Isbskins1 vs Osborn on Rand

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I don't see why you think this is illogical, Skins, we are not herd animals, we are rather primates, Scientists usually portray our ancestors as living in small groups of inter-related individuals, more like a lion pride than a herd. Large groups simply don't lend themselves to our main activities, hunting and foraging.

First, I did not say we were herd animals. I said we were not solitary predators. Second, we are not talking about a problem that faced society when the majority of humans did exist as hunter/gatherers. We are talking about whether or not Rand's ethic is viable for modern man. Did you ever consider why people organize into larger societies now than they did 50,000 years ago? Could it be because trial and error taught man, the most adept creature on the planet at learning from and adapting to different circumstances, that when they refused to band into groups that encompased more than their immediate family, their family got their asses kicked by the town and the town got their asses kicked by the state? As I have already said, I am not claiming that family groupings are not important. I am saying that if and when humans limit their allegince to ONLY family, they are overpowered and ultimately less successful than those that "go bigger".

[Autolykos]

Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant.

Quote by: lsbskins1 People who live in neighborhoods with higher tax rates get their streets plowed faster, their kids walk on better sidewalks and politicians pander to them. There is reward for the extra they pay and even though they pay more as a percentage of income in INCOME taxes, they still get to exist on a higher percentage of their income when you factor in all taxes paid.

To me, this entire argument stands out as a big non-sequitur. It implies that extra taxes will automatically go to plowing streets, better sidewalks, etc. I see no reason why this would always be true.

And you do not get to set the terms of debate.

Then you don't, either! :) So who does, then? I guess nobody. The debate thus dies before it's born.

I do not give a rats butt what definition you "gave" me.

In other words, you will use your own definitions, come Hell or high water.

If I said "I define lettuce as being a red fruit that grows on trees", I would not expect anyone to say, "Well, that must be what lettuce is."

Quite simply, you're missing the point.

And, Mister Assinine, the elite class I give the ultimate power to is the same class the Constitution gives the power to, that would be "the people".

I assume you're using the phrase "elite class" metaphorically, then? Because, by common definition, an elite class cannot consist of everyone.

They are sometimes called "the voting public", sometimes "the American People". I'm sorry if you are unsatisfied with the choices they have made, but neither I, nor the majority of the rest of the nation votes with your faction.

Keep in mind that we're not necessarily talking only about America. Also keep in mind that your argument above is nothing but a great big appeal to the majority. In effect, you seem to be saying, "My argument is right because the majority agrees with me". This cannot be anything less than a logical fallacy.

In our Democratic Republic, those are the rules. The rules enshrined in the Constitution.

Two things:

1. The Constitution does not apply to other nation-states, or to the human species as a whole.
2. Just because the Constitution exists does not make it right.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant.

Quote by: lsbskins1 But if I say, "Rand advocates self interest at levels that endanger the larger Community", countering with an article by someone who says "Rand was brillant", does not undercut the point at all. It is really a verbose way to say nothing.

By the same token, that does not mean your statement is necessarily right/correct.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant.

Quote by: lsbskins1 First, I did not say we were herd animals. I said we were not solitary predators.

I think it's fair to say that Gods_Mercenary was interpreting your statements to mean that you viewed human beings as herd animals. If his interpretation was incorrect, then say so. :)

Second, we are not talking about a problem that faced society when the majority of humans did exist as hunter/gatherers.

So human nature has fundamentally changed since the hunter-gatherer era?

Did you ever consider why people organize into larger societies now than they did 50,000 years ago?

Yes.

Could it be because trial and error taught man, the most adept creature on the planet at learning from and adapting to different circumstances, that when they refused to band into groups that encompased more than their immediate family, their family got their asses kicked by the town and the town got their asses kicked by the state?

... No. There were a lot fewer people on Earth 50,000 years ago, which meant a much lower division of labor.

As I have already said, I am not claiming that family groupings are not important. I am saying that if and when humans limit their allegince to ONLY family, they are overpowered and ultimately less successful than those that "go bigger".

Is everything about power to you?

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos Define "need".

need: a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation

Within the contect of my statement, the word should be taken to mean "something a person will not survive without."

So, if I have finacial obligations (rent, electricity bills, a family to feed) I need to buy gas so that I can drive to work and earn the money to meet my obligations. I do not need to buy a DVD. I need to buy food. I do not need to buy a new TV.

Quote by: Autolykos Or you can go find out what its price is at another store. Hopefully it's cheaper there.

