to spell a common two syllable word is pretty pathetic.

You appear to be doing the same thing here...."it is so because I say so."

Nope, not quite.

Consider: Taxes are mandated by law.

But now we have a new question. What is law? What is it but a set of rules ultimately determined by the majority? Yes indeed. Which numinus is terrified to admit.

So you believe the majority can vote for the taking of any amount of money or property it wants and this can be codified into law per their will - correct?

but you sure don't like being called on your own do you?

Only in your delusional fantasy world has anyone been called on anything.

I find it funny that you have to resort to calling out spelling errors

I find it funny that you can't spell a common two syllable word, yet want to convince everyone you're a logician.

 

[Coyote]

It speaks quite a bit to your credibility - or lack thereof. You really should walk away while you have some dignity remaining. Being unable to spell a common two syllable word is pretty pathetic.

Still can't make a case eh?

But now we have a new question. What is law? What is it but a set of rules ultimately determined by the majority? Yes indeed. Which numinus is terrified to admit.

Terrified? No, looks like Numinus ripped your argument to shreds.

So you believe the majority can vote for the taking of any amount of money or property it wants and this can be codified into law per their will - correct?

Nope. Because that is not how our system of law is determined.

Only in your delusional fantasy world has anyone been called on anything.

Still off your meds then? You do realize don't you, that you really aren't Trinity?

I find it funny that you can't spell a common two syllable word, yet want to convince everyone you're a logician.

I find it amusing that your inability to argue logically leaves you grasping for straws...such as spelling errors.

 

[ilikeboobs]

Taxation IS robbery, I agree. It's forced charity to the government at the end of a gun. If you don't give your money to Uncle Sam, he'll come throw you in prison.

Realistically speaking, I don't mind paying for those things which are set forth in the constitution - police & military. That's about it. The national endowment for the arts, the department of education, etc...none of these things are necessary at the federal level. They are all things that states should have the power to enact/refuse. States rights, baby!

But now we get massively taxed by the feds AND our states. Sounds like socialism more and more each day, with more and more of our freedoms being sucked away every minute.

 

[Coyote]

Taxation IS robbery, I agree. It's forced charity to the government at the end of a gun. If you don't give your money to Uncle Sam, he'll come throw you in prison.

Realistically speaking, I don't mind paying for those things which are set forth in the constitution - police & military. That's about it. The national endowment for the arts, the department of education, etc...none of these things are necessary at the federal level. They are all things that states should have the power to enact/refuse. States rights, baby!

But now we get massively taxed by the feds AND our states. Sounds like socialism more and more each day, with more and more of our freedoms being sucked away every minute.

We have one of the lowest tax rates of the First World...so I don't really feel to sorry for people.

People will throw you in jail if you don't pay your bills too. As for education - if we did not have publically funded education, poor people would have few ways out of poverty.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

As for education - if we did not have publically funded education, poor people would have few ways out of poverty.

That's not what he said. He said he wanted to get rid of the Dept. of Education, i.e. federally funded education, not publicly funded education. What he essentially said is that it should be left up to the different states how they want to deal with education, be it vouchers or whatever. This would be better than what we have now because it would stimulate some competition.

 

[Coyote]

That's not what he said. He said he wanted to get rid of the Dept. of Education, i.e. federally funded education, not publicly funded education. What he essentially said is that it should be left up to the different states how they want to deal with education, be it vouchers or whatever. This would be better than what we have now because it would stimulate some competition.

Privatization of the public education systems have not had particularly good results and only benefits those middle or upper class - even with "vouchers". In the end, schools in poor districts just get worse and students are stuck.

 

[numinus]

Ultimately, no political decision can be made without the support of the majority in your system. A political leader might make an unpopular decision, yet if he's elected by the majority, the majority decided to place him in that position of authority.

You think opinion polls can replace the political dynamics of a democracy? It is, after all, truly representative of the majority, no?

And since the democratic process is merely a manifestation of the majority will, as you claim, then the government must necessarily enact opinion polls as the fundamental law of the land, no?

Ridiculous!

And only the version of the consensus decided by the majority will ultimately be enacted.

What about 'consensus' don't you understand?

Is it necessarily the opinion of the majority?

Which would have to be approved/accepted/supported by the majority.

Of course it has to work that way.

However, the majority opinion is NOT ABSOLUTE in that it must still conform with the fundamental principles of the LAW.

An elected official transcends party loyalty because he becomes answerable to the WHOLE BODY POLITIC.

Your dodges are obfuscation are really transparent. Why can't you just be honest?

You're the one incapable of honesty.

The terms majority and minority are fluid definitions within the dynamics of the political association. In the end, what must emerge is that which conforms with the COMMON GOOD - something that the majority and minority partake of equally.

I'll ask again:

I'm asking you how rules are determined in the "political association." If voting by the majority does not determine the rules, what does? Or is it indeed determined by the vote of the majority?

And I'll answer AGAIN.

Rules are determined by the political dynamics tempered by debate and consensus building.

Again, how are the rules FINALIZED AND PLACED INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY WILL BE ENFORCED? Is it by vote of the majority or not?

Of course it is by majority vote of the legislators.

Would you rather the minority opinion hold sway over the majority?

Or that the political process stall simply because certain legislators are unable to compormise?

Democracy is not that naive nor stupid, you know.

 

[Coyote]

Rules are determined by the political dynamics tempered by debate and consensus building.

That pretty much sums it up - our government was deliberately designed so as not to be a simple "rule of majority".

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Privatization of the public education systems have not had particularly good results and only benefits those middle or upper class - even with "vouchers". In the end, schools in poor districts just get worse and students are stuck.

And federally funded public schools haven't had particularly good results and the poor districts just get worse. What's your point?

If the states have to start competing against one another, then people will want to move to the states with good schools. Competition is a good thing. Education is a states rights issue according to the Constitution. I think they had it right.