TakeYouToTasker

Because of Lincoln's stated intentions to deny them their Constitutionally prescribed States rights, fundamentally breaking the compact which bound them together. His stated intent was to deny the Southern states their Constitutional rights. The upper Southern states did not secede initially, but rather reserved their right to do so only if the federal government break it's compact. As it turns out, your point is moot, as Lincoln did in fact carry out with his breach of the Constitution.

The several states of the Union reserved the right to secede as a legitimate check on government, as State's rights were central to the American concept of government both conceptually, and Constitutionally at that time. What Lincoln did, in breaking with Constitutional authority, was to commit acts of aggression on the South, and dissolve the Union, as he was acting illegitimately with powers he did not possess. The fact that slavery is abhorrent today does not mitigate these facts. The fact that the North won the war, and Lincoln unilaterally and fundamentally changed the nature of American federal government, the role of the executive, and the relationship between the several states and federal government does not change the history either. The South was not traitorous, Lincoln was.

Losing a Presidential election, especially in 1860, did not mean that the states whom did not get their preferred choice had to vacate their Constitutionally prescribed states rights. Nor did it vacate the purposeful checks and balances intentionally built into the system, as the entire prior history of the Country demonstrates. The South assumed, quite naturally, that the Federal government, still bound by it's Founding Document, was quite limited what Lincoln wanted to do. Prior to 1860, we had elected Presidents rather than Kings. The South revolted because Lincoln broke the Constitutional compact that the Federal government had with it's member states. Lincoln destroyed the country, and as I mentioned prior actually admitted to doing so, such that he could rebuild it in a way that reported to his personal politics and preferences.

There is not, nor will there ever be, such a thing as free unlimited energy; as there will always be labor, upkeep and maintenance, infrastructure, and harvesting costs associated. As Tom said, we do have such a resource: Just look up. Now consider why that energy isn't free to use.

A) The 1860 electoral map does not tell the story you want it to. Lincoln was elected by a Northern majority and did not carry a single state with territories south of his home state of Illinois, save California. The South did not vote for Lincoln, or his policies. B) Winning a Presidential election, especially prior to 1860, did not give Lincoln carte blanche to simply do as he pleased. He was bound and confined by the Constitution and it's checks of federal power.

I'm confident that it is.

The assertion that the South wanted to destroy the country is the most absurd sort of revisionism. It was widely understood that states had the right to secede. It was one of the fundamental checks on the power of the Federal government: if the Federal government, at the behest of some or even a majority of the states, initiated sweeping policy changes that were unpalatable to other states, they reserved the authority to withdraw from the Union. The theory was, that this would force the states seeking a change in policy to either: modify the policy to make it palatable to the dissenting states, abandon the proposed changes; both of which would leave the Union in a state where all members agreed on it's proper roll; or to purse the policy with a smaller membership of states as a nation. The North abandoned the founding principals of robust checks on Federal power. By doing so it was the North which destroyed the country, such that Lincoln could attempt to rebuild it under the vision of Henry Clay. Lincoln himself admitted as much. Saying that the South sought to destroy the country is just as dumb as saying that an abused spouse seeks to ruin a marriage when they leave the abuser.

Money is a marker for value, it's importance is that it's utility saves us an unfathomable amount of opportunity cost, as we don't have to spend time organizing incredibly complex strings of transactions in order to maximize our personal benefits related to the exchange of our labor. GG is right to say that in the absence of money, everything becomes money, because everything has value because of human need relative to supply. The natural limitations of resources, including labor, ensures value. And that's what makes the (*^*&%^$^#in the OP video so absurd. His entire philosophy relies an absence of scarcity of resources.

That's not a moral justification. It's an attempt at pragmatic resolution using a special pleading fallacy. I strenuously disagree. The moral justification of policy and it's philosophical underpinning are the most important part of the discussion. The fact that the national conversation has regressed to the point where you're (and not just you, but most people) insisting that it's unimportant, and detracts from the conversation speaks deeply to the massive divides we have today, and the problems we face as a nation. It's the politics that should not be important. We should not care about the sound bites, the pandering, the spotlight, and the clever spin. It's those things that detract from the conversation. I'll say that again so it sinks in: The politics should not be important. The moral justification for what we do is the only thing of importance.

