Do you find yourself having to remind yourself not to support the plucky underdog?

[problem_child]

that's because children don't watch the news, and because history lessons are boring.

[Berzerker]

Frogman -

Well David, you're an idiot. By idiot I mean you don't know what your talking about.

You pay taxes to support a government.

So nice of you to provide us with such irony in your first three sentences. We don't pay taxes to support government, we pay taxes to avoid going to jail or being killed.

You have the right to vote for your representatives and leaders in that government.

You mean a "right" to hand over money to armed robbers.

You have the right to voice your discontent when you disagree.

Yes, speak all we want as long as we keep handing over the money.

You don't have the right to a refund.

Which is why business is morally superior to government.

David, I in no way would stoop to a personal attack.

Why start making sense now?

I defined my use of the word idiot and I just tend to use it to refer to people who appear to be talking out of area of knowledge.

Ever hear the word "ignorant"? How about "uninformed"?

Governments tax their people to pay for the services provided.

So does the Mafia, and just like the Mafia, you don't get a choice about the services you want or don't want.

You don't get something for nothing, thats not immoral.

You haven't heard of welfare? It is immoral for you to decide what this "something" is we have to pay for and how much we have to pay for it.

Taxes are as old as government and if your going to argue an anarchist platform, you really don't know what you're talking about.

And slavery is probably older, would you try to justify that based on it's longevity?

Defense and security of the people is the chief responsibility of the government.

So you have the right to steal from others to pay for your security?

Sure leaders can make mistakes, they can even make immoral decisions, but if they do we can protest and ultimately vote in new leadership.

Won't do any good with voters like you.

The government isn't they, its us.

No, it's the majority at "best". Would you argue in favor of slavery if only a minority was enslaved?

Since defense is the primary obligation of the government, and Saddam and Iraq are considered a threat by our president, we are at war.

Hmm...what happened to "us"?

Thats not immoral and I don't think anyone will argue that Saddam is not a threat to peace.

I would, Iraq didn't attack us. We attacked Iraq twice now...

Going to war is a judgement call, you can be against it, but it still doesn't mean that citizens have the right to withhold taxes because they disagree.

That means "government" has a right to our money, not "us".
Would you endorse communism since government has the right to our wealth too?

I'd like to see what system of government you could come up with where this would work.

It would be one where you don't get to steal from others to pay for what you want.

The immoral thing would be forcing me to pay for your security when you won't pay for your own.

David doesn't advocate that, but why is it moral for you to steal from others to pay for your security regardless of what you spend of your own money? Does that mean if I want to buy a computer I get to steal your money to buy 2 computers?

Well David, just tell me your point. Are you saying that governments don't have the right to tax?

Do I have the right to "tax" away your money? If not, why do I magically obtain this "right" after hiring a politician?

Are you saying you have an idea for a new form of government where citizens can withhold taxes?

Depends on what the taxes are for.

Democracy isn't perfect, but its the lesser evil of any other option. (someone famous said something like that)

This country was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

You are right, idiot is too strong a word I suppose.

"Strong"? No, just inaccurate like so much of your posts.

I started using it after reading Scott Adams' Dilbert books.

That's nice, you learned a new word.

The basic premise is the axiom that the world is full of idiots. Thats followed by the second axiom, anyone can be an idiot at any time. While humerous, the books actually had some wit and wisdom.

Is that a confession? Please speak for yourself in the future.

Kropotkin -

The US: 280,000,000 / 9,158,960 sq km = 30,6 people per sq km

Sweden: 8,900,000 / 410,934 sq km = 21,7 people per sq km

Even if such a crude messurement can't get up all aspects of spartial distrubution it clearly shows that the size alone can't explain that.

That stat deals with population density, not geography. The larger the area, the greater the distance between producer and consumer. Like I said, you can't compare, e.g., gas consumption between two peoples who occupy radically different sized land masses. And your stat doesn't deal with production differences either.

If the US doesn't take their responsibility and helps out getting down there numbers how could the world be able to make China do the same in the future? A china or india with the same waste per person as the US would mean the end of the world as we know it.

