XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 8/30/2018 10:34 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Perhaps.  How do we determine what the set of societal obligations for   
   which government has authority over the individual even though another   
   individual does not?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)