Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15683)	9/5/2001 7:21:34 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I say that the government is duly constituted to define enforceable obligations, or, from another angle, punishable infractions, i.c. laws. Can you state one with respect to the tax code?

To: Neocon who wrote (15683)	9/5/2001 11:09:39 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Its not force per say, it could be done by fraud or stealth and it would still be wrong in an abstract sense. In a practical sense taxes are something that we have to put up with to avoid bad consequences. They are one of the compromises and imperfections in life that can not be avoided. I say that the government is duly constituted to define enforceable obligations, or, from another angle, punishable infractions, i.c. laws. As long as it is legitimate that government promulgate laws, force per se is not invalidating. Self defense is legitimate. Defense of others is also legitimate. This can be logically extended to conclude that people banding together to defend each other is legitimate. A law against murder or rape is just an example of this collective self defense so it is legitimate. The core difference in our opinion is that I don't think in an abstract philosophical or moral sense that government enjoys some special status. It is just another group of people, that happens to be the most powerful group. If someone else gets more power it can get overthrown and then this new group is the government. This fact is most clear in military dictatorships but its also true even in a democracy. If an organized crime group sought protection money from you, but actually did provide protection and other useful services would this extortion be ok? What if the organized crime group called itself "the government"? It would presumably not be a democracy but many governments of the world are not democracies. Are all the acts of any non democratic government illegitimate? What makes the acts of a government legitimate, that it is a democratic government?, that it is popular? or just that it is the most powerful group for now? Certainly our government is one of the most tolerable ones to have existed throughout history, but part of the reason it has been tolerable is that it is limited by a constitution that support freedom. But particularly in the 20th century, most specifically since FDR, the government has moved away from being limited by the constitution. There is still a political battle going on but how likely is it that the federal government will throw off all its activities that are not authorized by the constitution? Tim P.S - Have you ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?