XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/23/2018 11:38 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 8/22/2018 6:02 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
      
   {snip}   
      
   >>>> One consequence of your position is that taxation with   
   >>>> representation is not authorized, and as a result   
   >>>> government-provided police and fire protection isn't either.  Sounds   
   >>>> crazy to me.   
   >>>   
   >>> So your entire argument supporting your thesis is that it 'sounds   
   >>> crazy to you'... ?!   
   >>   
   >> No.  My argument for rejecting your thesis is that it produces results   
   >> which I find absurd.   
   >   
   > A) You asserted that taxation with representation is not authorize and   
   > then use that unproven assertion as the basis to throw out my argument?!   
      
   I asserted a consequence of your thesis is taxation with representation   
   is not authorized.  Since an individual does not have the authority to   
   tax another individual, isn't it the case that your thesis argues the   
   majority can't tax individuals either?   
      
   >>> Nevertheless, I presume that you will also bow out of this discussion   
   >>> rather than drive to the root, therefore my proven assertion that one   
   >>> does not have authority over another stands.   
   >>   
   >> There is no need for me to discuss it any further given my belief that   
   >> the results your thesis produces are absurd.  Since we aren't debating   
   >> factual statements, you can't prove anything (and neither can I).   
   >   
   > Again, you make assertions that you then demand be accepted as fact.   
      
   No.  I am expressing my opinion.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)