I can drive all day long and gas is 2.62 or 2.63 in every station within a range that would not mean I would burn more gas than I would make up for in a lesser price. I can go to Kroger or Wal-Mart, and might pay .05 cents less for the bread at one, but .05 cents more for the milk. In this world, there ain't not real difference, one place to the next. If I have a certain education level, I make a certain entry level wage. If I am unskilled, I make what I make at Wal-Mart or K-Mart. If I am a coal miner, I don't make more at Pinnacle #17 than I do at Sago. My "power" is effectively nonexistant to effect any of those equations. Moving to my specific expierence, in working for Borders Books and Music, wages offered were wages offered and were based on "industry standard". They paid what their survyes told them others were paying. Now, I'm not saying they were doing anything unusual. I am saying, individual workers can not "alter" their pay scale by shopping their labor. That is just fact. They need to work, they take the pay scale their training and skill level gets. Call it oligarchical collusion (as I would) or call it free market economics (as perhaps you would) the effect is the same.

Quote by: Autolykos Right, because only the police can ever offer sanctions. :rolleyes:

I have addressed this point in other threads. I am not saying their "can" be no such thing as private policing. I am saying private policing is inherently more corruptable than public policing. I take that as a given in any discussion. That is my position. It is my position because logic tells me that if a private police force gets called by Joe Sixpack, who can afford to pay 100.00 dollars a month to police his house alone, to complain about a loud party that Remmy Grocerystoreowner is having, private police are going to make a bottom line calculation, and ignore Joe's complaint because if they bust Remmy, he's going to fire them and give his business from his home, his store and his little subshop to their competition. Plus, how do you pick which force has jurisdiction? How do you figure out which "private court" the case goes to trial with? It just is not a practical solution to policing. So, roll your eyes all you wish. Are you advocating for the better system or the possible system?

Quote by: Autolykos Right, because if there was no standing Army, some country would start sending its troops to our borders and/or shores right away. :rolleyes:

Maybe, maybe not right away. But eventually...without doubt.

Quote by: Autolykos You have not demonstrated this to me. I doubt you've demonstrated this to Kamehameha or Osborn, either.

And I doubt I ever will. That would be nice, but is not necessary in my mind. I think I have made a reasonable case over many months and threads. Some people will never accept that the War in Iraq was a mistake. That does not mean it was, in fact, a good idea.

Quote by: Autolykos What about "our times" would make such a thing "beyond useless"? An exhaustive list would be appreciated here.

I do not have the available word count to give you an exhaustive list. Asking for it is silly. But, to give a few, simple examples:

Paying the salary of the existing Army for just a few weeks would be impossible.

Maintaing communications between FBI offices across the counrty would be impossible. Multiply that over all federal agencies. Someone could set off a truck bomb in Maryland, drive to Florida and the government would be powerless to track him. He could then get on a boat to Cuba and we wouldn't be able to notify the Coastguard.

Modern travel, modern communication, modern everything requires a level of cost and integration that could never be supported by excise duties on the crap that China imports to this country. That is the reason the old system was abandoned. It was inadequate to modern needs, even in 1900. The people freakin voted for the changes because they were necessary to keep our economy going.

Tell everyone that what you really want is to, hell not even just return, but regress, our society to hunter/gatherer modes, and see how far you get. Because if you got what you advocated, that is what would happen. Even if you believe that would be "best", it ain't ever gonna be accepted.

Quote by: Autolykos I think the following response is most appropriate: Make me! - Rob

It was advice, not command.

[Kamehameha34]

need: a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation Within the contect of my statement, the word should be taken to mean "something a person will not survive without."

1. You will have more money to pay for the slightly increased price in bread because there would be no government sponsored agency taking a predetermined percentage of your property.

2. You don't need to buy bread to survive, or anything for that matter. Humans were surviving long before there was established currency, and much longer than taxation.

And I doubt I ever will. That would be nice, but is not necessary in my mind. I think I have made a reasonable case over many months and threads. Some people will never accept that the War in Iraq was a mistake. That does not mean it was, in fact, a good idea.

You've made no case. What you think is a sound argument is completely nonsequiturial.

