Let's Legalize Rape (weapons, extremist, economic, state)

[whogo]

Let me let William's expand a bit more on self-ownership.

Let's look at some congressional actions in light of self-ownership. Do farmers and businessmen have a right to congressional handouts? Does a person have a right to congressional handouts for housing, food and medical care?

First, let's ask: Where does Congress get handout money? The only way for Congress to give one American one dollar is to first, through the tax code, take that dollar from some other American. It must forcibly use one American to serve another American. Forcibly using one person to serve another is one way to describe slavery. As such, it violates self-ownership.

Government immorality isn't restricted only to forcing one person to serve another. Some regulations such as forcing motorists to wear seatbelts violate self-ownership. If one owns himself, he has the right to take chances with his own life. Some people argue that if you're not wearing a seatbelt, have an accident and become a vegetable, you'll become a burden on society. That's not a problem of liberty and self-ownership. It's a problem of socialism where through the tax code one person is forcibly used to care for another.

These examples are among thousands of government actions that violate the principles of self-ownership. Some might argue that Congress forcing us to help one another and forcing us to take care of ourselves are good ideas. But when congressmen and presidents take their oath of office, is that oath to uphold and defend good ideas or the U.S. Constitution?

When the principles of self-ownership are taken into account, two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does violates those principles as well as the Constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist French refugees, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Did James Madison miss something in the Constitution?

It is not taxation itself that violates the principle of self-ownership. It is what government does with approximately 70% of the tax dollars that does.

[filihok]

Originally Posted by whogo

Let me let William's expand a bit more on self-ownership.



It is not taxation itself that violates the principle of self-ownership. It is what government does with approximately 70% of the tax dollars that does.

Which 30% do not violate the principle of self-ownership?

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by whogo

Not without violating the principle of self-ownership if you are simply transferring wealth. You may disagree with that principle and have alternative moral standards, but you cannot justify taking from one individual and giving to another without violating the self-ownership principle.

Are you trying to insinuate that there is no benefit to "wealth distribution" at all?

No benefit to the economy or taxpayers when there aren't hordes of impoverished, hungry, desperate people with no hope for a better future for themselves or their children?


In the middle ages, kings were able to keep the peasants in line through brute force and because they brainwashed the serfs into believing that the social hierarchy and nobles were better and chosen by God. Now that we know that is a bunch of bunk, civil society works best when all citizens feel they have a stake in same, or at least know that their kids can do better in the future. Get a nice public education, maybe get a grant or government loan to go on to college, etc.

Is there waste and abuse? Sure, but waste and abuse is by definition not the norm.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by whogo

Ya, I don't know why the welfare bums don't move to Germany.

They're not the ones losing, according to the amusement you provide.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

Are you trying to insinuate that there is no benefit to "wealth distribution" at all?

.

No, what I am stating is that government enforced wealth distributionis costly to society and that we get a negative return on tax dollars spent to subsidize sloth.

Charlie Daniels explains the principle of self-ownership in layman's terms

People say I'm no good
Crazy as a loon
Cause I get stoned in the morning
And get drunk in the afternoon
Kinda like my old blue tick hound
I like to lay around in the shade
And I ain't no money
But I damn sure got it made

'Cause I ain't asking nobody for nothin'
If I cant get it on my own
If you don't like the way I'm livin'
Just leave this long haired country boy alone

Preacher man talking on T.V.
Puttin' down the rock and roll
Wants me to send a donation
'Cause hes worried about my soul
He said Jesus walked on the water
And I know that its true
But some times I think that preacherman
Would like to do a little walking too

But I ain't asking nobody for nothin'
If I cant get it on my own
If you don't like the way I'm livin'
Ya just leave this long haired country boy alone

A poor girl wants to marry
And a rich girl wants to flirt
A rich man goes to college
And a poor man goes to work
A drunkard wants another drink of wine
And a politician wants a vote
I don't want much of nothin' at all
But I will take another toke

But I ain't asking nobody for nothin'
If I can't get it on my own
If you don't like the way I'm livin'
Ya just leave this long haired country boy alone

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by whogo

The fact is not only do the rich get nothing in return the welfare state actually increases illegitimacy, poverty and crime.

Obviously I will never convince those who have different moral standards that their morality is wrong on a single thread or a thousand threads. Most of the people who post on political forums have their moral and political beliefs carved in stone, as do I.

First off lets get something straight.

Rich people get a lot from welfare and other assistance government programs. If they didn't spend that money, then they would be forced to spend that money on law enforcement to protect them from the mobs of folks that would be hungry and forced to resort to crime. So saying they get nothing out of it is not factual. Therefore it doesn't increase crime, poverty is debatable.

Its not morality that is in question. It isn't immoral to tax, period. Your opinion is that taxation is like rape. This is not true.

Originally Posted by whogo

Let me let William's expand a bit more on self-ownership.



It is not taxation itself that violates the principle of self-ownership. It is what government does with approximately 70% of the tax dollars that does.

