XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 8/23/2018 7:36 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Nope, you apparently don't understand taxation.   
      
   Just taxation is merely the collection of an individual's fair share of   
   $$ necessary to operate a just government.   
      
   Now do you understand?  May we proceed?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)