You haven't even shown that this waste exists, but if China or India had our production capacity, the world would be an even better place. Is Sweden a net importer or exporter of food? If it is a net importer, would you criticise the countries producing Sweden's food for using too much energy? I believe UR offered a stat showing the US consumes 20% of the world's energy with only 5% of the world's population. Can you guys produce a stat showing the US' percent of the world's production? I'll bet it's around 20% or higher.

MtG -

Because everybody else's tax liabilities before and after are based on the same exact formulas, so whining in self-pity about how you're having to foot the bill, while other people are bleeding and dying, is beneath contempt.

Since it has escaped your attention, they wouldn't be bleeding and dying if David had his way.

You've even admitted you're "too lazy" to actually do something about your principles (like move to some island or start your own libertarian-anarchist paradise ), you'd rather just ***** about what you don't like.

Assuming you oppose slavery, are you just being lazy when you don't go to the Sudan to fight for an end to that practice?

[Frogman]

Berzerker and DF

I used my "Dilbert confession" as a means of introduction since I'm new here. I just think people should admit that from time to time they are idiots. Something like, excuse me, I was an idiot, but I've snapped out of it now. But, I'll grant that most people won't admit that and take offense to the term, so I'll just drop it.

I consider myself a republican with libertarian tendencies and don't think the government has the right to tell us to buckle our seat belts or wear helmets when we ride motorcycles. Given the choice of totalitarianism or anarchy, I would lean to anarchy, so it would appear we wouldn't be that far off politically.

by Berzerker
Won't do any good with voters like you.

What does that mean? You don't know how I vote. Sounds like an unsupported personal attack.

by Berzerker
You haven't heard of welfare? It is immoral for you to decide what this "something" is we have to pay for and how much we have to pay for it.

Its moral for a group to chose to live under a government. Through representitive government and free speech, you make your voice heard. Its the system we've agreed on and we grant the government the right to make decisions. Having granted that right, its not immoral for them to make decisions for you and expect you to pay even when you disagree.

I don't think I'd like to live under anarchy and like some sort of order to society. If you believe otherwise, face it, you're in the minority. We are going to have a government, that means they are going to spend money and that comes from only one place, taxes. There are many ways to tax, none of which are perfectly fair, but its a stretch to say its immoral. In the US, you have rights spelled out in the Constitution. Representative government protecting minority rights is about as good as we are going to get. Paying for this is not immoral.

By the way, what rights do you have in an anarchy? Who protects them? Who defines morality? I just find it amusing that Berserker and David stand on rights and morality but would prefer to live in a society with no protection of them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MtG,

Make up my mind about what, sweetums? Taxes are immoral, and so is war, because, of course, stealing and murder are both wrong. I think you'd agree with that, no? Having difficulty seeing the point, or just being deliberately obtuse?

I could ask you the same. In one paragraph, you say we're not at war, in the next, you ***** about paying for war. (even though you're paying the same exact taxes as otherwise)

Oh I get it, snip

I thought half the problem is that you usually don't?

then I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you why you never seem to come out and play with the big kids, by which I of course am asking you to back up your thinly disguised yet completely transparent insults with real arguments. You know, argument, with the "a" and the "r" and the "g" and, well, you get it.

There are plenty of "big kids" here who have interesting points about interesting topics. The broken record "morality dance mix" about taxation and the philosophy of a fringe political party that's exceedingly lucky to get one percent of the vote anywhere isn't really worth the effort.

And that's where you're wrong. I did take action consistent with my views, by voting 100% Libertarian in the last election. You know, voting, the same action you most likely took in support of your views.

You object that it's immoral and, IIRC, unconstitutional to have to pay taxes for certain things. Yet you pay them, instead of refusing as a matter of conscience.

Wow, another deep psychological analysis from someone who calls himself "...the Great". Wow, there's nothing I can POSSIBLY say to THAT, now IS there?

One only goes as deep as necessary.

Well, I hereby relinquish all mod protections in terms of what can be said to me, as long as those posting relinquish the same protections.

