Isbskins1 vs Osborn on Rand

[Kamehameha34]

Taxes are not voluntary, in that if you do not pay them there is a sanction.

I yiyi, can you honestly not think of one voluntary tax?

What about when you purchase cigarettes? Or any item not sold in an airport in America?

Taxes are voluntary in that people in this country have not elected representatives who rewrite existing tax law.

Don't make the mistake of substituting this socialist concept of the collective defining individual rights for actual individual rights.

I'm just two posts in and you've already set up two cliche'd strawmen.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: This is all well and good. But I never said she did not have a right to her opinion.

I didn't imply you said she did not have a right to her opinion. I implied you are striving to put laws into place, and supporting current bad laws that directly infringe, and in some cases obfuscate completely the individual rights of American citizens, because you don't understand or agree with the logical philosophy on which they were built.(much of it, objectivist logic, in law, relating to the role of government)

Isbskins said: I said I "thought she was a quintisential example" of over-reaction. That does not mean I intend to silence her point of view, only that I disagree with it.

The funny thing to me, is that while you claim you aren't intending to silence her views, in actuality, you are. The laws you support and champion are the very laws with which the tools of pure democracy use to remove the checks built in to the BOR to limit it - individual rights.

The forefathers wanted to limit our government, a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic, from being overtaken by theocracy, aristocracy and DEMOCRACY. The three branch system, coupled with a public election and term limits, was meant to limit theocracy and aristocracy, while the Bill of Rights was later adopted to limit the evil of democracy in its pure form, which is mob rule.

Isbskins said: And there is a vast difference between forcing someone to be charitable and forcing someone to pay taxes. Taxes are not charity.

Force is force, and whatever the reason, whomever the issuer of, force must be kept in check, if society is to benefit.

Taxes are not all equal, and do not all have the same causation, origination or expenditure when viewing cause and effect. Many of our current taxes in this country are not constitutionally based, nor constitutional under many "accepted readings of context" of the Constitution.

I would love to go over that issue in specific sometime, but, in the effort of brevity, I will suffice to say that forced taxation, when not being used directly for operating government, and official duties of our government as per the Constitution, and limited by Individual Rights, it is indeed forced charity if shown to be wealth redistribution.

Isbskins said: The majority of the people in the country accept and know that what you chose to characterize as charity is a necessary part of our social system.

Nonsense. The majority of the people in the country know what they have been taught, relating to history, in most cases, and most of the history being taught is one sided, government approved propaganda.

We didn't have an income tax until 1861, and it wasn't started for "social purposes", it was started to pay for debt accrued by war. The problem is, when the wars are over, the debts paid, the government didn't stop taxing, instead, pushing to collect more, to do more, without the peoples direct insistance, will or SUBMISSION of the rights to say no. Income tax as we know it today didn't really come into play until the "New Deal" and its direct, socialist inspired programs.

Isbskins said: And Rand does force something. If her ideals were practiced, she would force that majority to suffer the consequences of her desire to "spare" the small percentage of people who share her view.

Sharing her view is individually voluntary, alterable and choice. Her views infringe on the rights of no person, nor do her advocated actions.

Isbskins said: We would have to deal with the less productive society that resulted from a less educated population, a less healthy population, a less safe population, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

That is false cause and effect, yet again, with no backing. You assume taxation is the only legitimate way to raise money, knowing that its not really legitimate.

A government lotto could probably generate more income than taxation, and it would be voluntary AND legal. The problem is, progressives haven't been looking to accomplish the goals they claim ,which is bettering people. They are instead seeking to remove individual rights limitations on government, so a forced collective and pure democracy can be locked in place.

Isbskins said: Now, if any of this had been arbitrarily imposed, you may have had a point. But the fact is that through the years, all of the programs you hate have been voted for and on.

They have been voted for, and on, without the right to do so, without the will of the people, without the PROVOCATION of the people outside of some small special intrest groups and religious groups. To deny the lack of public support for both major parties is to ignore reality, even if only viewing the number of people who don't vote.

Isbskins said: That is our Constitutional system. Bemoan it if you like, but it is not illegal under our Constitution.

Many people are preparing to prove that wrong, and the courts soon aren't going to have a choice except to hear the cases again.

