Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taxation isn't theft. It is what you pay, involuntarily, for services rendered by government.
Living in this country, you use government services whether you like it or not.
This holds true only if it is something the Government has to do because they are the only ones who have the resources. The liberals seem to think the Government has obligations to do "everything" for everyone. If I take from you to build something for your use, it isn't stealing. If I take from you to give to someone else simply because they have less than you - THAT is stealing!
Because Swift was a very talented writer, knew how to use satire to great effect, and was writing about a genuine tragedy.
Admittedly, it would be unfair to demand that Dr. Whatshisname have the same command of English prose as one of the great British novelists, so peace be upon that. But as for satire, his piece doesn't possess any - well, any of the voluntary sort, that is. And I take it reasonable people would agree that the Irish famines were rather worse transgressions than the concept of income tax.
If you compare this tripe to Swift's writing, I can't help but doubt you understand what makes "A Modest Proposal" a classic.
Just confess you are really for legalized theft.
If everyone respected the principle of self-ownership there would be no rapes.
Dr. Walter Williams explains the immorality of the liberal position:
"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."
All of the money the government receives in taxes gets redistributed whether it be to a government employee/contractor or a farmer it's subsidizing. It's money being spent on what Congress deems necessary for the good of the country. If the farmer wasn't subsidized we'd have a problem finding people who were willing to be farmers....it would cause problems with our food supply and the price we pay for food. Bail outs that are for businesses that are too big to fail are because the result of failure would be much worse fiancially (among other things as well) than the cost of the bail out.
When you look at the big picture, a person's earnings (that get taxed) may rely on some of the programs the government subsidizes or at the very least their "net" earnings would be less if those programs didn't exist. How often have you been robbed or burglarized? Certainly if aid was not provided to the poor, crime would be much higher. Even if you were lucky enough to not be a frequent victim of that crime, you'd be paying more in taxes to cover the increased cost that would be necessary for law enforcement.
Subsidizing an item simply transfers economic activities into areas where it is less efficient. Subsidizing reduces wealth. People with wealth will always be able to find food available.
Nearly a half century of the Great Society has done nothing to reduce the poverty rate, Subsidizing poverty just gets you more of it as it delays people going to work and acquiring real skills that can get them out of poverty.
The drug war, another government violation of the right to self-ownership, is responsible for much of our present crime.
What, you're giving up on the Swift comparison and turning to strawman arguments already?
I thought you didn't want to discuss rape in the first place.
The point is Swift's comparison of legalizing cannibalizing children in order to make a political point is in the same vein as William's rape versus theft comparison.
You simply wish to debate how the message was conveyed and not the message. The message is theft is immoral even if it is legal.
The fact is millions are suffering in prisons and in poverty thanks to our government's failure to respect the principle of self-ownership.
As usual this county's failure to follow the principle of self-ownership hurts some groups more than others.
Leonard Pitts:
Quote:
In June of 2010, I wrote in this space about a book, The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander, which I called a “troubling and profoundly necessary†work. Alexander promulgated an explosive argument. Namely, that the so-called “War on Drugs†amounts to a war on African-American men and, more to the point, to a racial caste system nearly as restrictive, oppressive and omnipresent as Jim Crow itself.
This because, although white Americans are far and away the nation’s biggest dealers and users of illegal drugs, African Americans are far and away the ones most likely to be jailed for drug crimes. And when they are set “free†after doing their time, black men enter a legal purgatory where the right to vote, work, go to school or rent an apartment can be legally denied. It’s as if George Wallace were still standing in the schoolhouse door.
Dr. Walter Williams explains the immorality of the liberal position:
"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."
Strawman's arguement since a rape "victim" or a murder "victim" or a theft "victim" has no control over those circumstances. However one does have control as to whether or not they want to give their "earnings" to the Government though.
They do? I believe that is what Denzel Washington thought.
"Another way of verbally masking elite preemption of other people's decisions is to use the word 'ask'--as in 'We are just asking everyone to pay their fair share.' But of course governments do not ask, they tell. The Internal Revenue Service does not 'ask' for contributions. It takes." -- Thomas Sowell
Of course it does. Rape and theft are both immoral.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