You aren't thinking about the consequences of something like this. The Court's purpose was to be the steadying hand on the short term whims of representative government. It was designed as the final check on the other two branches, such that even the most violent waves of short-sighted populism might break against it. It was intended to be the exact opposite of what you want it to be. It's not supposed to be responsive to the politics of the day. A bench serving with term limits does the exact opposite. It serves to create a rubber stamp for the executive in the best case scenario, and becomes an unelected supreme lawmaking body, dictating by fiat in the worst.

Says the most myopic man I've ever encountered.

How far back in time should we unwind conquest and colonialism?

Moral in the philosophical sense. If one believes that something is the right course of action, they should thusly have a moral backing for their "ought" statement. Given that a case has been presented for a specific rate of taxation, it's more than fair to ask the presenter what the moral underpinnings of their position are. That's more than relevant to the conversation: rather it's essential, and it certainly isn't boring. As to the concept "personal morality", personal moralities should always be logically consistent in order to be valid, so I would still be asking the same questions.

You dope... - They requested permission from the appropriate agencies prior to starting the fires. - They themselves reported the fires getting out of control. - They put out the fires themselves without the use of local, state, or federal resources. - The total assessed damage to government property was determined to be less that $1000. - They were charged with terrorism.

Gregg, come over here so I can punch you in the mouth.

That's just it: you didn't discuss it. You discussed the morality of helping the underprivileged. I asked you to discuss the moral basis for taxes. These are two separate things. I even went so far as to explain the flaws in utilitarian philosophy for you.

You hold a position. Why can't (won't?) you explain it's moral basis?

The thing is, you haven't learned anything (or at least it doesn't seem so), because you haven't challenged your assumptions yourself, or defended your assumptions against the challenges of others. Edit: as Tom just mentioned, it's not just debate you're shirking, but also civil discussion.

To be fair, the Constitution was decimated by Marbury v Madison; and since then the SCOTUS has simply been pissing on the ashes. The Constitution, when written, was intended to have a meaning fixed in time, but with the ability to be amended through a process encoded in the document itself. The "Living Document" understanding of the Constitution means that the Document itself is meaningless in it's fluidity. SCOTUS debate is no longer based on what the Document itself says in very plain, 4th grade English; but rather on what prior black robed lawyers opined about the Document. We are not, and have not been for a long time, a nation of laws: rather we are a nation of lawyers.

Is it your belief that the SCOTUS adds or removes Constitutional Amendments?

I'll simply state that all spending and structure needs to be scrutinized and reformed before any more tax increases are implemented. You may also wish to read my critique of utilitarian philosophy in my above post.

David Hume was an abject moron, educated well beyond the capacities of his intelligence. Major portions of his entire thesis have been necessarily discarded by modern utilitarian thought. To wit: the "harm principal" has been discarded within the philosophy, as it was reasoned that all future harm, representing an perceivably infinite quantity, could be dispensed with by simply disposing of all humanity in the now. However, even with the removal of the "harm principal", there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can't be logically and morally justified through gradual and progressive utilitarianism. Utilitarianism subverts all other moralities and rights constructs, and permits them only in-so-far as they report to it's own internal constructs. The individual does not exist within the construct, but rather only the nebulous "51%" in utilitarian democracy. As such, the individual cannot be said to have rights or protections of any sort, as their purpose is always subverted to the greater benefit of everyone who is not themselves. Further, this is not even the greatest crime of utilitarianism: the largest failing of the philosophy is that while it espouses "maximizing benefit", there is no objective means to quantify benefit in the present state, much less into the future built onto the back of present policy. Thus, even when it's actors believe they are operating to maximize benefit; they may just as easily be doing the inverse. Finally, the ease with which the system can be manipulated by those professing it is astounding. The lack of any objective measure of benefit (or harm which is not amassed into the single benefit principle), lends itself very cleanly to the biases of those asserting it. Benefits they do not value, are assumed to have no or minimal value. Benefits (spoken as to the elimination of harms), are ascribed inflated value.

You still haven't made a moral argument in favor of a tax rate of 52%. What is the moral justification for taking 52% of someone's earnings from them. It's a very simple request.

Still no moral arguments in favor of the confiscation of 52% of earnings; though there have been many more arguments in favor of helping the disadvantaged. Dorkington, reaching deep into the Rodenberry socialist bag, even quoted Mr. Spock. Guys, try to focus: make a moral argument in favor of confiscating more than 50% of a portion of someone's earnings.

I remember that play. That hit was vicious. Most people either don't know, or don't remember, but Hostetler played on the Giants special teams units.