Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology?
Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.
Does this make sense?
Every single dollar in existence has entered commerce as a debt. There are no dollars in the economy which do not represent a principal debt. Thusly, if the economy does not have enough money for the service of its debts then the current crisis is a debt crisis and not a credit crisis.
Albeit, I do agree that the Federal Reserve has laid the foundation for the U.S. economy to perpetually suck off its credit tit.
“End the Fed!”
(Did you know that the economy is debt-based and not credit-based?)
Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself?
I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue.
I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?
If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public.
Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.
I completely agree. And I also simultaneously know that Israel has already finalized its plan to strike Iran with nuclear tipped missiles. What I don’t know, however, is what will trigger the execution of that plan.
Obviously we are not, as a country, troubled by Israel’s plan to bomb Iran, with nuclear weapons, but we certainly are troubled by Iran’s intention to finalize the necessary parts for a plan to bomb Israel.
Did I ever mention that I am impervious to fear and war-mongering?
Also, did you know that there is a population of about 25,000 Jews in Iran who are quite comfortable living in Iran? It’s as though 25,000 Jews are telling the world that they feel safe and sound in their home, Iran, despite what the world press and media fills the air-waves with. Hell, the damned constitution of Iran protects, specifically, Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Note: Without taking the time to cite the source, I do know that Israel will pay Jews to move to the mother-land. Yet, there are very few takers. Take that for what it is worth.
I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.
Do you disagree?
Interesting perspective you have there.
And yes, categorically, I disagree.
Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stamps
In the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food.
See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society.
Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.
(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)
But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.
Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.)
Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)
And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.
Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent.
(I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)
Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.
Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.
(I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )
Sorry, my computer cannot reliably download the simplest of videos.
But I did notice in the description of the video an identical comment to my assertion:
The Great Sperm Race tells the story of human conception as it's never been told before. With 250 million competitors, it is the most extreme race on earth and there can only be one winner.
…”and there can only be one winner”.
The following sources support a consideration for the inference of order. Please read the complete articles.
Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University, told BBC News Online: "This study is potentially very exciting as scientists have been searching to demonstrate whether or not sperm really are attracted to the egg in mammals.
"What it illustrates is that the process of sperm transport to the egg is not just about sperm swimming around until they find an egg.
"It is likely to be highly coordinated and involving a number of different mechanisms of which odorant receptors may play an important role. --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/
Sperm do not swim randomly; they use various clues and factors to help reach the egg.
In humans, apparently, the female reproductive tract becomes warmer as the Fallopian tubes are neared. Current research at Harvard University has shown that sperm swim from colder to warmer regions (Flam 2006). Also, research has indicated that sperm swim towards increasing concentration gradients of a synthetic compound called bourgeonal (Flam 2006). Whether the egg or female body releases the chemoattractant is unclear as of now. But studies have been convincing to show that sperm can smell. Essentially, sperm smell their way from the vagina to the to the location of the egg in the distal parts of the female's Fallopian tubes (Flam 2006). Once the sperm meets the egg, fertilization can occur.--
Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?
All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.
(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)
Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.
Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing.
Let’s now consider both propositions.
1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.
2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.
3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.
How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)
Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men.
Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.
Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?
Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.
But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.
Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.
Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?
Firstly, I apologize for intentionally avoiding the question of this debate. Consider my post an attack against dual-allegiance as evidenced by Christians, so called.
Now, in answer to your question, “How about the people who aren't Christian?”: I must affirm that I have no desire whatsoever to determine which words people choose in swearing allegiance to a flag or a republic. Swearing one’s allegiance is not some prescribed recital of another person’s ideal for swearing allegiance as the acceptable form of the recital of allegiance. The swearing of allegiance is, of all things, a personal conviction which is not subject to the conviction of another’s opinion and intention.
Or said another way: if a person chooses to swear allegiance to something, the same person is the sole authority for determining the terms and conditions of allegiance. No other person, or group of persons, has a natural right to determine how any man or woman swears allegiance. Let alone determining that which qualifies as an oath of allegiance.
The argument can be made that ‘petroleum’ is the global currency having multiple fiat currencies as its proxy. But I am not here to argue that axiom.
Moreover, I am not here to dispute your intent. For, I am well aware of the pains that are associated with attempting a resolution of the current, global, economic system which is commonly obfuscated by the term ‘globalization’.
However, you do deserve a pat on the back. Very few people are capable of questioning the legitimacy, more rather the lack thereof, of the economic system they are both enslaved and destroyed by.
And to end my appraisal of both as succinctly as I can, I say thus: “ You see the category-six storm building in the horizon and are horrified thereby; your counterparts, on the other hand, see only bright, sun shinny days in the horizon and are daydreaming of the coming bliss."
God forbid you question their ‘coming bliss’!
Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of All[e]giance
Let’s first consider the terms of the pledge. They are:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Let’s now ask a question. Should a Christian pledge his/her allegiance to a ‘flag’ and its ‘republic’ when it, their pledge of allegiance, is in direct conflict with the will of the God of Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible?