Isbskins said: No, I advocate laws that punish people for breaking laws that have been enacted by representative bodies that they had full rights to vote for. Explain how that is wrong.

It is wrong when the representative bodies aren't acting as REPRESENTATIVES, with the publics best intrests, and IMPOSED LIMITATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS aren't respected in the process of law creation, funding and enforcement.

Isbskins said: It would be immoral to impose and enforce laws that you had no voice in creating. You do have a voice, so it is not immoral.

Simply having a voice is not the issue. Having the ability to LIMIT government is the issue, and the issue you avoid.

Individual rights LIMIT government, they aren't simply obstacles to be hurdled in the process of legislation.

Government has no right, via Democracy, to infringe on individual rights via law, period.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Do you really believe that ideal underpinning our system is that no one should be forced to accept any law they do not personally agree with? Because that would be forcing the subjective opinion that we are better off completely unregulated into law.

You miss the entire point of this issue of disagreement. No person has to accept or be restricted by any law that directly infringes upon their rights, unless it is due to their violation, of the rights of another.

The goal of civil disobedience is to remove bad law, and our system was designed to give voice and power to civil disobedience, for that purpose.

So yes, I think it is clear that our system allowed all people the option to "individually" not agree with a law, and then fight that law, in court.
People who think they can logically prove that a law is flawed in regards to individual rights, break that law, and when in court, challenge that law in the eyes of the jury, based on that logical argument predicated on individual rights. That is part of the responsibility of being a responsible citizen.

You sound like a federalist.

Isbskins said: This an extreme overstatement and exageration of my view. My view is that over the years, people in free and open societies have chosen to vote for a level of governmental regulation that they feel best protects their interests. I believe they should be allowed that choice. I believe if you demand almost universal concurence with any measure, you will find yourself without option.

Thats a rosy way of coloring your view, since you acknowledge none of the blatant rights infringements, or the peoples voice to limit the encroach of unregulated democracy into their daily lives.

Isbskins said: You might have a valid point if governmental enforcement were in fact unjust. It is not.

You mean, it's not, in your opinion. Obviously part of our disagreement here is the very issue that I don't agree, and alledge it IS unjust currently.

Isbskins said: Again, if these laws were imposed and the people had no voice, you would be right. But we live in a free and open, voting rights protected society.

Please, put forth how voting rights are protected, and how the people have expressed their "satisfaction" with voting rights, elections law, campaign donations law, etc?!?

I think you'll find a large portion of the public does not agree.

What portion of the public did it take to revolt against England, and win?

Isbskins said: I do not claim the sysytem is perfect. Only that it remains functional and true to it's mandate.

I claim it is imperfect, and always has been flawed to a minor degree, and that minor degree has been expounded on, exponentially by the two major parties.

Isbskins said: You simply are unsatified with the direction society has gone and the free choices the majority has made.

That is because the bulk of those choices weren't made by society, but instead, by unconnected, talking heads with agendas that don't eminate from the peoples confessed intrests, and most times in direct conflict with Constitutionally emplaced checks and balances (war powers, executive order, fast-track authority, etc) as well as individual rights (outlawing the right to bear arms, constitutionally questionable taxation deviation, foregin policy expenditure, privacy rights, free-speech "zones).

We are quickly coming a highbred communist/fascist police state, and regardless of who votes or voted for it, I am fighting it, to the end.

Isbskins said: Because, if you are logical, you must admit that the pursuit of selfish ends has caused numerous and obvious harms to every society, in every age in the history of mankind. Do you really need to be told this is not only possible, but also likely?

I know it is likely, but a fact of human nature that must be reckoned with on an individual level, as opposed to dictatorial, in an authoritarian manner.

Isbskins said: No, what gives government the right to enact law is the free participation of it's citizens in the system.

Majority has no right to remove the rights of the minority.

Isbskins said: Cheetahs and Grizlies are not pack animals. They live with a mother to maturity, then live solitary lives. They may all live close to the same river, but they survive without cooperation from others of their species. They are not defined as animals that live in social groups.

I don't care how their defined, the fact is they are RAISED to maturity by a voluntary collective, the mother, by maternal instinct. The bear cub is not born and left to raise itself after being birthed, therefore, they are a part of a collective, hence, not individuals. My point still stands.

