TakeYouToTasker

So your position is that we shouldn't protect this President the same as we have protected Prior presidents?

Just as FireChan has stumbled into problems of logical inconsistencies with his arguments, so have you here. Your argument is not internally logically consistent. The moment you propose that there are no moral truths, and the morality is flexible and relative, you open up your case to accepting the worst sorts of immorality as just, else your entire argument rests on the logical fallacy of special pleading. Slavery is an absolute moral wrong. Theft is an absolute moral wrong.

We're going to have to, especially since you've now made a case for moral relativism.

The primary purpose of the State is to protect the rights of it's citizens, and to protect the structure which protects the rights of it's citizens (the nation state itself). How can the State protect the rights of it's citizens if it is overwhelmed militarily by another nation state possessing superior weaponry? It cannot. Again, you cannot aim a weapon of mass destruction at the State. You can only aim it at mass amounts of innocent citizens.

The purpose of a weapon of mass destruction is to bring a state to it's knees through the mass slaughter of it's citizens. You cannot point a weapon of mass destruction at the State, you have to point it at everyone, and just as libertarian philosophy does not permit for you to point, much less shoot, a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights, it also does not allow you to do far worse with weaponry far more deadly in scope. You are standing the principles of a free nation on it's head. Our country does not give power to individuals. Individuals give power to the State. It speaks volumes that your argument hinges entirely on an interpretation of our Founding document which entrusts the government with virtually unlimited power. For a government to be just, it must first be moral. For a government to be moral it must first and foremost protect the freedoms of it's individual citizens.

According to the last argument you made in this thread, jingoistic nationalism is just and moral, assuming you wish to remain internally logically consistent.

Is it moral to point a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights?\ As I said earlier, you cannot have pragmatism without first having principle. He's free to be as pragmatic as he'd like after first making his case for just authority to act against human freedom.

So your position is that a thing becomes moral as soon as a majority of elected officials make it permissible? That the State cannot act immorally assuming what it does is though the electoral and legislative process?

We don't tax groups, we tax individuals, and only individuals can be party to contracts, unless and until they contract to be part of a group which their contract concedes empowers their group to be party to contracts. Your argument is one in favor of the Social Contract, which I already addressed. The Social Contract philosophy is deeply flawed as no consent is asked of the individual citizen. It assumes the State has just authority simply because it is holds a monopoly on force, and has always held a monopoly on force, and that 51 individuals have just authority over 49. There is no trap, as any other position presented from a libertarian perspective isn't internally logically consistent.

My point is that to advocate for a position in which the government has carte blanch to tax in any way it sees fit at the behest of a majority of it's citizens; removing the freedom of the individual, then the government is unjust, and the people are not free. I believe that individuals should be able to own any weapon which can be used in self defense without the automatic implied threat of aggression against parties non-aggressive toward the owner. Nuclear, biological, and other similar weaponry do not rise to this standard, as unlike a gun which can be pointed at an individual, a nuclear weapon is pointed at everyone.

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're getting at. An argument must be principled before it can be pragmatic.

I'm advocating what is proper from a philosophical standpoint. We stand elsewhere in the world, and obviously we cannot jump from one place to another, but what we can do is differentiate right from wrong, and work towards what is right. We know slavery and theft are wrong, so when we design policy, we should design it in such a way that it honors the promises we've made while at the same time working towards the ideal so that we do less harm in the form of slavery and theft to future generations. As such, taxation should always be viewed harshly. We should never make moral arguments in favor of what it evil.

When you say that "taxation is as old as civilization", are you legitimizing tribute and wealth confiscation under the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings which dominated the Earth until the late 1700's? This is a fiat declaration, rather than fact. The most effective and efficient advances of modern society have been created and provided by the private sector. Taxation is a net drain on wealth, as it consumes rather than creates. Fiat declaration, rather than fact. This is an argument for the deeply flawed philosophy of the Social Contract. The Social Contract is not a contract as a contract requires mutual consent in order for it to be valid. Your argument is one that states I can contract with you against your will. This is an argument that man is owned as slave by the state, and that the only way to escape slavery is to run fugitive. This is an immoral argument. Fiat declaration, rather than fact; stacked on top of a special pleading logical fallacy. Here you make the case that evil must be permitted in order that individuals not have the freedom to fail. Again, a trade is something which involves the consent of both parties. I am not permitted to exchange goods and services with you without your consent. If I take your wallet, and give you a handful of dirt in exchange, it would be inaccurate to say that we made a trade. As I said, given that the concept of the nation state is dependent on taxation, some form of taxation must be permitted as a necessary evil; while at the same time it is imperative to recognize that it is still an evil. As such, great pains must be taken to assure that taxation is voluntary to the individual, and that taxes be confined to paying for things and services that are for non-exclusive use, and that they work to serve only the defense and perpetuation of the nation state, and the defense of the rights of the citizens of said nation state. I most certainly was not. I am a firm believer that the nation state is the best way for humanity to organize itself. In order for the nation state to exist, there must exist some form of taxation as a necessary evil; while at the same time we must still recognize that taxation is an evil, as it can exist, at it's most fundamental level, as either theft or slavery, neither of which a free society can embrace as just. Therefore, tax proceeds at the federal level must only be used for non-exclusive services and things which promote the defense of the nation state, and the protection of the rights of the citizens of the nation state. Further, such taxes must be paid as voluntarily as possible through a consumption tax with allows the citizens to control their own individual tax burdens through their spending choices.

Your morality is no morality at all. Again, taxation can be viewed in one of two ways: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. Yours is the ugly whip of force. The whip used on plantations of the South. An argument which resorts to force is a morally bankrupt one, as it seeks compulsion over conversion. Theft over charity. No one is entitled to anything other than what they themselves earn, and no one can give away what they themselves do not own. I encourage you to give until it hurts, and I encourage you to ask others to give until it hurts; but robbery is not giving. Until you embrace this, you're advocating evil.

I was about to ask you whether you meant Energy or Education. Then I realized the answer was "yes".

These five particular posters are generally so bad that I could win by not posting at all, and simply allow their drivel to fall down by itself.

There are five posters included in these brackets whom I have had on ignore for months.

If one is not an anarchist, and believes that the concept of a "nation state" is the optimal way for humanity to organize itself, then one must submit to the notion that some degree and form of taxation is a necessary evil. With that said, that is an acknowledgement that it is still an evil; and as such, taxes should only be collected in the least morally offensive way possible (a tax on consumption, which allows individuals to decide their own level of taxation through their purchasing decisions), and only to provide for the protection of the nation state in question, and the natural rights of it's citizens.

Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways: 1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned. 2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave. Neither of these are moral arguments. That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral.

Under.

The basic concept of taxation is immoral, as such, great pains should be taken to limit taxation to the bare minimums necessary to maintain a sovereign nation, and to protect the freedoms of the individuals who comprise the nation. Health care doesn't rise to this standard. I want a government who rejects the notion that it has the authority to force me, at the barrel of a gun, to purchase something I do not want. Anything less is a rejection of freedom, and a rejection of fundamental American values.

The issue being that atheism is synonymous with the abolition of religion as relates communism. While you might not personally be against religion, the men who committed the atrocities prior mentioned were.

You could, and I'm comfortable if someone does. The default is not that "atheism = truth" unless it can be proven. Until then, it's just another belief system.

You (or atheists) believe something is not there. You cannot state it as fact, only belief, since what you assert is not provable.

If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.