Dude, you haven’t even made any PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for taxation.
You haven’t even justified the existence of the state which claims the authority to do the taxing.
Let’s see your awesome powers of reasoning at work.
So far all we have seen is one assumption made after an other and those are not arguments.
Shit, even Orion tried to help you with your argument.
Take his charity and give us a show, old boy.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.[/quote]
If you have something to argue, then by all means, argue. Take issue with a specific notion in my original justification for taxation. Prove it wrong. That’s the only way to do it.
Otherwise, you are just typing unsubstantiated bullshit about debt and TSA pat-downs…which have literally NOTHING to do with this particular aspect of the overall discussion. This is about theory and philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed.[/quote]
I have. The Fed Gov’t is justified in taxing only to cover those things spelled out for it in the Constitution.
[/quote]
Well justified is probably to strong a word, but if we can limit a bunch of crooks to certain areas we would be certainly be better off.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.[/quote]
If you have something to argue, then by all means, argue. Take issue with a specific notion in my original justification for taxation. Prove it wrong. That’s the only way to do it.
Otherwise, you are just typing unsubstantiated bullshit about debt and TSA pat-downs…which have literally NOTHING to do with this particular aspect of the overall discussion. This is about theory and philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed.[/quote]
I have. The Fed Gov’t is justified in taxing only to cover those things spelled out for it in the Constitution.
[/quote]
Reddog, what are those things???
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
@smh23
Dude, you haven’t even made any PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for taxation.
You haven’t even justified the existence of the state which claims the authority to do the taxing.
Let’s see your awesome powers of reasoning at work.
So far all we have seen is one assumption made after an other and those are not arguments.
Shit, even Orion tried to help you with your argument.
Take his charity and give us a show, old boy.[/quote]
Like I said, take issue with the specifics of what I originally wrote. I’m not interested in arguing for argument’s sake. if you have a substantive criticism I am eager to hear it. I haven’t seen one yet.
one question , What is PWI ?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
Jesus Christ man, how fucking thickheaded are you?
Read this next part slowly: the argument in question is about the theoretical justification for taxation. It does not condone, condemn, or in any substantive/practical way deal with the realities of government in modern America.
Yes, there are constraints. Yes, the government has run wild in recent years. Yes, the Constitution must be held in higher regard than it recently has been, especially with regard to war in my opinion.
But…and here is the part you seem not to be able to grasp…that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about the THEORETICAL reason why taxation is PHILOSOPHICALLY justified. If I’m not mistaken, you said yourself a few pages back that taxation is a necessary evil. So you agree with me on this?[/quote]
Boy, I really have to spell it out for you don’t I? Ok. Taxation is justified only if it does not harm one group for the benefit of another, and it must operate within the rules of the organization doing the taxing.
[/quote]
I don’t see how this bears on my original thought. Do you agree with what I wrote? Do you not? If not, with what substantive piece of it do you take issue?
Sort shit out in your head before you start vomiting all over your keyboard man. I wrote something, you attacked it. Now explain why you disagree with me. Not with an unrelated rant about harming one group for the benefit of another…because that isn’t what I’m talking about…I’m talking about why taxation–just taxation–just the fucking ACT ITSELF–is philosophically justified. I said it is. I gave a reason. Take issue with the specifics of my argument or move on.[/quote]
What part of that do you not understand? Taxation is philosophically justified under the above constraints.
There are very few things from which we are all the benefactors, for those very few things, taxation is justified. Beyond that, I’d have to draw you a picture.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
No, what you have provided is a rather weak argument that the gov’t is justified in taking money from any group it sees fit and spending that money on whatever it sees fit, so long as the mob doesn’t disagree.[/quote]
If you have something to argue, then by all means, argue. Take issue with a specific notion in my original justification for taxation. Prove it wrong. That’s the only way to do it.
Otherwise, you are just typing unsubstantiated bullshit about debt and TSA pat-downs…which have literally NOTHING to do with this particular aspect of the overall discussion. This is about theory and philosophy, in case you hadn’t noticed.[/quote]
I have. The Fed Gov’t is justified in taxing only to cover those things spelled out for it in the Constitution.
[/quote]
Reddog, what are those things???
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
There are very few things from which we are all the benefactors, for those very few things, taxation is justified. Beyond that, I’d have to draw you a picture.
[/quote]
I said nothing of magnitudes, or the extent to which taxation is justified, or what specific elements of public action are under discussion. I simply stated that there are circumstances under which taxation itself is philosophically justified. You have a greed with me…as begrudgingly as you possibly could have, yes…but you seem to have agreed with me. That’s it.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
But it does matter. There are specific constraints on what each level of gov’t can & cannot do. If they run unconstrained (as the Fed gov’t has) then we become subjects rather than citizens.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” -
Thomas Jefferson
[/quote]
Jesus Christ man, how fucking thickheaded are you?
Read this next part slowly: the argument in question is about the theoretical justification for taxation. It does not condone, condemn, or in any substantive/practical way deal with the realities of government in modern America.
Yes, there are constraints. Yes, the government has run wild in recent years. Yes, the Constitution must be held in higher regard than it recently has been, especially with regard to war in my opinion.
But…and here is the part you seem not to be able to grasp…that is not what I have been talking about. I have been talking about the THEORETICAL reason why taxation is PHILOSOPHICALLY justified. If I’m not mistaken, you said yourself a few pages back that taxation is a necessary evil. So you agree with me on this?[/quote]
Boy, I really have to spell it out for you don’t I? Ok. Taxation is justified only if it does not harm one group for the benefit of another, and it must operate within the rules of the organization doing the taxing.
[/quote]
I don’t see how this bears on my original thought. Do you agree with what I wrote? Do you not? If not, with what substantive piece of it do you take issue?