Seriously, though, that sort of thing won't fly. Just because a couple of people consent to a flame war doesn't mean we can allow it. Although Venom has his forum on FFZ.

No offense to you, either. We can probably find any number of subjects which we'll reasonably agree on (fighting I know is one, there are probably others).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

Since it has escaped your attention, they wouldn't be bleeding and dying if David had his way.

It hasn't escaped my attention. If David has his way, either the Nazis or the Soviets (take your pick) would be running Europe, and who knows what else, and we wouldn't give a **** as long as they massed just outside our borders. Oh, and genocide, etc., isn't our problem either.

Assuming you oppose slavery, are you just being lazy when you don't go to the Sudan to fight for an end to that practice?

According to the Floydian view, if not the Libertarian view, doing anything about it would (a) not be my problem, **** those people, it's their problem; and (b) be an immoral act of agression against a sovereign country. You're also missing or ducking the point that what Floyd complains about is stuff that he does willingly - paying taxes he thinks government has no right to collect. I don't like how much I pay, but it is the law as enacted by the people elected according to the Constitution, so I don't whine about it.

I certainly don't post "I'm feeling sorry for myself" over the fictional assertion that I'm paying more taxes for "this war" (that doesn't exist because Congress didn't declare war) because I think that's more significant in my little world than the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Kropotkin]

Berzerker: Low population density clearly implies long transport distances. The Swedish geography leads to this as well. Not the same as the US is a much larger place but that alone is not a explanaiton for those huge emissions of CO2.

As for production in sweden: iron and steel, precision equipment, wood pulp and paper products, processed foods, motor vehicles. Surely this doesn't imply low uses of energy and oil. Much of this goes as exports (a much larger share than in the US for example). Imports include food, petroleom, petroleum products and chemicals. While this does not include any evironmental accountings it is a hint that the country in question producer more than its share of products that need energy and oil while still manages to get much lower figures for emissions while the US puts out the largest amounts in the world.

If the world would be a better place if China and India was as the US is another issue but I leave that out of this for now.

[Berzerker]

Frogman -

I used my "Dilbert confession" as a means of introduction since I'm new here.

Here's an idea, when you're new, it's not very smart to jump in and call people idiots, especially when you can't even explain why.

I just think people should admit that from time to time they are idiots.

You called someone an idiot, that's different than admitting mistakes.

I consider myself a republican with libertarian tendencies and don't think the government has the right to tell us to buckle our seat belts or wear helmets when we ride motorcycles. Given the choice of totalitarianism or anarchy, I would lean to anarchy, so it would appear we wouldn't be that far off politically.

Your terminology is in conflict with your political leaning, even some of the leftists here understand the immorality of government violence against the peaceful.

What does that mean? You don't know how I vote. Sounds like an unsupported personal attack.

It was a personal attack, and supported by your choice of words. If you already believe it is moral for government to "tax" us to wage wars half way around the world out of paranoia about what Saddam might do, then what limits could you possibly impose on this power to tax? And you wouldn't have the moral high ground to object to all sorts of other taxes since you believe this power to tax supercedes individual autonomy.

Its moral for a group to chose to live under a government.

So a group of people can call themselves "government" and start stealing from others?

Through representitive government and free speech, you make your voice heard. Its the system we've agreed on and we grant the government the right to make decisions. Having granted that right, its not immoral for them to make decisions for you and expect you to pay even when you disagree.

That dog won't hunt either, we have a Constitution to which the President and Congress took an oath to uphold. No where in that Constitution will you find enumerated powers to do much of anything the Republicrats are doing these days.

I don't think I'd like to live under anarchy and like some sort of order to society. If you believe otherwise, face it, you're in the minority.

I'm not sure why you insist on offering up this strawman, there are a variety of ideologies between anarchy and what you believe. I'd be happy with the Constitution as it is written, but I'm in the minority on that too.

We are going to have a government, that means they are going to spend money and that comes from only one place, taxes.

And we are debating what level of government is moral.

There are many ways to tax, none of which are perfectly fair, but its a stretch to say its immoral.

