XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/28/2018 2:54 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   No, I don't understand.  I thought your thesis was if an individual does   
   not have the authority to do require another individual to do "X", then   
   the government can't require an individual to do "X" either.  Do I have   
   that right?   
      
   Assuming I have it right, then when X is "collect taxes," it seems your   
   thesis doesn't apply and you make a distinction because the individual   
   needs to pay his fair share.  What's the logic that supports the   
   distinction?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)