Socialised Medicine Yaaaaaaaayyyy

[FBM]

I hope next time Seth references the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership, someone will refer him to the posts where he claimed that my reference to the Constitution was fallacious.

[JimC]

I hope next time Seth references the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership, someone will refer him to the posts where he claimed that my reference to the Constitution was fallacious.

Most of his references to the Constitution are fellatio...

They suck big-time!

[FBM]

I hope next time Seth references the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership, someone will refer him to the posts where he claimed that my reference to the Constitution was fallacious.

Most of his references to the Constitution are fellatio...

They suck big-time!

Fella, sho'!

[pErvinalia]

It is if the public assistance you accept is taken from taxpayers against their will, which is usually the case. Just because it's a taxman doing the strong-arm work for you doesn't make it any less a theft.

But it's not theft... Theft isn't something that's away willingly by it's owner to another party..

Seth is not willing to pay taxes, so to him taxes are a form of theft.

But no one on this earth is forcing him, or anyone in the USA, UK, France, Germany etc to pay taxes if they don't want to ... If you don't like paying taxes, if it really bothers you that much, leave.

Actually, the fact of the matter is that all those countries do compel you to pay taxes. If necessary, they do so by threatening to arrest you. There is no country to leave for if we don't like paying taxes. The best we can do is to inherit or acquire sufficient wealth, to become rich enough to wangle our way out of it using offshore companies, transfer pricing and so forth.

A few years ago a bunch of rich cunts were trying to make a "Libboland" in international waters. Tie a bunch of cruise ships together or some daft idea like that. They wouldn't have to pay taxes there. I've always really hoped they would get this libboland up and running for two reasons: 1. We could ship all the libbos out of our countries to there; and 2. We could laugh as it failed dismally.

[macdoc]

funny that MM adores his science in medicine and can't get his head around science for the atmosphere....just sayin'

[Seth]

Who's evading the arguments? I never made a moral or ethical claim.

No, you didn't, you simply assume that it's okay to take stuff from other people against their will because it conveniences you. That's an immoral and unethical act. Therefore it's appropriate to ask you to support your position with a valid and rational argument.

[Seth]

how do you justify NOT calling the collection of money to be transferred to you by the initiation of force by proxy a "criminal act?"

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution makes the collection of mandatory income tax NOT a crime and simultaneously makes the evasion of such payments a criminal act that can be rightfully, legally, morally and ethically responded to by using force because, you know, tax evasion is like a criminal act. Or are you wanting to argue now that the use of force against criminals is illegal, unethical and/or immoral?

Irrelevant evasive obfuscation.

[Seth]

It is if the public assistance you accept is taken from taxpayers against their will, which is usually the case. Just because it's a taxman doing the strong-arm work for you doesn't make it any less a theft.

But it's not theft... Theft isn't something that's away willingly by it's owner to another party..

I don't willingly pay taxes that are levied for direct redistribution to other people. I pay them because I'm coerced into doing so by the Mace of State which is held over my head and threatens to bash my brains out if I refuse.

[Seth]

It is if the public assistance you accept is taken from taxpayers against their will, which is usually the case. Just because it's a taxman doing the strong-arm work for you doesn't make it any less a theft.

But it's not theft... Theft isn't something that's away willingly by it's owner to another party..

Seth is not willing to pay taxes, so to him taxes are a form of theft.

Wrong. I'm not willing to pay SOME taxes. Specifically taxes levied for the purposes of direct redistribution of my wealth to another private individual who I have not accepted financial responsibility for. I get nothing from this transfer of wealth, whereas with other taxes I'm paying for my use of public services and infrastructure.

[Seth]

It is if the public assistance you accept is taken from taxpayers against their will, which is usually the case. Just because it's a taxman doing the strong-arm work for you doesn't make it any less a theft.

But it's not theft... Theft isn't something that's away willingly by it's owner to another party..

Seth is not willing to pay taxes, so to him taxes are a form of theft.

But no one on this earth is forcing him, or anyone in the USA, UK, France, Germany etc to pay taxes if they don't want to, so when you're giving away something you're not actually obliged to give away, how can it be theft.

