Fav quotes

[Travis Retriever]

I don't think you understand the point being made at all.

The purpose of using an obviously wrong action as an example is to illustrate WHY the solution for a situation in which there are people exempted from a wrong is to remove the wrong, not the exemption.  George Carlin wasn't being more moral by advocating the taxation of churches, he was being more consistently immoral.

10/10.  Exactly.

What's more if there are people the OP/Dallen didn't want taxed, then my criticism of him in the above post:

In one case you have a group not being subjected to institutionalized robbery (taxes) because they belong to a group, and another where said institutionalized robbery isn't a thing.  That *is* the issue and how you solve the issue of it being 'special treatment'.  If it's special treatment to not rape some group or people, the solution isn't to therefore rape them along with everyone else, the solution is to just not rape anyone.

holds--he's a special pleader as much as those who don't want churches to be taxed.  If not, then his accusation of a strawman--

No taxes for everyone is not what's being asked for by the proponents of tax-exempt status for churches, so NO, NO IT DON'T. Deal with it.

is bogus.

Which is the point

Yes it is.  And my point is that being consistently moral--abolishing taxation--is far better than being consistently immoral--"TAX EVERYONE!"

I understood what you were trying to say; if there was some world where everyone in the population was subject to rape, except...those people...it would be a legitmate example. Since there isn't, it's not.

It's a difference of magnitude, not of type.  It's still coercion.  My point still stands.
Actually, it's even better (or worse depending on your point of view) than that: if you don't pay your taxes you'll be sent letters in the mail, if you ignore them eventually cops come to your house to arrest you.  Resist, and you'll be clubbed and, if not shot, dragged off and thrown into a rape cage called a prison.  Since anyone can go there--well, beside cops--your arbitrary line in the sand of a reason is even more moot.

[MrBogosity]

I think you guys are talking about two separate things. One is the morality of taxation, and the other is the importance of equal protection. They're both very important but completely separate fights.

It's kind of like the gay marriage thing; opposition to government-licensed marriage and the insistence that equal protection means the licenses should be available to gays as well are two completely different things.

[Travis Retriever]

The statist looks at a problem and always sees a gun as the only solution – the force of the
state, the brutality of law, violence and punishment. The anarchist – the endless
entrepreneur of social organization – always looks at a problem and sees an opportunity
for peaceful, innovative, charitable or profitable problem-solving.

The statist looks at a population and sees an irrational and selfish horde that needs to be
endlessly herded around at gunpoint – and yet looks at those who run the government as
selfless, benevolent and saintly. Yet these same statists always look at this irrational and
dangerous population and say: “You must have the right to choose your political leaders!”

--Everyday Anarchy, p. 21
(To keep things on topic.)

I think you guys are talking about two separate things. One is the morality of taxation, and the other is the importance of equal protection. They're both very important but completely separate fights.

It's kind of like the gay marriage thing; opposition to government-licensed marriage and the insistence that equal protection means the licenses should be available to gays as well are two completely different things.

You mean equality under the law?  As having everyone taxed is kinda the opposite of 'protection' don't you think?  Even if it is equal for everyone.

A better fitting example would be opposition to gov't granted marriage licenses vs having government grant them to all but single group--allowing them freedom from their system--and those not in said group wanting those with 'special treatment' to be in the system of having their marriages need licenses by gov't as well.

Basically treating the negative of not being taxed like a positive of not being allowed into marriage by law.   Opposition to government licensed marriage would be part of the importance of equal protection.  Instead of everyone having a positive on them--gov't forced marriage licenses, they'd all be without it--the negative of freedom.  How is that not also taking into account equal protection into account?

[dallen68]

I think you guys are talking about two separate things. One is the morality of taxation, and the other is the importance of equal protection. They're both very important but completely separate fights.

It's kind of like the gay marriage thing; opposition to government-licensed marriage and the insistence that equal protection means the licenses should be available to gays as well are two completely different things.

Thank-you.

[dallen68]

A better fitting example would be opposition to gov't granted marriage licenses vs having government grant them to all but single group--allowing them freedom from their system--and those not in said group wanting those with 'special treatment' to be in the system of having their marriages need licenses by gov't as well.

Basically treating the negative of not being taxed like a positive of not being allowed into marriage by law.   Opposition to government licensed marriage would be part of the importance of equal protection.  Instead of everyone having a positive on them--gov't forced marriage licenses, they'd all be without it--the negative of freedom.  How is that not also taking into account equal protection into account?

Okay, I'll accept that. This is a much better example because that is exactly what the gay marriage issue is about.

[dallen68]

Just one more thing: because then you have to abolish... whatever it happens to be ... every single time it comes up. So far we have tax, rape, and marriage. Next month it will be land development, etc. So, it needs to be established that any rules/regulations/whatever apply to everyone, or no-one; and then if said is bad, maybe the people passing it will realize it's for their group too, and not pass it.

[MrBogosity]

Just one more thing: because then you have to abolish... whatever it happens to be ... every single time it comes up. So far we have tax, rape, and marriage. Next month it will be land development, etc. So, it needs to be established that any rules/regulations/whatever apply to everyone, or no-one; and then if said is bad, maybe the people passing it will realize it's for their group too, and not pass it.

Precisely.

[Travis Retriever]

Just one more thing: because then you have to abolish... whatever it happens to be ... every single time it comes up. So far we have tax, rape, and marriage. Next month it will be land development, etc. So, it needs to be established that any rules/regulations/whatever apply to everyone, or no-one; and then if said is bad, maybe the people passing it will realize it's for their group too, and not pass it.

The point is whether or not something is an initiation of force.  If it is, I'm against it.  If it is done on a societal scale--that is institutionalized--I am for the abolition of that institution.  Whether it is theft (taxation), murder (war), etc.  Land development, as long as it is voluntary, is something I am okay with.

But yeah, that is a good point.  It could still progress in an odd way in that universality is advanced.

[MrBogosity]

Thunderf00t is back on his game!

[yt]sdwOgc-lR_w[/yt]

[ArtemisVale]

Thunderf00t is back on his game!

[yt]sdwOgc-lR_w[/yt]

I like how he keeps using the word fizzing in place of breathing and living and other chemical reactions XD

[tnu]

[nilecroc]

It's because feminists are offended that they can't get laid. They try to distract you from this with bullshit controversies that normal people ignore.

[evensgrey]

It's because feminists are offended that they can't get laid. They try to distract you from this with bullshit controversies that normal people ignore.

Unfortunately, this sort of falls down in the case of Feminists like Gwen Jacobs, who, despite being quite well towards the Barbie end of the spectrum of female body types (which men do not generally find particularly attractive) apparently got laid (she did manage to get pregnant in her early 20s, so that's the most likely route).

[Travis Retriever]

[Travis Retriever]

And image stampede, whee!










Not only in the USA -the same change was made by every occidental country's government after World War II.