Isbskins said: No, because I do not advocate the things you claim that I do. Stalin was as extreme as Rand, Fred Phelps is as extreme as Rand. But not me by a long shot.

Well, guess it depends on who you ask. Don't ask me, I can tell you now. I wouldn't expect Hitler looked in the mirror and said "man, I am evil and extreme."

Isbskins said: True on a certain level, but not in the way you imply. That does not mean that all people fight for selfish reasons or only for family causes. They many personally chose to sacrifice for the common good, and not for their own good.

Here you are with your "levels" again. If they choose to fight for the common good, or for sacrifice, it is because the CHOSE ALONG THEIR OWN VALUES, regardless.

I have no problem with those who give of their time, labor or money by choice, only when at the force of the government gun, or any force that is unjust. The force you seek to use, and have supported, I deem entirely unjust.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You miss the entire point of this issue of disagreement. No person has to accept or be restricted by any law that directly infringes upon their rights, unless it is due to their violation, of the rights of another.

You miss the whole point of my disagreement with you. You consider it a "right" to have the same tax system we had at the inception of the country, but that is NOT a protected "right". Remember that the issue at the heart of the revolution when it came to taxation was not taxation, but it's use when the people had no voice in it's assesment and application. There was an Amendment that passed by Constitutional provision that changed the right of the federal government to levy income tax. You have no beef there. All other changes in tax code were achieved through the process set up by our founders. You have no Constitutional beef there. Your issue is not a Constitutional one, though you would like to couch it in those terms. Your issue is a policy issue. You have every right to make your case, to vote for those who would favor the policy you favor and if you get the votes, under our system, I will have to deal with it. I can advocate for my policy choice. That is what we are doing here.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The goal of civil disobedience is to remove bad law, and our system was designed to give voice and power to civil disobedience, for that purpose.

Here, here. If you organize a sit in at the White House and get arrested and go to court and the policy you dislike is overturned, you will have used civil disobedience in the proper fashion. I would fight for your right to do so. That does not mean I have to agree with the policy you advocate.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So yes, I think it is clear that our system allowed all people the option to "individually" not agree with a law, and then fight that law, in court. People who think they can logically prove that a law is flawed in regards to individual rights, break that law, and when in court, challenge that law in the eyes of the jury, based on that logical argument predicated on individual rights. That is part of the responsibility of being a responsible citizen.

Amen, brother. Give it a go.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You sound like a federalist.

Why do you say that?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Thats a rosy way of coloring your view, since you acknowledge none of the blatant rights infringements, or the peoples voice to limit the encroach of unregulated democracy into their daily lives.

You are wrong. I believe completely in an individuals right to challenge the system. I believe that there are, as we speak, laws that deserve to be overturned. That still does not mean I agree with you when it comes to tax policy or social justice issues. Why do you find it necessary to cast me as someone who does not cherish liberty and freedom? I do. I just make a distinction between issues that involve actual protected rights infringements and issues that involve bad policy. You cry wolf when a rabbit hops by and then wonder why your ideals never find their way into the mainstream. It is not because Rebublicans and Democrats are in some conspiracy to hold you down, it is because you can't convince many people you are right.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You mean, it's not, in your opinion. Obviously part of our disagreement here is the very issue that I don't agree, and alledge it IS unjust currently.

Then make a solid case, quoating Constitutional law, common law or precedent that allowing the police to arrest people who do not pay their taxes is "unjust enforcement". To win, you would have to convince at least 5 people in black robes.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Please, put forth how voting rights are protected, and how the people have expressed their "satisfaction" with voting rights, elections law, campaign donations law, etc?!?

Oh, I'm sure each individual would change plenty, given the individual power. But that is the rub. No single individual gets to make the choice. So, we do what we do. Some people care so much they read all they can, vote every chance they get and work with all tools at their disposal to get what they want. Most people are not hyper motivated. Most people do not percieve enough harm to take the time and the action it would take to really change anything. That is a choice, in and of itself. It shows a certain level of satisfaction with the state of things.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think you'll find a large portion of the public does not agree.

Depends on how you define large. A majority? I don't think so. We would see movement if that were the case.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready What portion of the public did it take to revolt against England, and win?

