Is taxation moral?

[Parker2112]

Lemme get this straight. You're against our Federal system as revealed in the US Cons ution, and the rights/privileges it protects?

no. the size and scope of fed govt must be reduced drastically. by doing so we would actually be getting closer to the const and be able to do a better job of preserving those rights.

and by cutting bloodflow, we would necessarily support less ticks.

otherwise, Im not sure what your implying.

[Parker2112]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to pe ion the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Cons ution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Winehole23]

"Shutting down" the Federal government seems to imply a break in the existing cons utional order.

[Parker2112]

and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[Parker2112]

"Shutting down" the Federal government seems to imply a break in the existing cons utional order.

not shutting down the federal govt. shutting down the corrupt machine at the helm.

fine line there.

[Parker2112]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?

and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[RandomGuy]

I dont think its slippery slope at all...your views lead to intrusive/oppressive govt as easy 1+1=2.

Its been proven. Because your views got us where we are, and that is big/oppressive/intrusive govt that trample on bill of rights every day

It fits exactly with the slippery slope fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.
This "argument" has the following form:


1) Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2) Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another. [emphasis mine-RG]

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

Per your post:

If people accept my logic, then
Therefore massive government oppresion will inevitably happen.

Logical fallacy. QED

[RandomGuy]

who is we? popular vote? elected officials? the cons ution? the framers intent? modern interpretation?

and will there ever be anything close to something "we" all "generally agree on?"

We, through our elected governments.

We elect representatives, and they decide.

Choose well.

[Parker2112]

power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

therefore when you open the door with all this "gov as big brother talk" power and influence will walk right through. 2 steps by my count.

[Parker2112]

We, through our elected governments.

We elect representatives, and they decide.

Choose well.

there will never be agreement of the type you speak of. that said, its safe to say no tax is moral, by your logic.

[RandomGuy]

fed govt.

obama=bush is proof that our choice is nothing today. katrina=gulf spill. homeland security=homeland security. war=war. patriot act stranglehold=patriot act stranglehold. bailout=bailout. obama=bush. repub=dem.

new boss same as the old boss. the machine is overrun. time to shut it down.

libertarianism=fascism

vanilla=chocolate

farts=roses

I do not accept your equivalances, anymore than you would accept mine.

Both parties tend to rule from the center, and that is why many administrations policies tend to blend into each other.

Not that is any excuse for Obama's over-deference to established precedence, IMO.

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112
Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?



Originally Posted by Parker2112
and yet these days, govt is our best friend? to be trusted at every turn? altruistic and harmless at its core?

old boss (king of england) same as the new boss (fed govt). same danger still exists because power and influence always seeks to multiply itself.

[RandomGuy]

there will never be agreement of the type you speak of. that said, its safe to say no tax is moral, by your logic.

Again false.

General agreement does not equal unanimous agreement.

If we were to wait for unanimity, we would never reach any decisions.

[RandomGuy]

Here is something to think about RG: How many of the bill of rights were put in place to protect from govt overreach?

All of them.

One of the finer moments of the original do ents authorship.

[Parker2112]

Both parties tend to rule from the center, and that is why many administrations policies tend to blend into each other.

let me end this quick: war, bailouts, patriot act, failing the American people at Katrina and at Gulf Spill are not "governing from center."

they are governing FOR the elite, or in the case of Katrina not governing for the citizens.

[Winehole23]

That said, it's fairly safe to say Parker's mind is a procrustean bed. Every single post gets stretched/trimmed to fit his abstract preconceptions.

[Parker2112]

All of them.

One of the finer moments of the original do ents authorship.

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

[Parker2112]

That said, it's fairly safe to say Parker's mind is a procrustean bed. Every single post gets stretched/trimmed to fit his abstract preconceptions.

[Winehole23]

let me end this quick...

Don't worry. It'll be over quickly enough.

[RandomGuy]

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

I have never said government is "our friend". It needs to be kept at bay and should be accountable.

Goverment overreach is something that concerns me as well.

I just don't think we are quite at totalitarianism's door.

[Parker2112]

they dont jibe with your "big govt is needed/ gov is our friend/ govt will protect us" talk

honestly, I would be more sympathetic to your take RG if there was even one ounce of caution when it came to placing more power in the hands of fed govt. even some lip service would be nice.

[Parker2112]

I have never said government is "our friend". It needs to be kept at bay and should be accountable.

Goverment overreach is something that concerns me as well.

I just don't think we are quite at totalitarianism's door.

maybe its the scanners and the dispersant and the big bank bailouts and the QEs that have me on edge. those things dont scream cons utional govt

[Parker2112]

government should be accountable.

accountability was a joke under bush admin and despite campaign platform to the contrary, its still a joke under Obama

[LnGrrrR]

I think when you are born, it is universally natural that you are in the care of your parents or guardians and all decisions regarding you are made by them.

This was actually one of the things I was thinking of. Most people will argue that you owe a "debt" of sorts to your parents for having birthed you. Of course, that's still up to the choice of the person. If there was a law mandating repayment of services rendered by your parents, I'm sure quite a few people would be ticked off.

Long point short, your custodian(s) made the request for taxation/services for you in the beginning.

Fair enough, although I'm not sure it gets to the crux of the argument.

Once you are of age, you can choose to leave if you don't like the rules.

True, but every place on earth you'd wish to go that doesn't have taxation, probably has other issues.

As well, that doesn't confirm/deny the morality of a situation. After all, one could say that if you don't like X policy, you could move; that doesn't say whether or not X policy is moral.

If the society heads off to war with the idea of it being for the good of the society, then I don't see it being much of a moral dilemma. There is rarely 100% agreement in any group decision making.

Using that logic, it's not a moral dilemma if a majority of our society decides to start outlawing votes for females, or enslaving certain members of society, etc etc. (Of course, then we're veering somewhat into the metaphysics idea of morality, ie. if 95% of people think slavery is moral, does that make it so? Or are 95% of people wrong? That's a whole different rabbit hole though, I think.)

I don't see it being a moral problem though because they are doing it for the good of the neighborhood. I just think it's an utter waste of time and money.

One could argue that you chose to be part of that organization, and if you knew in advance that they do these sorts of things, then you implicitly accepted it.

(Of course, if HOAs were so prevalent in your area that you couldn't buy a house without one, it would make the situation murky.)

[Parker2112]

more critical, does govt have a right to take your property without consent? is the individual truly too minor of a concept to stand up to the weight of govt?

wasnt this govt bound with the opposite principle to a huge extent? that in fact govt should yield to the individual?