liseski Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 "...A tax is a compulsory payment or contribution made by the citizens of a country to the government for the general benefit of the country..." not mine, hence the quotes. however, I believe this is the essence of taxation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1294968929' post='2199866'] "...A tax is a compulsory payment or contribution made by the citizens of a country to the government for the general benefit of the country..." not mine, hence the quotes. however, I believe this is the essence of taxation [/quote] So it's forcing people at gunpoint to pay, (or else they're imprisoned, or killed if they resist being imprisoned) to support monopoly "services" of the State. You can't take money from your neighbor at gunpoint. Do you think it is moral for agents of the State to do it? ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liseski Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 You keep circling back to the same point. Laws are laws. To live in a civil society, you do need them. There are laws that deal with appropriate behaviour of the citizens; there are laws that deal with the appropriate behaviour of the government . AND laws that dictate what you provide to the state in order to share in the responsibility of keeping it running. These laws are decided upon, I believe, "...by the people, for the people, etc..." in your republic. I fail to see the gunpoint analogy. You are not imprisoned. You, sir, are free to leave the society you are in and move to, say - Somalia - where there is no government to inconvenience you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1295023826' post='2200056'] I fail to see the gunpoint analogy. You are not imprisoned. You, sir, are free to leave the society you are in and move to, say - Somalia - where there is no government to inconvenience you [/quote] This is the flaw in most people's argument concerning the 'free society'. You cannot just [b][i]leave[/i][/b]. You must fill out paper work and more paper work and a tad bit more paper work, provided you are even [b][i]approved[/i][/b] to leave the country. You must be [b][i]approved[/i][/b] by the other country to move there, and you must have the [b][i]means[/i][/b] (i.e. money) to move. And of course the means are mostly dictated by how are you doing the the 'free society'. Of course this is just what I know of my general knowledge so if I am wrong I apologize. So, the analogy is flawed. If society was as free as most wish it were, then we wouldn't be having all these problems here in the U.S. to begin with. Edited January 14, 2011 by ThePenciledOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liseski Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 you are quite correct. however, you are not imprisoned in your country, nor 'held at gunpoint' by it. unfortunately a free ride is difficult to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1295023826' post='2200056'] You keep circling back to the same point. Laws are laws.[/quote] I do keep circling back to the same point. It is the linchpin. An unjust law is no law at all. [quote]These laws are decided upon, I believe, "...by the people, for the people, etc..." in your republic.[/quote] I am not at all obliged to obey arbitrary regulations inflicted upon me by people who can't find Iran on a map, but who want to bomb it. Not obliged in the slightest. I am obliged to treat my neighbors with justice. So your millions of arbitrary statutes, which you call "laws," desired by "the people," as you call politicians, who really make the decisions, independent of the will of the populace? They're meaningless. Useless. Harmful. Destructive. [quote]I fail to see the gunpoint analogy. You are not imprisoned. You, sir, are free to leave the society you are in and move to, say - Somalia - where there is no government to inconvenience you[/quote] I see. If I don't want to be robbed, I don't have to travel through Oakland. Because "that's the way they do it there," right? And nobody's forcing me to go through Oakland, so robbery in Oakland is OK, right? Listen up. Taking money from people by force? It's called robbery. And it is not "social" behavior as found in a society, it is [i]anti[/i]-social behavior. Let me tell you what YOU are free to do, Liseski. You are free to back away from my liberties. You have no right to take my money by force, and therefore, you have no right to give that right to a politician, you dig? This land is freehold. Love it or leave it. I'm staying among my neighbors. Your political mental constructs can buzz off. ~Sternhauser Edited January 14, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePenciledOne Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1295033726' post='2200097'] you are quite correct. however, you are not imprisoned in your country, nor 'held at gunpoint' by it. unfortunately a free ride is difficult to come by. [/quote] Imprisoned was not the argument I was defending nor did I describe it as such. Anyway, I could be held at gunpoint if I did not adhere to all the things that I listed before. I could very well be imprisoned for not going through the hoops that the government has set up, so there can be the 'illusion' of security. I'm not asking for a free ride either, only to be left alone, so that I can live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 [quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1295046810' post='2200154'] Imprisoned was not the argument I was defending nor did I describe it as such. Anyway, I could be held at gunpoint if I did not adhere to all the things that I listed before. I could very well be imprisoned for not going through the hoops that the government has set up, so there can be the 'illusion' of security. I'm not asking for a free ride either, only to be left