1/3 pro, 1/3 con, 1/3 uncaring. You ain't got those numbers by a long shot.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I claim it is imperfect, and always has been flawed to a minor degree, and that minor degree has been expounded on, exponentially by the two major parties.

Claim away. I disagree away.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is because the bulk of those choices weren't made by society, but instead, by unconnected, talking heads with agendas that don't eminate from the peoples confessed intrests, and most times in direct conflict with Constitutionally emplaced checks and balances (war powers, executive order, fast-track authority, etc) as well as individual rights (outlawing the right to bear arms, constitutionally questionable taxation deviation, foregin policy expenditure, privacy rights, free-speech "zones).

There is alot there that I agree with. I'll join you in the sit ins for limiting executive usurption of power and ending "free speech zones". Where we agree, we agree.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We are quickly coming a highbred communist/fascist police state, and regardless of who votes or voted for it, I am fighting it, to the end.

That comes pretty close to advocating violent overthrow. Civil disobedience I'm down with. Challenging the courts to be just, good move. But you have essentially just said that you don't give a shit about democratic voice, if you diasagree with the will of the people, you feel you have the right to take violent action. Is that what you mean?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I know it is likely, but a fact of human nature that must be reckoned with on an individual level, as opposed to dictatorial, in an authoritarian manner.

So, if someone sells me ecoli infested food, you would be ok with me going to his house and kicking the crap out of him but not ok with passing a law that would make it illegal to put food on the market infested with ecoli. That seems downright stupid to me.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Majority has no right to remove the rights of the minority.

I agree. But that is why the people insisted on the BoR. Your individual rights do carry a legal protective cover. I think I should be able to marry a woman if I want to do so. I believe there is a Constitutional case to be made for that stance. I do not think the system is broken because it is not so right now. I think the system will come to it's senses one day. I think it will happen through a combination of new legislation and legal challenge, as the forefathers provided for.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't care how their defined, the fact is they are RAISED to maturity by a voluntary collective, the mother, by maternal instinct. The bear cub is not born and left to raise itself after being birthed, therefore, they are a part of a collective, hence, not individuals. My point still stands.

I never said family was non-existant or non-functional. I said it is not the most powerful, nor the only natural grouping.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, guess it depends on who you ask. Don't ask me, I can tell you now. I wouldn't expect Hitler looked in the mirror and said "man, I am evil and extreme."

But, the same sentence can be turned on you. You still have not demonstrated that you opinion of me is correct. How am I as extreme as Hitler?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Here you are with your "levels" again. If they choose to fight for the common good, or for sacrifice, it is because the CHOSE ALONG THEIR OWN VALUES, regardless.

But my point was not that people do not make decisions based on personal calculations. My point was that people who insist that only selfish goals are worthy and valid are wrong. So, your point is moot, because it does not address the actual contention.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no problem with those who give of their time, labor or money by choice, only when at the force of the government gun, or any force that is unjust. The force you seek to use, and have supported, I deem entirely unjust.

Deem away. It is still a subjective opinion that I deem to be unsupported. I do not support the use of unjust force. I support the use of force when it is morrally just. I happen to believe it is morally just to arrest people who refuse to pay their taxes. It would be morally unjust to arrest someone who refused to ride on the back of the bus simply because they were black. It would be morally unjust to arrest someone because they voiced an opinion that tax law should be changed. It would be unjust to arrest someone because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I make distinctions, despite what you imply.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I yiyi, can you honestly not think of one voluntary tax? What about when you purchase cigarettes? Or any item not sold in an airport in America? Don't make the mistake of substituting this socialist concept of the collective defining individual rights for actual individual rights. I'm just two posts in and you've already set up two cliche'd strawmen.

If I purchase , I pay the tax. I can not get the products without paying the tax. Oh, I could grow my own tobbacco, but I would have to pay taxes on the gas to run the tractor, etc. Use taxes do not relieve you of the duty to pay the tax, because you can not live without some of the things you must purchase. That is a semantic argument. Taxes are never voluntary, because everyone would love to get the benefits gained from the taxes without ever having to pay them. To be equitable in effect, their must be enforcement.

