XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 8/30/2018 6:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   A couple of points that need clarifying:   
     - Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been   
   delegated authority /from/ individuals.   
     - That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose, the   
   powers and authority of the individual.   
      
   Regarding obligations:   
     - The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that is   
   to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has been   
   legally and justly delegated.  No more, no less.   
      
   An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation has   
   been delegated to government.  Therefore, _every_ individual is equally   
   obligated to support and sustain that protection.  It is up to the   
   people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g. it could be   
   that all serve in the armed forces for some period of time, and/or   
   individuals are obligated to financially support the maintenance and   
   execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....).  If an individual   
   refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from   
   society.   
      
   Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)