alone, so that I can live. [/quote] Same here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liseski Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1295044102' post='2200135'] I am not at all obliged to obey arbitrary regulations inflicted upon me by people who can't find Iran on a map, but who want to bomb it. Not obliged in the slightest. I am obliged to treat my neighbors with justice. So your millions of arbitrary statutes, which you call "laws," desired by "the people," as you call politicians, who really make the decisions, independent of the will of the populace? They're meaningless. Useless. Harmful. Destructive. [/quote] I can find Iran on a map, and I am quite glad myself and my countrymen are not there. [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1295044102' post='2200135'] I see. If I don't want to be robbed, I don't have to travel through Oakland. Because "that's the way they do it there," right? And nobody's forcing me to go through Oakland, so robbery in Oakland is OK, right? Listen up. Taking money from people by force? It's called robbery. And it is not "social" behavior as found in a society, it is [i]anti[/i]-social behavior. [/quote] Never been to Oakland. Don't want to. Duh. It is obviously lawlessness and anti-social behaviour - we have our own 'areas of anarchy' here.Sort of helps make one of my points. However, I think it makes no sense to go into any discussion of the social issues of marginilised people with you. You and I are not on the same page. I started out by saying that I had no issue paying extra taxes to subsidise my health care. Period. I don't mind it; you would. Fair enough. [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1295044102' post='2200135'] Let me tell you what YOU are free to do, Liseski. You are free to back away from my liberties. You have no right to take my money by force, and therefore, you have no right to give that right to a politician, you dig? This land is freehold. Love it or leave it. I'm staying among my neighbors. [/quote] I am not involved in your liberties in any way, shape or form. In actual fact I am very much a libertarian, which makes me wonder just what the heck I think I am doing exploring the Catholic faith. I cannot vote in your country, only my own. And I do. And I quite often have to bend to the will of the majority, even if it doesn't match my own. You should be free to think and feel whatever you want. I wholeheartedly believe that. And if you don't like the way things are, you move to change it, or you decide your needs are best served elsewhere. All men should have that freedom. Fortunately, in both our countries we have that. Others in this world are not so blessed. I do not think your viewpoints are wrong because they don't align with mine. Just sharing my opinion. [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1295044102' post='2200135'] Your political mental constructs can buzz off. ~Sternhauser [/quote] I do not believe you have any idea of my political viewpoints. And you have a nice day too, sir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1295050053' post='2200167'] I do not believe you have any idea of my political viewpoints. [/quote] "If you don't like it, you can go to Somalia." I think I get the main idea. And it isn't libertarian. If you were a libertarian, you would adhere to the non-aggression principle, the keystone of libertarianism. And if you took the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion, you would not participate in elections. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkKurallSchuenemann Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 [b][size="2"]“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” — Lysander Spoone[/size][/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liseski Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I do believe in non-aggression, actually. To a point. I am, after all, an army-brat. My second-favourite book is not Atlas Shrugged, though. That could be the bigger problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) [quote name='liseski' timestamp='1295393866' post='2201579'] I do believe in non-aggression, actually. To a point. I am, after all, an army-brat.[/quote] That is probably one of the most massive non-sequiturs I have ever seen. A monopoly State is incompatible with the principle of non-aggression. [quote]My second-favourite book is not Atlas Shrugged, though. That could be the bigger problem here.[/quote] I've never read it. I have no problem with people who haven't read it. Rand and her objectivist groupies are not my cup of tea. ~Sternhauser Edited January 19, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachael Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1294817419' post='2199301'] In the US if you are very poor or very rich you can get relatively good treatment, but it you are middle-class you are screwed. For example, my cousin with a broken foot is advised to get PT after 6 weeks in a cast. However her insurance will not cover it and the PT is $160 a session for 3x a week, so needless to say she won't be going. And she has relatively good insurance.... [/quote] Or if you have a 'pre-existing condition"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1294817419' post='2199301'] In the US if you are very poor or very rich you can get relatively good treatment, but it you are middle-class you are screwed. For example, my cousin with a broken foot is advised to get PT after 6 weeks in a cast. However her insurance will not cover it and the PT is $160 a session for 3x a week, so needless to say she won't be going. And she has relatively good insurance.... [/quote] same exact thing is happening to Shea. Same $ amount too. We have been going online to find exercises for her to rehab her leg on her own.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now