And you should not make the mistake of thinking that without the power of government enforcement, any of your rights would be secure. Abstaction is not reality. Even if "god" or "nature" endowed you with rights, you ain't got 'em if someone does not have the power to arrest people who have the means and the power to take'em. Rhetorical language is facinating, but has nothing to do with fact. We do not need the concept of strong goverment to arrive at the concept of rights, but we damn sure need strong government to secure rights. No stawmen, just cold, hard reality talking there.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: You miss the whole point of my disagreement with you.

I thought the point of disagreement was at what point government has a right to interfere in inidividual rights, lives and income, which came about from the discussion of why you disagree with Rand?

Isbskins said: You consider it a "right" to have the same tax system we had at the inception of the country, but that is NOT a protected "right".

I think it is a right to have a Republican form of government, as designed, which was a limited government in scope by the guarantee and enumeration of individual rights (which law was forbade to infringe) and the standing law that states no law may stand if in direct contradiction to the Laws of the Land witheld in the Federal Constitution.

You show me where you think the ability to CHANGE that tax system comes from?

I can show you where my argument comes from:

From the Decleration of Independence: Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...... "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"

From the Constitution of the United States: Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: Article IV Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. Article VI This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Now, it is Congress's duty to coin money, not the federal reserves, and it is to be from gold or silver, not worthless paper fiat with no direct guarantee of gold value on its face.(such as an older gold or silver certificate)
It is Congress's, and every elected officials duty, to uphold individual rights (to prevent misconstruction) by their oath of office.
THE ACT of infringing rights, in law, with new law, is an act of treason to their oath of office, as well as their oath of service to uphold and maintain the law of the land.
Voter enacted socialism, violates the rights of individuals, which are protected, and bound to be protected by all sworn elected officials.
Taxation, as described in the constitution before the 16th amendment, is nothing like the tax system we have now. The courts stated that the 16th amendment did not change the tax law, therefore, there is an inherant contradiction, that still lingers of illegality.


(continued)

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Remember that the issue at the heart of the revolution when it came to taxation was not taxation, but it's use when the people had no voice in it's assesment and application.

Your attempt to oversimplify is staggering, and devoid of all the other surrounding facts and context which provoked the revolution.

Isbskins said: There was an Amendment that passed by Constitutional provision that changed the right of the federal government to levy income tax.

Is this the 16th? If so, this is today highly contested on BOTH sides, in role and application.

Isbskins said: You have no beef there.

You couldn't be more wrong. Search Volconvo for my tax arguments.

Isbskins said: All other changes in tax code were achieved through the process set up by our founders. You have no Constitutional beef there. Your issue is not a Constitutional one, though you would like to couch it in those terms.

I don't think you know a damn thing about my stances, with all due respect.

Isbskins said: Your issue is a policy issue. You have every right to make your case, to vote for those who would favor the policy you favor and if you get the votes, under our system, I will have to deal with it. I can advocate for my policy choice. That is what we are doing here.

You are advocating for removing the rights of individuals, on the basis of "subjectively" bettering a majorities intrests, at the direct expense of the minority.

Don't forget what quote of yours STARTED this thread, and this debate.

Isbskins said: Why do you say that?

The laws you advocate and champion are laws that place the government above individuals, both in faith and value.

Isbskins said: You are wrong. I believe completely in an individuals right to challenge the system. I believe that there are, as we speak, laws that deserve to be overturned. That still does not mean I agree with you when it comes to tax policy or social justice issues. Why do you find it necessary to cast me as someone who does not cherish liberty and freedom?

Since you wipe your feet with the Bill of Rights, and the laws you support and advocate directly infringe on the rights of individuals.

Pretty simple.

Isbskins said: I do. I just make a distinction between issues that involve actual protected rights infringements and issues that involve bad policy.

Because you neglect and ignore the purpose of the bill of rights, which was to prevent misconstruction and loss of direction for government. You can't say you DON'T do that, since you are constantly advocating laws that infringe individual rights, as described, in the BOR.

Isbskins said: You cry wolf when a rabbit hops by and then wonder why your ideals never find their way into the mainstream. It is not because Rebublicans and Democrats are in some conspiracy to hold you down, it is because you can't convince many people you are right.

If I had 1/4 of the media access, I would easily out educate, and out convince the morons that populate the heads of both major parties, and all of their elected show ponies. The other relevant issues that affect this perception you conveniently ignore, of course, since it is of benefit to your side of the argument.