There are fair ways to tax, but forced taxation to "re-distribute" wealth is immoral. Forced taxation to pay for what you want from government regardless of what others want or don't want is immoral.

In the US, you have rights spelled out in the Constitution. Representative government protecting minority rights is about as good as we are going to get. Paying for this is not immoral.

You make the same arguments as some of the socialists here (I'm not surprised since you're a Republican), you'll find that David and I, and other libertarians don't really mind taxes to pay for certain things like law enforcement and a military, but we reject much of what taxes are being spent on. Since you mentioned the Constitution, where in that document did you find a government power to spend tax money on welfare, Social(ist) Security, Medicaid, Medicare, education, the BATF, DEA, FDA, corporate subsidies, etc., etc., etc...

By the way, what rights do you have in an anarchy?

Freedom.

Who protects them?

Government.

Who defines morality?

Objective universal standards applied consistently.

I just find it amusing that Berserker and David stand on rights and morality but would prefer to live in a society with no protection of them.

I just find it amusing you ask me questions and answer them before I can. Got any other strawmen?

[Berzerker]

MtG -

It hasn't escaped my attention. If David has his way, either the Nazis or the Soviets (take your pick) would be running Europe, and who knows what else, and we wouldn't give a **** as long as they massed just outside our borders. Oh, and genocide, etc., isn't our problem either.

If David is not responsible for soldiers bleeding and dying, why complain about his beliefs? And when have you ever gone abroad to fight against genocide? We were attacked in WWII, and you give far too much credit to the Nazis or Soviets, the former lost WWII before the US even entered the war and the latter could not have conquered most of the world much less Europe any more than we can today. Look at what the Vietnamese did. The kicked the French out, then they kicked us out, then they ended the Khmer Rouge, and told the Chinese and Russians their help was no longer needed. I don't buy into this "we'd all be speaking German" argument that is always raised by people who disagree with a libertarian foreign policy, there are just too many peoples with nationalist sentiments that will repel or overthrow aggressors...

According to the Floydian view, if not the Libertarian view, doing anything about it would (a) not be my problem, **** those people, it's their problem; and (b) be an immoral act of agression against a sovereign country.

It was libertarians and religious folk who led the abolition movement in this country, but you didn't answer my question. Assuming you oppose slavery, are you just being lazy when you don't go to the Sudan to fight for an end to that practice? Why is David supposed to give up his home, family and friends in the name of his principles, but you find a loophole to exempt yourself from acting in the name of your principles?

You're also missing or ducking the point that what Floyd complains about is stuff that he does willingly - paying taxes he thinks government has no right to collect.

You have a strange definition of "willingly". But you pay taxes, so does that mean you agree with everything government does? Why do you hold David to a standard you don't apply to yourself?

I don't like how much I pay, but it is the law as enacted by the people elected according to the Constitution, so I don't whine about it.

You don't "whine" about it, but do you ever complain about it?
You seemingly have respect for the process because of the Constitution, so why ignore the Constitution when it comes to what Congress does with the money?

I certainly don't post "I'm feeling sorry for myself" over the fictional assertion that I'm paying more taxes for "this war" (that doesn't exist because Congress didn't declare war) because I think that's more significant in my little world than the lives and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

I understand you don't like David's "whining", but to say he is beneath contempt for complaining when others are bleeding and dying as if that's David's fault is demogoguery. That's the same argument many pro-war people use to accuse their opponents of not supporting the troops. There are always people somewhere bleeding and dying, does that mean no one else should ever complain about what government is doing to them? Btw, having read David's posts before, as you have, I do not take his complaining to be just about himself, but using himself as representative of us all who are in the same situation.

[Berzerker]

Kropotkin -

Low population density clearly implies long transport distances.

It can, but that isn't a requirement. The USA has a higher population density than Sweden, does that mean Swedes have to travel further to reach the borders of their country than Americans? Not even close, the US has roughly 50% higher population density and much more space, so how does lower density imply longer transport distances when the USA and Sweden show the opposite?

