Socialised Medicine Yaaaaaaaayyyy

[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.

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

Evasion.

[FBM]

You're evading the obvious self-contradiction by trying to lure me off with a red herring. No luck. Sorry. If there's anything fallacious about my reference to the Constitution, the same can be said of your references to the Second Amendment. Can't have it both ways.

[Seth]

You're evading the obvious self-contradiction by trying to lure me off with a red herring. No luck. Sorry. If there's anything fallacious about my reference to the Constitution, the same can be said of your references to the Second Amendment. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent example of the false dilemma fallacy there FBM. You couldn't have stated it any more clearly than that.

[FBM]

You're evading the obvious self-contradiction by trying to lure me off with a red herring. No luck. Sorry. If there's anything fallacious about my reference to the Constitution, the same can be said of your references to the Second Amendment. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent example of the false dilemma fallacy there FBM. You couldn't have stated it any more clearly than that.

No false dilemma here. They are analagous arguments and you can't arbitrarily label one fallacious and the other valid without being self-contradictory. You've contradicted yourself.

[mistermack]

Like I said, Seth is out of touch with reality.

He has a fundamentally flawed understanding of ownership. To come up with all this hifalutin moral crap just proves it.
In the real world, you only own something, by the consent of the rest of the world.
In the case of the USA, that means the state. That is the basis of your ownership of something.
The state makes a set of rules, and gives you a way of obtaining certain rights over ''property''.

All this talk of moral and immoral is pure shite, fed by a lack of comprehension of the real world.
You don't ''own'' anything, in the way that Seth thinks. You just have certain rights.

When you get paid, you don't ''own'' that money, in any moral sense. You just have legal rights to do certain things with it. Same with a patch of land. It's not your kingdom. You just have certain rights.
The government can change those rights any time it wants to.
It can impose any tax it likes, so long as it is in power.
That tax money then no longer ''belongs'' to Seth, so it's fuck-all to do with him what they do with it.
If you don't like it, you have a vote, you have the right to run for office, and you can campaign all you like.
But the notion of ''it's immoral to take my money'' is bollocks, because it never was ''your money'' in the sense that Seth thinks. It's ''your money'' in the sense of the current legal system, the government says you can keep it, and spend it, so long as we don't need it.

In reality, it belongs to the government, because THEY have more power over it's ownership than you do. Your rights are given to you by the government. They can alter that any time they like.
You can't.

[Seth]

You're evading the obvious self-contradiction by trying to lure me off with a red herring. No luck. Sorry. If there's anything fallacious about my reference to the Constitution, the same can be said of your references to the Second Amendment. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent example of the false dilemma fallacy there FBM. You couldn't have stated it any more clearly than that.

No false dilemma here. They are analagous arguments and you can't arbitrarily label one fallacious and the other valid without being self-contradictory. You've contradicted yourself.

No they aren't, and no I haven't. Yet more evasion.

[FBM]

For ease of reference:

ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... _user.html

And more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_On ... f_Congress

[FBM]

You're evading the obvious self-contradiction by trying to lure me off with a red herring. No luck. Sorry. If there's anything fallacious about my reference to the Constitution, the same can be said of your references to the Second Amendment. Can't have it both ways.

Excellent example of the false dilemma fallacy there FBM. You couldn't have stated it any more clearly than that.

No false dilemma here. They are analagous arguments and you can't arbitrarily label one fallacious and the other valid without being self-contradictory. You've contradicted yourself.

No they aren't, and no I haven't. Yet more evasion.

Y'know, I started to say something like, "Yeah, if I were in your position, I'd give up, too" but then I thought about it. If I were caught out in a logical contradiction, I'd just admit it.

[Seth]

Like I said, Seth is out of touch with reality.

He has a fundamentally flawed understanding of ownership.

Really? What's complex about "ownership?" If I own it I have the right to dispose of that "it" as I see fit and I have the right to keep others from taking that "it" away from me without my permission. That's the very definition of "ownership."

To come up with all this hifalutin moral crap just proves it.
In the real world, you only own something, by the consent of the rest of the world.

In that case you can box up your computer and send it to me right now because I withdraw my "consent" to your exercising plenary control over it.