Isbskins said: Depends on how you define large. A majority? I don't think so. We would see movement if that were the case.

We are seeing movement, you just aren't looking hard enough, and deny its validity when you see it. One example of that support is the internet and real support that Ron Paul has achieved.

Isbskins said: 1/3 pro, 1/3 con, 1/3 uncaring. You ain't got those numbers by a long shot.

Really?

You seem sure of that, and I wonder at how many else are as sure as you?

Isbskins said: That comes pretty close to advocating violent overthrow. Civil disobedience I'm down with. Challenging the courts to be just, good move. But you have essentially just said that you don't give a shit about democratic voice, if you diasagree with the will of the people, you feel you have the right to take violent action. Is that what you mean?

I don't give a shit about democratic voice, if it attempts to infringe directly on my rights, as an individual. Yes, if the "will of the people" comes out to be "removing individual rights using force", yes, I will be taking violent action. That is what I mean. That is my right, and that is what I mean.

Isbskins said: But my point was not that people do not make decisions based on personal calculations. My point was that people who insist that only selfish goals are worthy and valid are wrong. So, your point is moot, because it does not address the actual contention.

People make decisions based on personal, individual values.
An individual can choose to serve others, without charge, or at great sacrifice of himself, but that is still HIS CHOICE as an INDIVIDUAL.
It is an individual choice, and an individual gain, from CHOOSING individually to sacrifice to help others.

You are attempting to use government force, to FORCE people to do something they may or may not have intrests in, care about, or may actually go against their own best intrests or ability.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins,
Since you alledged you had a clue of my view on taxes, and other things, maybe I should link you to just how much you don't know......

Lengthy,factual opinion on the problems in the US
Watch the truth about the Federal Reserve
REAL ID Act?
A perfect visual example of democracy in action.....
Q&A approach to opening new understanding
Fake News reports MAKING News again!!! Take action here
Ohio Election Law Ruled UnConstitutional.
Bush's use of signing statements......treason in action


Many, many more, but I doubt you will look at even those, so why bother.

[Kamehameha34]

If I purchase , I pay the tax. I can not get the products without paying the tax.

That's still voluntary. Your argument is in line with saying the prices of all items are involuntarily paid.

If you agree to pay then it's voluntary. There is no constitutional conflict with voluntary taxes.

I'm giving you the definition for a term, voluntary taxes. Arguing against it is futile and verging on strawgrasping.

And you should not make the mistake of thinking that without the power of government enforcement, any of your rights would be secure

What the hell, when have I ever said that it isn't the government's job to enforce rights?

What's going on in your head? Are you reading what is being typed? Obviously not.

Taking a citizen's money at gunpoint isn't required to protect their rights.

You're not proposing "strong government to protect rights", you're proposing an expungement of rights to protect only the rights some elite class deems necessary. The very idea that "strong government" necessitates anything in line with forfeiting any rights at all is ludicrous and insubstantiated.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's still voluntary. Your argument is in line with saying the prices of all items are involuntarily paid. If you agree to pay then it's voluntary. There is no constitutional conflict with voluntary taxes. I'm giving you the definition for a term, voluntary taxes. Arguing against it is futile and verging on strawgrasping. What the hell, when have I ever said that it isn't the government's job to enforce rights? What's going on in your head? Are you reading what is being typed? Obviously not. Taking a citizen's money at gunpoint isn't required to protect their rights. You're not proposing "strong government to protect rights", you're proposing an expungement of rights to protect only the rights some elite class deems necessary. The very idea that "strong government" necessitates anything in line with forfeiting any rights at all is ludicrous and insubstantiated.

Prices for anything you do not need are voluntary. So, if I buy a DVD for 10.00 or 100.00 dollars, I pay it voluntarily. Prices for food, not so much. Prices for gas, not so much (remember, if I ride the bus, my fair is partly based on the price of fuel). Use taxes have alredy been rejected by most Americans because the cost of taxation becomes disproportionately born by the middle to lower income levels. You and those like you are the real duped tools. Those who have the power and resources have you fooled into thinking you will be better off if their tax burden is lowered.