I do not have the available word count to give you an exhaustive list. Asking for it is silly. But, to give a few, simple examples: Paying the salary of the existing Army for just a few weeks would be impossible. Maintaing communications between FBI offices across the counrty would be impossible. Multiply that over all federal agencies. Someone could set off a truck bomb in Maryland, drive to Florida and the government would be powerless to track him. He could then get on a boat to Cuba and we wouldn't be able to notify the Coastguard. Modern travel, modern communication, modern everything requires a level of cost and integration that could never be supported by excise duties on the crap that China imports to this country. That is the reason the old system was abandoned. It was inadequate to modern needs, even in 1900. The people freakin voted for the changes because they were necessary to keep our economy going. Tell everyone that what you really want is to, hell not even just return, but regress, our society to hunter/gatherer modes, and see how far you get. Because if you got what you advocated, that is what would happen. Even if you believe that would be "best", it ain't ever gonna be accepted.

Why do you seem to think that every technological advancement after the civil war isn't sustainable without forced tax dollars?

Your position is idiotic - enacting a constitutional tax system would not destroy, explode, or otherwise disable simple inventions such as the telephone.

The government will still be raising money, so an armed service could be paid for.

You seem to think that the fact that America adopted unconstitutional policies in the civil war era means that nothing after the civil war era could have happened without those policies.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're operating under the delusion that rich people spend only as much money on taxable as goods as poor people.

No, I'm operating from the factually based understanding that after a certain point, wealth is horded and ceases to benefit those who hord and exponentially damages those who lose access to the resource. A greedy bastard might have enough money to buy 17 yachts, but will not. If, he instead allowed his workers in his diamond mine to take that resource home in salary, they would all buy reliable cars to get back and forth to work in the mine, and he could still have his yacht. And taxes would be paid on 2000 cars and a yacht, instead of just the yacht. Cause you know and I know, mine owner will hire a tax consultant who will put the remainer in a tax protected trust. You are the delusional one, not me. Your thinking stops too soon.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hardly matters. Your position is untenable nomatter what euphemism I apply to what ultimately is the same thing - a voluntary tax.

It does matter. Voluntary means something. Call it what it is, not what you wish others to mistakenly view it as. For a debate to mean anything, it must begin in a place of honest accessment. We have to agree on the terms of the debate, or it is not debate, it is you talking to the wind and me wasting my time. If I say "Sugar can not sweeten" and you say "Yes it can" and I respond by calling you an idiot because you do not accept my definition of sugar as a substance taken from posion ivy plants that causes a rash and is incapable of sweetening anything, who is the idiot? Who is the one who does not understand debate? Especially when you know that the common definition of sugar has no relation to poison ivy. It is dishonest and useless.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then clearly you don't know how to debate. Definitions are relative. All language is meant for is communication, not tradition. You are refusing to comprehend the untenability of your position because of a choice of words.

No, I am disputing your definition of voluntary. This is a debate about policy, in the end, and for your point to carry weight, you have to remove it from the "me v. you" context. I could win any debate that I alone got to set the terms and conditions in. If your view of "good" must be the accepted view, it is not debate... it is pronouncement.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. The constitution doesn't give power to the people to pick and choose which rights other people get to enjoy.

Sure it does, within specified limits. It limits the serial killer's right to enjoy murdering others.

It limits your right to enjoy all the fruits of your labor when you rely on others in the community to be the solider while you continue to built the boats you sell to rich folks.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're under the false impression that the constitution is being adhered to whenever voting takes place.

No, I'm not. I am under the factual impression that the tax code, on the whole, is quite legal and necessary. That is what we are discussing in this instance.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wanting unilateral rights to what I own and earned is selfish?

Yes, when in doing so you become a free rider on services others bear the finiacial burden for.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're a primary example of what one would call a sheeple - someone who believes that the government has a higher authority over your property than you and that a simple majority can define the rights of an individual.

I believe neither.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Tell me, if rights only exist when those with the biggest guns are supporting them under your constitutional abortion of a proposition, why even enumerate them as rights?

So that everyone has a common understanding of what the rules are. If you never enumerate, how do you enforce? It's like posting the speed limit. How do I know if it is 55 or 65 if you never bother to tell me. The enumeration provides the framework, but secures nothing.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant. To me, this entire argument stands out as a big non-sequitur. It implies that extra taxes will automatically go to plowing streets, better sidewalks, etc. I see no reason why this would always be true. Then you don't, either! :) So who does, then? I guess nobody. The debate thus dies before it's born. In other words, you will use your own definitions, come Hell or high water. Quite simply, you're missing the point. I assume you're using the phrase "elite class" metaphorically, then? Because, by common definition, an elite class cannot consist of everyone. Keep in mind that we're not necessarily talking only about America. Also keep in mind that your argument above is nothing but a great big appeal to the majority. In effect, you seem to be saying, "My argument is right because the majority agrees with me". This cannot be anything less than a logical fallacy. Two things: The Constitution does not apply to other nation-states, or to the human species as a whole. Just because the Constitution exists does not make it right. - Rob

1)You give no argument that it is not true. For this type of contention to be sound, it does not need to "always" be true, it just needs to be true in sizeable proportion to instance. There may be times when a murder victim would have died 2 minutes later when a blood vessel in his brain was biologically set to blow, that does not mean murder should never be a punishable crime.