In the case of the USA, that means the state. That is the basis of your ownership of something.

Wrong. The basis of my ownership is my ability to reduce the object to my possession and defend that possession against intrusion by others.

The state makes a set of rules, and gives you a way of obtaining certain rights over ''property''.

No it doesn't. It makes a set of rules about how you may be DIVESTED of your rights over property. It doesn't give you permission to own something, at least not around here. Your mileage obviously varies in your socialist utopia.

All this talk of moral and immoral is pure shite, fed by a lack of comprehension of the real world.

You got that computer boxed up yet. You'd better get on it.

You don't ''own'' anything, in the way that Seth thinks. You just have certain rights.

Well, that's what Karl Marx believed anyway.

But if you want to test that belief, come on over to my house and try to forcibly divest me of my property. Make sure your life insurance is paid up and your will is updated...oh wait, you don't need a will because you don't "own" anything.

When you get paid, you don't ''own'' that money, in any moral sense. You just have legal rights to do certain things with it. Same with a patch of land. It's not your kingdom. You just have certain rights.

Marxist claptrap.

The government can change those rights any time it wants to.

It can try. Then again that's exactly WHY we have the 2nd Amendment.

It can impose any tax it likes, so long as it is in power.

Ibid.

That tax money then no longer ''belongs'' to Seth, so it's fuck-all to do with him what they do with it.

Doesn't make the theft moral or ethical.

If you don't like it, you have a vote, you have the right to run for office, and you can campaign all you like.
But the notion of ''it's immoral to take my money'' is bollocks, because it never was ''your money'' in the sense that Seth thinks. It's ''your money'' in the sense of the current legal system, the government says you can keep it, and spend it, so long as we don't need it.

Yes, that's a concise statement of the Marxist dialectic. Fortunately the US isn't a Marxist state...yet.

In reality, it belongs to the government, because THEY have more power over it's ownership than you do. Your rights are given to you by the government. They can alter that any time they like.
You can't.

And there we have it folks, the ultimate Marxist socialist argument: "Might Makes Right." How...democratic of you.

Anyway, any time you think that your right and title to my property is better than mine feel free to stop by and try to reduce my property to your possession. I'm not worried that you will succeed because, well, I have lots of guns and the skill to use them to fend of thieves.

[MrJonno]

Wrong. The basis of my ownership is my ability to reduce the object to my possession and defend that possession against intrusion by others.

Well no individual can defend anything if enough people want it, so ownership based 'on ability to defend it' is just pure bullshit

[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?

Not at all, they are merely irrelevant and obfuscatory in this particular discussion.

Yes. I can quite see where you are coming from. You defend the right to bear arms because it says so in a constitutional amendment while claiming that income tax is theft even though it says otherwise in a constitutional amendment.

[MrJonno]

The wonder of natural laws, if Seth says its true its natural and true. Anything else is Marxism.

I not sure how Seth manages to drag himself away from a mirror, it must be looking at the face of god

[FBM]

[SnowLeopard]

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.

It's not coercion. You're obliged to follow the laws of the country you choose to live in. If those laws offend you so much, depart for somewhere that suits your beliefs. You're a self sufficient adult so whats complicated about that.

[SnowLeopard]

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.

I'm not derailing anything. If you don't like the system of the country you are living in, depart the country. Sitting there complaining about it but continuing to take part in the thing you are complaining about seems rather.. I'm not sure. Childish. Like a kid moaning to mummy about having to eat his sprouts, but knows in reality he has to just shut up and eat them or he doesn't get any ice cream. Adults seem to grow out of that and just knuckle down and get on with it, you know?

No? It's not a question of morality at all. I don't have to justify anything to you. I didn't make the law.

If you want my opinion. It would be immoral not to tax those who can afford it to assist people who need help. With so few people controlling so much of the wealth, on a planet of 7 billion people it is a necessity to redistribute that wealth so they can have a bearable life. Because you know, we are a civilized and humane society. Unfortunately, for you, every country in the world has that same opinion. If that means that Seths jimmies have to be rustled, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Which leaves you with 2 options.

1, Suck it up.

2, Find an atoll and create Sethland.