Sort shit out in your head before you start vomiting all over your keyboard man. I wrote something, you attacked it. Now explain why you disagree with me. Not with an unrelated rant about harming one group for the benefit of another…because that isn’t what I’m talking about…I’m talking about why taxation–just taxation–just the fucking ACT ITSELF–is philosophically justified. I said it is. I gave a reason. Take issue with the specifics of my argument or move on.[/quote]
AWSOME!
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
@smh23
Dude, you haven’t even made any PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for taxation.
You haven’t even justified the existence of the state which claims the authority to do the taxing.
Let’s see your awesome powers of reasoning at work.
So far all we have seen is one assumption made after an other and those are not arguments.
Shit, even Orion tried to help you with your argument.
Take his charity and give us a show, old boy.[/quote]
Like I said, take issue with the specifics of what I originally wrote. I’m not interested in arguing for argument’s sake. if you have a substantive criticism I am eager to hear it. I haven’t seen one yet.[/quote]
Oh, oh I would like to have a subsatntive criticism, but unfortunately you failed to make your point… yet again.
Taxes are easily justifiable…
And…
Go!
And please remember, just because I wrote my thesis about it, i.e. had to research this for months and have it pass a rather strict prodessor does not mean zilch, so no reason to be shy or anything.
Reddog:
Don’t refer me to the Constitution, explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS what those things are. Or have you never thought about it and just say “constitution” when you don’t know, like Bachmann and Palin? Answer the question.
Lastly, Facists were ANTI-SOCIALISTS. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, do you? I did a little leg-work for you:
"The Fascists presented themselves as anti-Marxists and as opposed to Soviet communism.[70] Benito Mussolini consolidated control over the Fascist movement in 1919 with the founding of the Fasci italiani di combattimento, whose opposition to orthodox socialism he declared:
We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible."
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Reddog:
Don’t refer me to the Constitution, explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS what those things are. Or have you never thought about it and just say “constitution” when you don’t know, like Bachmann and Palin? Answer the question.[/quote]
Why would I need to put it into my own words, when it’s already spelled out. Specifically Article 1 Section 8.
[quote]Lastly, Facists were ANTI-SOCIALISTS. You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about, do you? I did a little leg-work for you:
"The Fascists presented themselves as anti-Marxists and as opposed to Soviet communism.[70] Benito Mussolini consolidated control over the Fascist movement in 1919 with the founding of the Fasci italiani di combattimento, whose opposition to orthodox socialism he declared:
We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism. Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program, and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible."[/quote]
Seriously? Your ignorance isn’t as funny as how proud you are of it.
A. Hitler and Mussolini are different people…
B. “Brown Shirts” were Germany’s (which is different that Italy) National Socialist German Worker’s Party’s paramilitary group.
C. The Nazis accused communism and capitalism of being associated with Jewish influences and interests. They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers’ importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation.
D. You are ignorant.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
@smh23
Dude, you haven’t even made any PHILOSOPHICAL JUSTIFICATION for taxation.
You haven’t even justified the existence of the state which claims the authority to do the taxing.
Let’s see your awesome powers of reasoning at work.
So far all we have seen is one assumption made after an other and those are not arguments.
Shit, even Orion tried to help you with your argument.
Take his charity and give us a show, old boy.[/quote]
Like I said, take issue with the specifics of what I originally wrote. I’m not interested in arguing for argument’s sake. if you have a substantive criticism I am eager to hear it. I haven’t seen one yet.[/quote]
Oh, oh I would like to have a subsatntive criticism, but unfortunately you failed to make your point… yet again.
Taxes are easily justifiable…
And…
Go![/quote]
I wrote it a while back. It was simple and I can find little wrong with it. If you have a substantive piece of criticism that can be leveled against it, then please attack away. I will respond to your criticism and a debate will ensue.
Otherwise, I’m done with this thread. You asked, I answered, you ignored, you asked again. Go back a page, read what I wrote, and tear it apart with your “thesis” powers.
Or you can keep stalling. In which case I’m not gonna respond to this anymore.
Figured this might be relevant to the conversation as insults like “brown shirts” are being thrown around.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
There are very few things from which we are all the benefactors, for those very few things, taxation is justified. Beyond that, I’d have to draw you a picture.
[/quote]
I said nothing of magnitudes, or the extent to which taxation is justified, or what specific elements of public action are under discussion. I simply stated that there are circumstances under which taxation itself is philosophically justified. You have a greed with me…as begrudgingly as you possibly could have, yes…but you seem to have agreed with me. That’s it.[/quote]
For the record, your original argument was:
You never stated it, but that certainly implies you’d support the gov’t collecting taxes to avoid the above, which led to my response of the specific tax policy of the US Fed Gov’t.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Sir, that is a well-thought-out overview. I agree with all of it and concur with the “panties in a bind” statement.
I do not teach at Penn State. It is where I received my degrees. I will NOT disclose my identity for obvious reasons, as I am posting political opinions which do not necessarily represent the views of our administration. I could be fired. I only mentioned the degree because one of the brown shirts in this discussion tried to say that I didn’t know what a corporation was. I regret ever mentioning it.[/quote]
And Penn Sate might read this and want to rescind their degree to avoid embarrassment…
Taxation is never justified. Not even for the alleged benefit of all.
Well, guys. I appreciate all the insults and all, but I am done until Tuesday! The market only demands that I work until 2 or so (pretty much my discression) for this I sacrifice several hundred thousand dollars in compensation per year. However, I ENJOY what I do. I’m now gonna have several beers and some perverted sex w/ the old lady.
Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend. Remember those POOR people who always fight all of our wars for us.
At least since Korea, they all pretty much died for nothing.
See you all next wk!