U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Yesterday, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The difference among many differences is our elderly mothers' well being and even survival.

Since you are all about theory. In theory, you can vote against Social security and Medicare and definitely against the senior services program. How do I vote against a street robber breaking down my door?
OK, then you pay for it. It's not my responsibility.

Voting is pointless because majority rule.

How? By exercising your natural right to self defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
That's not reality vs theory, it is an "ends-means" fallacy used to rationalize that which you refuse to admit.

The armed street robber might be robbing you to pay for their very elderly mother's living expenses, housekeeper, aid and medical related expenses. Would their robbery then be justified in your eyes, since the ends are sufficiently noble to forgive/excuse the clearly violent, immoral means? And if you walked down their street, does that mean you implicitly consented to their action, since it is their street after all, since they claimed it by force, same as government does?

Looked at another way, if the government said that yeah, a bunch of your taxes really are for nothing more than them buying booze and hookers, would taxation still be totally different than the armed robber? (hint - they do spend a bunch of your money on booze and hookers, they just lie about it)

You are rationalizing your own victimization as well as trying to convince me of the nobility of your assailant, all because someone you know received some corollary benefit from the ill gotten gains. That isn't a valid logical proof, because "ends-means" is a fallacy.

I am not looking at it strangely, but matter of factly, according to definition. Taxation and armed robbery are EXACTLY THE SAME action - the forcible taking of an individual's property under threat of force/violence.
  • No matter what ends that action serves, the action itself does not change.
  • Whether an individual chooses to do it for their own ends, or a collective chooses to do it for their collective ends, the act itself does not change.
  • Just because the threat of force/violence is represented differently, the act itself does not change.
  • whether you agree or disagree with terminology, the act itself does not change.
Logical consistency may indeed seem strange if you are unfamiliar with how it works, but I assure you, properly defining taxation as armed robbery is absolutely consistent with logic and the definitions of words.

An easier, more pithy way of saying all that is - there can be no moral end to an immoral means.
+ Infinity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:07 PM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
That's not reality vs theory, it is an "ends-means" fallacy used to rationalize that which you refuse to admit.

The armed street robber might be robbing you to pay for their very elderly mother's living expenses, housekeeper, aid and medical related expenses. Would their robbery then be justified in your eyes, since the ends are sufficiently noble to forgive/excuse the clearly violent, immoral means? And if you walked down their street, does that mean you implicitly consented to their action, since it is their street after all, since they claimed it by force, same as government does?

Looked at another way, if the government said that yeah, a bunch of your taxes really are for nothing more than them buying booze and hookers, would taxation still be totally different than the armed robber? (hint - they do spend a bunch of your money on booze and hookers, they just lie about it)

You are rationalizing your own victimization as well as trying to convince me of the nobility of your assailant, all because someone you know received some corollary benefit from the ill gotten gains. That isn't a valid logical proof, because "ends-means" is a fallacy.

I am not looking at it strangely, but matter of factly, according to definition. Taxation and armed robbery are EXACTLY THE SAME action - the forcible taking of an individual's property under threat of force/violence.
  • No matter what ends that action serves, the action itself does not change.
  • Whether an individual chooses to do it for their own ends, or a collective chooses to do it for their collective ends, the act itself does not change.
  • Just because the threat of force/violence is represented differently, the act itself does not change.
  • whether you agree or disagree with terminology, the act itself does not change.
Logical consistency may indeed seem strange if you are unfamiliar with how it works, but I assure you, properly defining taxation as armed robbery is absolutely consistent with logic and the definitions of words.

An easier, more pithy way of saying all that is - there can be no moral end to an immoral means.
It's not a fallacy. Something is only robbery if you believe it is. For example, people voted to pay for senior services to help seniors live at home, in their property tax because they wanted to help seniors, spread the cost out as an insurance, and figured it was cheaper than the alternative of nursing homes and more moral than not helping seniors at all.

So the majority didn't see it as robbery. There was no immoral means or ends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:14 PM
 
7,154 posts, read 2,596,734 times
Reputation: 3897
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It's not a fallacy. Something is only robbery if you believe it is. For example, people voted to pay for senior services to help seniors live at home, in their property tax because they wanted to help seniors, spread the cost out as an insurance, and figured it was cheaper than the alternative of nursing homes and more moral than not helping seniors at all.

So the majority didn't see it as robbery.
There was no immoral means or ends.
You jumped from Ends-Means fallacy to Ad Populum fallacy (true because a majority say so). Or rather, you added the two fallacies together, because if one fallacy is invalid, two has to be valid...or something.

Got anything logically valid you want to add to this debate, or is fallacy all I am going to get?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM
 
13,017 posts, read 4,014,733 times
Reputation: 3907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
You jumped from Ends-Means fallacy to Ad Populum fallacy (true because a majority say so). Or rather, you added the two fallacies together, because if one fallacy is invalid, two has to be valid...or something.

Got anything logically valid you want to add to this debate, or is fallacy all I am going to get?
You are misusing or mislabeling things fallacies. Labeling something an X fallacy doesn't make it so.

Anyway, as I said this anarchy stuff is just all theoretical and not practical or real world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
... this anarchy stuff is just all theoretical and not practical or real world.
Except for the fact that anarchy is human nature and 99% of our lives are spent in it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Northern Appalachia
5,225 posts, read 6,437,003 times
Reputation: 6147
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor View Post
Libs and lefties need not respond, because we all know what your answer will be.

Do you, or do you not, believe that taxation is theft? If not, why?
Do you have any idea why the Philadelphia Convention was called for in 1787? The country was failing under the Articles of Confederation and one of the biggest issues was the inability of the federal government to levy taxes.

How would you pay for national defense without taxes. I don't think tariffs on Chinese products will cover the expense.

Last edited by villageidiot1; Yesterday at 02:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Knoxville, TN
1,377 posts, read 628,945 times
Reputation: 1855
Not a lib or a leftie, but no, I don't think taxation is theft.

Lots of problems, naturally, but I like the roads I drive on and that I can call the cops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
Do you have any idea why the Philadelphia Convention was called for in 1787? The country was failing under the Articles of Confederation and one of the biggest issues was the inability of the federal government to levy taxes.
The Constitution was a coup and a consolidation of power in the centralized State. It replaced an incredible document based on natural law with one based on man-made “law.”

Quote:
How would you pay for national defense without taxes. I don't think tariffs on Chinese products will cover the expense.
There shouldn't be a “national defense.” Property owners should be responsible for their own defense. Besides, no one says a group of property owners couldn't come together voluntarily and form militias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,657 posts, read 1,979,435 times
Reputation: 1701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister 7 View Post
Not a lib or a leftie, but no, I don't think taxation is theft.

Lots of problems, naturally, but I like the roads I drive on and that I can call the cops.
Why can't roads be privately owned and operated?

Why does the government have to provide security instead of private companies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top