The Swedish geography leads to this as well. Not the same as the US is a much larger place but that alone is not a explanaiton for those huge emissions of CO2.

*sigh* We have far more cars, far more space, far more people, and much higher production levels. Obviously we will produce more emissions.

As for production in sweden: iron and steel, precision equipment, wood pulp and paper products, processed foods, motor vehicles. Surely this doesn't imply low uses of energy and oil.

It doesn't imply higher production than the USA either. What percent of the world's energy does Sweden use? If it's more than Algeria, should Algerians accuse Swedes of being wasteful?

Much of this goes as exports (a much larger share than in the US for example). Imports include food, petroleom, petroleum products and chemicals. While this does not include any evironmental accountings it is a hint that the country in question producer more than its share of products that need energy and oil while still manages to get much lower figures for emissions while the US puts out the largest amounts in the world.

Kropotkin, it should be very easy for you to prove your claim that the USA wastes energy. Find a stat showing the USA's percent of the world's production, and if it's lower than the percent of energy used by the USA, then MAYBE you have a point. But you just keep ignoring my explanations...

If the world would be a better place if China and India was as the US is another issue but I leave that out of this for now.

It all depends on how you view production, I think more production equals more wealth and more trade. Those countries with the lowest production and trade are the poorest.

[Berzerker]

Btw you guys, Congress didn't declare war, it transferred that power to the President. To suggest Congress declared war would mean we were at war since before the November elections and I haven't heard anyone make that illogical claim. If a diplomatic solution came about and Bush never ordered an invasion, how could you say we were at war? So, MtG, it's perfectly reasonable for David to say we are at war without a congressional declaration of war.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw you guys, Congress didn't declare war, it transferred that power to the President. To suggest Congress declared war would mean we were at war since before the November elections and I haven't heard anyone make that illogical claim. If a diplomatic solution came about and Bush never ordered an invasion, how could you say we were at war?

Didn't you just answer your own question here? Congress transferred the power to the President, authorizing him to declare war on Iraq should he see fit. Just because you and David don't think that Congress should be able to tranfer that power, it doesn't change the fact that they have de facto declared war.

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki -

Didn't you just answer your own question here?

The question was asked of people I've been debating, and they haven't argued Congress transfered the power to declare war, they've been arguing that Congress declared war. So they need to explain the paradox created by their position.

Congress transferred the power to the President, authorizing him to declare war on Iraq should he see fit.

And Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to transfer that power to me, you, or the President.

Just because you and David don't think that Congress should be able to tranfer that power, it doesn't change the fact that they have de facto declared war.

Why refer to only me and David? Cite the constitutional authority allowing Congress to transfer the power to declare war to the President. If you cannot because it doesn't exist, do us the courtesy of adding the Framers to our side.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kon tiki -

The question was asked of people I've been debating, and they haven't argued Congress transfered the power to declare war, they've been arguing that Congress declared war. So they need to explain the paradox created by their position.



And Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to transfer that power to me, you, or the President.



Why refer to only me and David? Cite the constitutional authority allowing Congress to transfer the power to declare war to the President. If you cannot because it doesn't exist, do us the courtesy of adding the Framers to our side.

Berzerker -

I'm not trying to get into another Libertarian or whatnot debate, I'm simply stating that Congress has given the go ahead to the President to authorize war with Iraq. From a practical standpoint, there is no difference between a formal declaration of war by the Congress and them giving their approval and (almost certainly) funding for a conflict of which they are fully aware. Anything beyond this is a useless semantic arguement.

As for Congress not having the authority to transfer that power, you're right - nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly allow them to do so. However, there is also no explicit mention that they are not allowed to do so. I'm well aware of the position put forth by you and David as representatives of Libertarians, and I'm sure a great many others, that the intent of the framers was to have Congress hold this power in absolute. However, the only opinion on this that matters is, AFAIK, the Supreme Court. Unless and until they decide that Congress cannot do it, they can.

Hell, I probably agree with you that they shouldn't be able to transfer the power the President or anyone else, but my opinion has just as much import on the matter as yours is, which is to say its just an opinion, and does nothing to change reality.