XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 8/28/2018 6:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   When a person is a voluntary member of a society, he has certain   
   obligations to that society.  If he fails to meet those obligations, he   
   can be punished and/or removed from the society.   
      
   Taxation, for just societal purposes, is one such obligation.  One   
   person does not have authority over another in this case, rather the   
   individual is obligated to the society.  ALL are EQUALLY obligated.   
   There is equal authority.   
      
   Now do you understand?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)