You quote someone who quotes Madison. What you, and he, are overlooking is that Madison was talking about aid for non US citizens. Thus the words constituents.

Rich people, and all legal citizens of the United States are the constituents that Madison was talking about.

Madison was on record saying that the constitutions clauses could be used to remedy a situation that has already taken place, but not use its broad powers to prevent the situation from taking place in the first place.

For instance, the Alien and sedition acts were unconstitutional because they tried to prevent people from committing open rebellion before it happens. It was argued that because the federal government is granted the power to stop insurrection, that the alien and sedition acts were constitutional because it prevented what the constitution gave the federal government the power to stop.

But welfare doesn't stop people from becoming poor, it actually keeps them from losing everything after they have already become poor.

So it works within the modern constitutional interpretation, actually those taken since around 1809. Really the entire history of the United States, our government, and the world we live in today are based on the premise that the constitution is a living document, and is open to be interpreted by the courts.

Welfare, social security, medicare, etc have all had their day in court, and they are perfectly constitutional based on conservative and liberal judges.

Rich people aren't raped when they pay taxes on anything. For social programs and welfare specifically, it keeps a happy world, which is good for business.

[whogo]

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

This is all acts of benevolence. The fact the beneficiaries in that case were foreigners is a non-issue. SS was correctly ruled unconstitutional the first time through as many of Roosevelt's blatantly unconstitutional programs were. The Constitution recognized the principle of self-ownership. We no longer have constitutional republic or we would not even be debating many of the issues we are debating today.

The rich are better off when free markets allow them to utilize labor and capital to its fullest. The welfare state harms the rich. It harms the poor even more as there communities are often turned into battlegrounds. Legalized theft is immoral and harmful.

A bit of info:

Perhaps the greatest irony in the issue of welfare came from a statement by the Father of Big Government, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt, a man known for giving in on his previous word and selectively compromising his beliefs, not to mention the Constitution, in pursuit of an agenda. Roosevelt took to the podium on March 2, 1930 to talk about states rights as Governor of New York. In this speech, printed in entirity on March 3, 1930 by the New York Times, he had this to say:

"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject[SIZE=-2]1[/SIZE], but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by whogo

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."

I agree about taking my stuff. I call them skin taxes since they tax my labor and my tools. What constitutes the ownership of land and resources?

[Who?Me?!]

Originally Posted by Who?Me?!

True! But righties want everthing handed to them for free....in thieir tiny tiny minds they think they're independent....(they don't even know they drive on highways they didn't personally build themselves! MOOCHERS!)

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

well no, see --

first you have to assume that you pay more in, than all those other losers out there.

then you have to create a special class of "costs", which benefit you, which are exempt from any criteria that might make it "redistribution of wealth."

Then, the rest is simple -- you argue everyone else's benefits are "socialism", and the things you pay for are "legitimate costs of government."

Thank you for helping me understand Repug "reasoning"....I think. I almost don't want to get into their tiny frozen brains...

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

So you agree, because the former was his sole contention, the latter was not. I haven't heard anything about anything congress does being immoral simply because congress does it.That would be absurd.

I don't think he's even making the "all taxation is theft" argument, nor do I personally agree with that argument. There should be some semblance of shared responsibility, but that's not a black/white thing. What I think he's saying, and I could be wrong, is that just because the law supports it, doesn't make it moral. Therefore it can not be argued that any and all taxation is moral simply because the government deems it moral.

Well, I have never heard that welfare taxation is moral simply because the government says it is. Ya I get the main point, that since he thinks it would be immoral to steal from the rich to help the poor, it's not moral period even if the government was the one doing it. But this is a moral debate, irrelevant to the actual state of the tax code.

But also to turn the whole point around, many people think vigilantism is immoral while it's perfectly ok for the government to imprison and steal from people as punishment, i.e. it's ok when the government does it but not private individuals. So does he think vigilantism is moral?

But the morality lies solely in the action of giving. Someone who calls for heavy taxation is not necessarily more moral, they just believe that others should be coerced into participation in their own idea of morality. You can be a relatively "moral" anarchist or a relatively "moral" communist, but I would venture to say that the anarchist is more moral because while his morality does not necessarily preclude him from being charitable or whatever he deems to be moral, it does preclude him from coercing others to participate in what he deems to be moral.

For me? If I could save a life it could be argued that the morality of that outweighs the immorality of the theft.

For the millionaire? It depends how you define morality. I think a charitable person is obviously more moral than a non charitable person. But at the same time someone is not necessary amoral simply because they are not particularly charitable. But that's irrelevant anyway, as forced charity does not bestow morality upon the giver, receiver, or tax man.

In many cases, either people in need get government welfare or they get nothing. Private charities do not fill gaps that would be created if we removed all welfare. If they did, they would already be doing it and there would be no need for welfare in the first place. So many people think it's moral to create a coerced situation that will help those people, when there is no other option. Thus the debate continues about whether it's moral or not.