Now before someone dare attempt to answer ‘yes’, and consequently justify that answer by perverse interpretations of the bible, the same should first carefully consider a few matters.
a) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic in lieu of allegiance to God?
b) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a republic and its flag as well as God?
c) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to anything other than God?
d) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that God sanctions and demands a “pledge of allegiance” with the qualifier “under God”?
e) Why are American Christians the most ardent supporters of the term “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States when they should be wholly indifferent to the pledge itself? Especially since they should not be pledging allegiance to anything other than God!
But regardless of what I understand of both the scriptures and the inconsistencies of Christian practices as measured by the Bible, I can boldly affirm that no man who calls himself a Christian is justified by the words of the bible by swearing his allegiance to a “flag” and/or a “republic” by the qualification “under God”. Furthermore, no Christian should have any input on any question that is centered upon choosing the terms of the Pledge of Allegiance; unless of course he is an idolater who serves himself despite the God, of whom, he proclaims he is servant.
Conclusion: Whether the pledge reads “under God”, “under Satan”; or “under Obama”, the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. Yet, it appears this debate, on a national scale, is one the most ‘holy’ of ‘holies’ among, paradoxically, CHRISTIANS.
As for me, I say thus: “Let all men, who hold the “pledge of allegiance” near and dear to their heart, decide the terms of their ‘promise’, which is an oath, while excluding the opinions of those who have done nothing but demonstrate pseudo, dual allegiance!”
No man can serve two masters…
On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.
One could validly deduce order and determinism.
Agreed!
But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.
That is the aspect of your example which truly requires an explanation on my behalf. And so I shall.
With very few exceptions, fertilization is accomplished by one sperm. Of the hundred million or so sperm, only one will fertilize the egg; all others die in the process. In one night of sex, a male may inject hundreds of millions of sperm into the vagina. And yet, only one of millions will succeed ahead of its brothers and sisters. We can call this sperm the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. In this instance of hundreds of millions sperm having the same objective, only one will win out. All others are discharged from the keep as dead, first place, losers. So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.
Let’s now be philosophical on this question.
Egg fertilization is the ultimate goal of all human sperm. But only one will achieve that goal per pregnancy. No more than one and no less than one sperm.
You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed. Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Baring in mind also that our progenitors, siblings, and progeny are also the ‘alpha sperm of the other herds’.
The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.
How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?
I suspect my answer to that question will lead us to an even deeper discussion. All of which I welcome; philosophy is my delight. (I’ll be easy with the philosophical terms.)
Nonetheless, let’s tackle that question as a separate subject if we have arrived at a termination of the former discussion; though both are inter-related.
Note: I ignored all of the issues associated with human twins. Including those issues would only lengthen, without changing, my argument. I like brevity when it is honestly intended versus deceitfully employed.
Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.
The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.
So chaos does exist.
Hello, let’s continue.
Working only from the above example, I can validly infer determinism and order. Yet, that is not your inference. However before I submit a contrary or contradictory argument, accordingly, I give you an opportunity to re-evaluate the example.
And regardless of the result of your re-evaluation, I think your ‘initial’ inference is patently invalid. But, (with the emphasis on ‘but’) I think you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize the conflict of the evidence and the inference thereby.
I’ll await your follow-up reply before I support or challenge your final inference. And if you still stand by your initial inference, I will post my explanation of the submitted evidence as outlined in your example.
Btw, your example does, in truth, expose the necessary inference of either chaos or order.
I was attempting to merely draw-out your knowledge and position on the limitations and basis of human knowledge and their axioms in that regard. I will later reference the same if necessary.
According to what I understand, which is according to what I have been taught and confirmed by personal observation, the theory of evolution is another explanation of diversity by mutation; in which case the theory can be verified by the empiricism derived from the artificial selection of a cattle farmer or dog breeder. The theory of evolution is true to fact on this account, but the theory was not developed for that purpose; it was developed for the purpose of alleging genus to genus mutations which originate from a single progenitor of another genus.
However from what evidence, empirical, shall we infer the mutation of a genus from and to a genus? I know the fossil record is cited as evidence of the same, but there is no empirical evidence available that confirms, or any test that verifies, that genus ‘B’ is the consequent of the antecedent progenitor ‘Z’.
I am dropping the issue of Mr. Gould’s assertion. Primarily because I perceive you have an interest in considering a viewpoint (without prejudice) which is contradictory of yours’. And, in all fairness, because you are honest with me, I too shall be honest with you. Let’s proceed in that manner.
I shall now begin the process of explaining my opposition to the theory of evolution as a consequence of a reasonable approach. (This will not be easily communicated, so don’t be too critical of what maybe perceived as being ‘overly complex’ or ‘overly simplistic’; so confirm, before you conclude, I have adequately communicated my thoughts to you when you are interpreting statements that appear to be either.) (Key note-- I don’t’ accept this: When not evolution, therefore creation, or when not creation, therefore evolution.)
The theory of evolution is predicated upon the presumption that the knowledge of the diversity of life is derivable from ‘a posteriori’ knowledge. This is the foundational principle of the theory. However, that presumption is only possible by ‘a priori’ knowledge.
Questions or comments?
If it was Jew specific, I would contend it is possible.
Albeit, I would be interested to know which species of animal is impacted most by A.I.D.S.
(I have yet to hear of some scientist somewhere teaching primates to wear condoms to stop the spreading of aids.)
Note: if someone will point me in the proper direction I can argue for or against the specificity of the victims of Aids.