2) No, I do not get to set terms unilaterally either. Terms must be mutually agreed upon. Where there is dispute, either the parties must compromise or allow arbitration. But one party does not get to dictate terms to another.

3) Not what I said, not what I meant.

4) Quite simply, you are twisting the point. See above.

5)No, I was using Mr. Assinine's phrase, "elite class" sarcastically.

6) Again, no. In the first place, we ARE talking about the US, in the framework of this particular debate. In the second place, if the majority is, in fact, correct then there is no fallacy at all. The logical fallacy is in ASSUMING THE MAJOITY MUST BE RIGHT, not in claiming that they areright, when, in fact, they are right. And I never claimed the majority was right because they held the majority view, I claimed that under our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, the majority had "the right" to make the deterinations in policy that they have made where tax policy under discussion was concerned.

6) This shotgun approach is getting old.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant. By the same token, that does not mean your statement is necessarily right/correct. - Rob

In that you are correct. But I did give logical support for my position. His counter was nothing more than what I stated.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos Note: The parts of the post I do not quote are those that I consider to be irrelevant. I think it's fair to say that Gods_Mercenary was interpreting your statements to mean that you viewed human beings as herd animals. If his interpretation was incorrect, then say so. :) So human nature has fundamentally changed since the hunter-gatherer era? Yes. ... No. There were a lot fewer people on Earth 50,000 years ago, which meant a much lower division of labor. Is everything about power to you? - Rob

1) I did.

2) No, but human existance has changed considerably. That is what matters in relation to what we are discussing. We may respond to some of the same inate instincts, but our inviroment and our tools are completely different, so we can not base our reactions and solutions on that previous state.

3)Good.

4) Please explain how that pity response is relavent or a counter to my claim?

5) No, but where power is relavent, it is relavent.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I'm operating from the factually based understanding that after a certain point, wealth is horded and ceases to benefit those who hord and exponentially damages those who lose access to the resource.

So what? That doesn't give you constitutional access to their bank accounts. The fact that people don't do what society wants with their money doesn't expunge the fact that taking it is unconstitutional.

It does matter. Voluntary means something.

I said I'm not debating it. You can either know what's being said or choose to ignore it. Don't respond to me if you choose the latter.

No, I am disputing your definition of voluntary.

Disputing definitions is pointless. You know what I'm talking about, so what's the problem?

No, I'm not. I am under the factual impression that the tax code, on the whole, is quite legal and necessary. That is what we are discussing in this instance.

Oh, it is?

Why didn't you just say that at the beginning? We could have bypassed this whole thread.


Seriously, you're not OK with people setting the terms of the debate, then you go and try to pull this BS.

Yes, when in doing so you become a free rider on services others bear the finiacial burden for.

Find one instance where I propose that I wouldn't pay any taxes of any kind.

I believe neither.

So you don't believe that the government should have reigning authority over our property, and money?

I accept your concession, then.

So that everyone has a common understanding of what the rules are.

Exactly! You've got it!

Rules don't change just because a simple majority of those that follow them with to put their hands into someone else's cookie jar.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 1. You will have more money to pay for the slightly increased price in bread because there would be no government sponsored agency taking a predetermined percentage of your property. 2. You don't need to buy bread to survive, or anything for that matter. Humans were surviving long before there was established currency, and much longer than taxation. You've made no case. What you think is a sound argument is completely nonsequiturial. Why do you seem to think that every technological advancement after the civil war isn't sustainable without forced tax dollars? Your position is idiotic - enacting a constitutional tax system would not destroy, explode, or otherwise disable simple inventions such as the telephone. The government will still be raising money, so an armed service could be paid for. You seem to think that the fact that America adopted unconstitutional policies in the civil war era means that nothing after the civil war era could have happened without those policies.

1) And so would the wealthy person, so the inequity remains.

