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.
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!)
You just described LWNJ's liberal democrats. You are mixed up.
Once they are used to redistribute wealth they are theft. Taxes used for defense of us all--not theft. Taxes used for subsidies, bailouts, welfare payments, etc. equals theft.
Either taxation is an immoral act, taking money not freely given or it's not. Who gets to decide if a tax is moral and on what grounds?
Your argument that Defense is a moral tax because it is for the greater good of all sounds fine to me, but would it be theft taxing a pacifist morally opposed to any sort of violence, even in self defense?
On the flip side, one can argue taxation for subsidies are moral because it helps us all by sustaining agriculture or industry critical to national economic health. Not neccesarily my argument, but debateable none the less.
My point is, discussions and determinations on morality are best left to the individual and far, far away from government. I would take more seriously an argument proposing the abolition of all taxes based on moral grounds more heavily than one that qualifies the "theft" if its spent properly.
Civilization is the only reason why you have "wealth" to "tax" to begin with. A lot of conservatives seem to believe they would be "just as successful" or live just as well if there were no roads, no police, no military, no public schools, no colleges, no federally backed loans, no FAA, etc. etc. etc.
.
Where did you get that idea? I've met a lot of conservatives and never met one who would agree with your statement.
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."
If rape is ever legalized, then carrying concealed weapons would have to be legalized. And the government should allow women to wear the "Rapex" penis trap anti rape contraption.
Do you understand different meanings for the word liberal? Obviously not.
Rape and theft or both immoral, even if sanctioned by government. Hitler stole from the Jews and ultimately killed most of them. Our liberals steal from the rich and would probably kill them if they deep down did not know they kind of need them to support their fascist policies.
So unparelled unmitigated corporate theft that destroyed this country during the Bush admin, from which we are still attempting to recover from......without may I add...anyone going to jail for it....is ok with you?
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.
There is a vast difference between the amount of taxes taken from a person and those taken above that to use for that which is without Constitutional authority and exceeds the powers granted to the government.
That is Williams point.
Government wrongly takes power and authority never given to it.
Government is only supposed to operate in a manner that they have been given and allowed, not beyond.
There is a vast difference between the amount of taxes taken from a person and those taken above that to use for that which is without Constitutional authority and exceeds the powers granted to the government.
Constitutionality is a legal argument, where Williams seems to make it a moral one. Slavery was perfectly Constitutional, remember?
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."
If you take this to its logical extreme conclusion, then you have to be an anarchist, because every single law that a society has - not just taxation - can be construed as "violating personal property". Furthermore, there is the issue that although things can always be taken too far, there are legitimate social goods that we all consume (roads, hospitals, police, military) that few would want to pay for if only personally compelled.
Personally, I think it's rather stupid and extremist to equate every restriction that society places upon us - such as taxes - with murder and rape. And most of us do not wish to live in a lawless jungle. Can't say I'm all that impressed with the old doctor's intellect, based on this quote.
If you take this to its logical extreme conclusion,
It is seldom logical to take something to it's extreme conclusion. What Williams is saying is little more than what John Locke did. Government does have basic functions that it benefits all of us for them to perform. That is what government should limit itself to.
Transfer payments is nothing more than theft, pure and simple.
Where did you get that idea? I've met a lot of conservatives and never met one who would agree with your statement.
Oh, come on now.
You read CD and see it in any/every thread about taxes.
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.
MOOCHERS!)