Isn't the mating call of many Americans "If you don't love America, then leave!" "Go live in North Korea if you don't love our freedom!" blah blah etc blah. Well..... If you are old enough and financially sound enough to pay taxes, you presumably have sufficient means to acquire a passport and depart for a country/island/plot of land that doesn't require it's citizens to pay income based taxation. It's the same argument many have against unions in the US, workers badgering poor, multi national corporations. "If you don't like your job, get another one!"

Surely the answer is simple. If you don't like paying taxes, if it really bothers you that much, leave.

**Also that should have read 'that's given away willingly', my bad**

I would if there were any better place on earth. But this is all a derail from the question, which is how do YOU morally and ethically justify TAKING money from someone else by proxy to serve your needs and desires? It's not a question of whether it is or can be done, it's a question of the morality of doing so.

[Seth]

Actually, the fact of the matter is that all those countries do compel you to pay taxes. If necessary, they do so by threatening to arrest you. There is no country to leave for if we don't like paying taxes. The best we can do is to inherit or acquire sufficient wealth, to become rich enough to wangle our way out of it using offshore companies, transfer pricing and so forth.

That's true, but it just illustrates how ridiculous it is to call taxation theft.

If it's theft to you, but not to every single country on the planet, that should be a hint that it's you that's out of touch with reality, not them.
Trouble is, when you lose touch with reality, it's hard to actually realise that it's happened.

Trouble is you are incapable of distinguishing between one type of taxation and another. You bleat that taxation isn't theft without even bothering to examine why taxation certainly can be, and in many cases is exactly theft by proxy using the power of the state to redistribute wealth (not pay for services) from one person or group to another.

[Seth]

I hope next time Seth references the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership, someone will refer him to the posts where he claimed that my reference to the Constitution was fallacious.

It is fallacious in the context of the question I'm still asking you: How do you morally and ethically justify taking money from one person against his will and giving it to another by proxy. If you tried to do exactly the same thing yourself, ie: if you came to my door with a gun and tried to take my money or property I would be completely justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force to prevent that theft and assault. We call it "robbery" and it's a crime. So what is your moral and ethical argument in support of using the inherent force of government to commit the same offense? So far the gist of your vague and vacuous response is basically "if the government is doing it, it's okay."

That's hardly a cogent argument.

[Hermit]

how do you justify NOT calling the collection of money to be transferred to you by the initiation of force by proxy a "criminal act?"

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution makes the collection of mandatory income tax NOT a crime and simultaneously makes the evasion of such payments a criminal act that can be rightfully, legally, morally and ethically responded to by using force because, you know, tax evasion is like a criminal act. Or are you wanting to argue now that the use of force against criminals is illegal, unethical and/or immoral?

Irrelevant evasive obfuscation.

So the constitutional amendments are only relevant when they suit you? Why am I not surprised?

[Seth]

how do you justify NOT calling the collection of money to be transferred to you by the initiation of force by proxy a "criminal act?"

The 16th amendment to the United States Constitution makes the collection of mandatory income tax NOT a crime and simultaneously makes the evasion of such payments a criminal act that can be rightfully, legally, morally and ethically responded to by using force because, you know, tax evasion is like a criminal act. Or are you wanting to argue now that the use of force against criminals is illegal, unethical and/or immoral?

Irrelevant evasive obfuscation.

So the constitutional amendments are only relevant when they suit you? Why am I not surprised?

Not at all, they are merely irrelevant and obfuscatory in this particular discussion. You don't want to answer the difficult question I pose because like every single socialist I've ever encountered you know damned well you can't morally and ethically justify redistributive socialist theft. So you wiggle and weave and mumble and obfuscate and evade and pettifog instead. Classic Marxist tactic.

[FBM]

I hope next time Seth references the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership, someone will refer him to the posts where he claimed that my reference to the Constitution was fallacious.

It is fallacious in the context of the question I'm still asking you: How do you morally and ethically justify taking money from one person against his will and giving it to another by proxy. If you tried to do exactly the same thing yourself, ie: if you came to my door with a gun and tried to take my money or property I would be completely justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force to prevent that theft and assault. We call it "robbery" and it's a crime. So what is your moral and ethical argument in support of using the inherent force of government to commit the same offense? So far the gist of your vague and vacuous response is basically "if the government is doing it, it's okay."

That's hardly a cogent argument.

It's perfectly as cogent as your repeated references to the Second Amendment in defense of gun ownership.