2) Give me a break. Humans, due to changes in technology and practice, no longer have the diversity of skills to survive in the way they did even 150 years ago. Unless you are now admitting that you desire and would have no issue with the fact that what you advocate would result in the suffering and misery of millions, what is your point?

3) Then kindly point out specific faults in my reasoning.

4) Because the courts tried for years to force the government to keep the same system and the people kept electing people who insistented on changing the system because the people found that their lives were too difficult to sustain otherwise. 42 of a maximum of 48 states voted to ratify the changes. It may have been less possible, I just KNOW Hawaii and Alaska were not states when the 16th Amendment was ratified. I think those were the only two, but I'm not absolutely positive. 42 of 48 is a Super Majority, is it not?

5) Do you think I was talking about telephones? You do know how complicated modern communication is, don't you? I'm talking Satilite networks, computer systems with coding and encryption, and multiple other systems that probably cost billions to support. Are you really so stupid as to think it would be effective for someone to pick up a phone and call Miami to address the situation I laid out?

6) But they would not be able to raise money at levels that could sustain the needed resources. Thats like saying if Michael Vick gets a job at Wal-Mart, he can keep all his cars, houses and other crap he got on his 100+ million dollar salary.

7) Not nothing, just nothing approaching what we enjoy today.

[Kamehameha34]

1) And so would the wealthy person, so the inequity remains.

If your goal is to completely equalize poor and rich people then you best not argue policy for country based around free trade.

2) Give me a break. Humans, due to changes in technology and practice, no longer have the diversity of skills to survive in the way they did even 150 years ago. Unless you are now admitting that you desire and would have no issue with the fact that what you advocate would result in the suffering and misery of millions, what is your point?

People in Africa suffer for every dollar I don't donate. That doesn't obligate me to do anything, legally. Continue to appeal to emotion and you'll be ignored by more than some guy on a debate site.

3) Then kindly point out specific faults in my reasoning.

1. You think the fact that the current government sytem can't be sustained by a reasonable voluntary tax program means that a voluntary tax program isn't viable.

2. You think I'm constitutionally obligated to look after the collective, or you're just disregarding the constitution. Either one fits.

3. You apparently don't think that the government has reigning authority over my property, yet you think they have the right to force me into taxation.

Because the courts tried for years to force the government to keep the same system and the people kept electing people who insistented on changing the system because the people found that their lives were too difficult to sustain otherwise.

4. You think the simple majority has the authority to suppress individual rights. America isn't a socialist nation.

Do you think I was talking about telephones? You do know how complicated modern communication is, don't you? I'm talking Satilite networks, computer systems with coding and encryption, and multiple other systems that probably cost billions to support. Are you really so stupid as to think it would be effective for someone to pick up a phone and call Miami to address the situation I laid out?

5. You think the "billions" required to sustain necessary programs isn't attainable with a voluntary tax program, with no substantiation whatsoever.

But they would not be able to raise money at levels that could sustain the needed resources. Thats like saying if Michael Vick gets a job at Wal-Mart, he can keep all his cars, houses and other crap he got on his 100+ million dollar salary.

6. You think that all resource expenditure our government is currently funding is "necessary".

7. You ignore the taxes he paid on those cars, houses, and 'other crap'.

Not nothing, just nothing approaching what we enjoy today.

8. You think "[everything] approaching what we enjoy today" was government sponsored.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So what? That doesn't give you constitutional access to their bank accounts. The fact that people don't do what society wants with their money doesn't expunge the fact that taking it is unconstitutional. I said I'm not debating it. You can either know what's being said or choose to ignore it. Don't respond to me if you choose the latter. Disputing definitions is pointless. You know what I'm talking about, so what's the problem? Oh, it is? Why didn't you just say that at the beginning? We could have bypassed this whole thread. Seriously, you're not OK with people setting the terms of the debate, then you go and try to pull this BS. Find one instance where I propose that I wouldn't pay any taxes of any kind. So you don't believe that the government should have reigning authority over our property, and money? I accept your concession, then. Exactly! You've got it! Rules don't change just because a simple majority of those that follow them with to put their hands into someone else's cookie jar.

1) Your claim of unconstitutionality is not proven. But that is all beside the point. The point is that you claimed there was a gain in tax revenue because rich people buy more than poor people. I factually countered that claim and you just asmitted that my argument was correct.

2) Take your ball and go home then. I will continue to call an incorrect use of a common English word incorrect. If it is correct, show how I am mistaken, do not insist that you have the right to redefine any term you wish.