So, you are the official definition giver, are you. Is this an elected position or did Bush give you the job because of your donations during his two election campaigns? Give me a break. I do not get to dicker at the grocery store. I pay what the price tag says, or I don't walk out with the product. If I can not live without the product, then the price is not voluntary.

Taxes pay for the police protection that keeps people from being able to murder you without fear of sanction. How is that not protecting your rights. Taxes pay for the Army that keeps you from having your Constitution rendered useless. Who is being ludicrous? Taxes are good and necessary. A tax system the returns government function to pre-cival war era levels would be beyond usless in our times. You have to simply ignore modern times and demands to accept that there is any rational basis for your contentions. Please, join the majority in the real world. You will be much happier.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Isbskins, Since you alledged you had a clue of my view on taxes, and other things, maybe I should link you to just how much you don't know...... Lengthy,factual opinion on the problems in the US Watch the truth about the Federal Reserve REAL ID Act? A perfect visual example of democracy in action..... Q&A approach to opening new understanding Fake News reports MAKING News again!!! Take action here Ohio Election Law Ruled UnConstitutional. Bush's use of signing statements......treason in action Many, many more, but I doubt you will look at even those, so why bother.

Let me begin with this:


"Democracy in America is based on six essential ideals: (1) People must accept the principle of majority rule. (2) The political rights of minorities must be protected. (3) Citizens must agree to a system of rule by law. (4) The free exchange of opinions and ideas must not be restricted. (5) All citizens must be equal before the law. (6) Government exists to serve the people, because it derives its power from the people. These ideals form the basis of the democratic system in the United States, which seeks to create a union of diverse peoples, places, and interests.

To implement its essential democratic ideals, the United States has built its government on four elements: (1) popular sovereignty, meaning that the people are the ultimate source of the government’s authority; (2) representative government; (3) checks and balances; and (4) federalism, an arrangement where powers are shared by different levels of government.

Then check this out:

What Is Democracy? - Defining Democracy

Followed by this:

de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

What does all of this mean? The first point in your first link is bunk. The terms Republic and democracy are not, and have never been, mutually exclusive. We live in a democratic republic. How do I know this. Because I know this:

re·pub·lic /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-puhb-lik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.


You may convince people who are unaware of the actual meanings of the words "democracy" and "republic" that you are right, but not me.

So your first "fact" is not a "fact" at all. It is an attempt to derail people from the true issue (does majority rule mean anything) into a semantic debate, that by all rights you should lose anyway.

The rest of your OP in that referenced thread is really just you loving the sound of your own arguments. The courts have held, time and again, that income taxes are legal. Only by ommiting sections of their points (the federal government always had the right to tax incomes) and twisting beyond recognition reason (42 states actually ratified the 16th Amendment) can you pretend to have built a case.

And trust me when I tell you, I did not lack awareness or understanding of your position in this matter. You love to say that. I will say again what I always say in response: I understand - I simply do not agree. There IS a difference. I do not agree with you because the people hold the power in our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC (see both definitions above) and the people (by Ratification of the 16th Amendment) have agreed to the current system. They did so under the Constitutional Amendment process laid out in the Constitution, therefore preserving the proper ballance between the necessity of Constitutional limitations (the Republic, rather than King element) and the danger of the "tyranny of the majority" problem. It was accomplished in the way the founders required. The Courts, who have the power of judicial review, have not found the "conflict" you claim exists. I am not saying you can not keep right on advocating for the changes you want. I am saying I believe your reasoning is faulty, for the reasons I have stated.

How does this all relate to Rand? Rand is either "the one" or "one of many" who has convinced you that your individual will is more important than the voice of the many. Her attitudes, and your attitude are basically antithetical to democratic forms. The majority does matter and should have a strong say in how a society functions. Though it is true you would never have to worry about the tyranny of the majority under her system, that is only because we would all be so busy fighting the tyranny of the individual that it would be impossible to concern ourselves with the problems of the evils of a majority. And if you want to known the one thing our founders feared more than “mob rule”, it would be that. And to support that, you need only look to this:

”A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

[Osborn F Enready]

Thank for so verbosely saying you have nothing else to say, Isbskins.

I think our words speak for themselves, and I am content to let them rest where they are. Thanks for playing along.