3) Disputing definitions is not pointless when the dispute is reasoned and factally supported. What is pointless is insisting that you have a unilateral right to define any term in the way you wish and I can not contest your "authority". Unless, of course, all you want is to pronounce your position and are willing to broker no opposition. Is that your purpose? That is blogging, not debating.

4) You are the one who came into this thread when it opened. I did not call out your response directly, I only responded to the posts you VOLUNTARILY made. And you are the one claiming the code in unconstitutional, that is your contention, that is what I was contesting. It is not the only point of contention in the thread as a whole, but it was the point of contention the specific response you quoted related to.

5) I'm ok with "people" setting terms of a debate, I'm not ok with one individual changing the common definition of a word so that he can dictate the outcome of a debate. See the difference.

6) You can pay some tax and still be a free rider. I claim you do not want to pay an equitable portion of your taxes in relation to the benefit you gain. That is my issue. I never claimed you said you wouldn't pay any taxes.

7) No, I believe that when you live within a society that operates under common laws, you do not get to pick and chose which of those laws you will obey. The government does not simply take what it wants, it takes what it is statutorily empowered and required to take from citizens that have had free access to voting booths. This is the system that was gotten through the Constitutionally mandated process. That is fact that has not been countered. You may have attempted to counter it, but you have not done so successfully. You have not posted one provision that is actually Unconstitutional.

8) I conceeded nothing, I simply stated that you had mischaracterized my position.

9)No, the rules change when the majoity of the people in our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC follow the guidlines laid down in our founding and controlling legal document and change them by the proper and legal process. Sorry you don't like what they legally and properly agreed to do.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If your goal is to completely equalize poor and rich people then you best not argue policy for country based around free trade. People in Africa suffer for every dollar I don't donate. That doesn't obligate me to do anything, legally. Continue to appeal to emotion and you'll be ignored by more than some guy on a debate site. 1. You think the fact that the current government sytem can't be sustained by a reasonable voluntary tax program means that a voluntary tax program isn't viable. 2. You think I'm constitutionally obligated to look after the collective, or you're just disregarding the constitution. Either one fits. 3. You apparently don't think that the government has reigning authority over my property, yet you think they have the right to force me into taxation. 4. You think the simple majority has the authority to suppress individual rights. America isn't a socialist nation. 5. You think the "billions" required to sustain necessary programs isn't attainable with a voluntary tax program, with no substantiation whatsoever. 6. You think that all resource expenditure our government is currently funding is "necessary". 7. You ignore the taxes he paid on those cars, houses, and 'other crap'. 8. You think "[everything] approaching what we enjoy today" was government sponsored.

1) My goal is to make taxes equitable, something easily attainable in a country based around free trade.

2) That was an actual nonsequiter, as my point concerned someones ability to survive in a modern world, as you implied they could, in the ways they did in the mists of the past. Try harder not to apply my contentions to situations they were not even close to addressing.

3)I think a use tax system isn't acceptable because it will fail to give the people of our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC the level of equity and service they demand of their government. The people in our system are sovereign, not your archaic view of what the system should be. So, your statement does not support your contention that my reasoning is faulty because you statement does not accurately reflect my position.

4) I think you are legally obligated to respect the voice of the people, who are sovereign in our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, when they demand that you equitably participate in paying for the benefits you gain. Again you have failed to prove my point illogical because you misstate my actual position.

5) The goverment has the right to enforce the laws enacted under the properly followed provisions of our DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. Another failure due to the fact you do not properly indentify my actual position.

6) No simple majority has changed a Consitutionally mandated rule. A Super Majority has, as was required in the controlling legal document in question. A simple majority has changed rules where no Constitution provision required a super majority. All of this is legal, and therefore not illogical to support within the confines of the issue at hand. You have failed again.

7) I think a use tax is inadequte today because it was found lacking a hundred years ago. That is not a baseless belief. It is a belief rooted in the expierence of those who attempted to survive under the system you advocate before and failed. They changed it because it did not work then, and the causes of that failure have not disappeared, they have grown exponentially more extreme. Another failure.

8) No, I think that what is neccessary in actuality can not be sustained. I believe there is plenty of spending that is unneccessary, but not nearly so much is unneccessary that we could sustain our government on only a use tax. Again, you fail because you have to misstate my position in order to make it seem illogical.

9) WTF does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

10) This time, just WTF?