-Caveat Lector-
Michael:
>MJ:
>It is an effort to CONTROL behaviors based NOT upon freedom
>and liberty. [ALL non-property 'crimes' are revenue
>generators :) ]
Agreed, but never contested. We were discussing ways, APART from the
punishment of/for criminals that Republicans support social intervention.
>You are committing a myriad of logical fallacy here not limited
>to strawman.
Another matter open to the individual interpretation of the reader. The
operative term used in my previous statement was "imply":
Because those who proffer such an argument IMPLY (by the
use of emotives like "theft" and "plunder") that there
is no need for a collection of just revenues for the
maintenance of a society in which "a few (to be arbitrarily
determined :-))" benefit disproportionately.
>There is nothing in my statement above which
>relates no need to fund 'society'.
You are not the only one who propagates this argument, and scarcely few
persons have your gift for discerning a difference. The phrase "social
Darwinism" may not refer to you directly, but does to the argument as it is
used at large.
>The 'theft and plunder'
>relate to unconstitutional efforts of our government which is
>operating beyond their mandate (to the tune of at least 85% of
>what they do fitting this category).
Interesting! Please elaborate on this 85 per cent in terms of social programs.
>I also believe in charity -- the REAL kind.
You are one of the few who profess such ideologies who does believe in
charity. Here's hoping there are more of you. I would prefer that the
government did not have to involve itself in social programs, but,
unfortunately, there are not enough charitable souls to take care of an
otherwise overwhelming need.
>Now, with this additional information, how are my comments in the
>gendre you associate them?
Only your argument has come under my "scrutiny" as being of social
Darwinist bent. To render a personal opinion regarding your
ethics--concerning charity, government or anything else--would be the hight
of arrogance on my part. Do you have an example of where I have made such
an egregious error by directly referring to your ethics?
>Libertarians oppose criminalization of drugs, prostitution,
>gambling, censorship ... the Republicans favor these.
I have read the enclosed treatise twice now, and I still insist that there
is a chasm of difference between theory/ideology and practice: most
Libertarian speakers I have heard on the subject of controlled substances
(including prostitutes :-))--save marijuana--tout the Republican party line
regarding its continued illegality and the punishment for the use and sale
thereof.
>MJ:
>Then Ron Paul's recent PRIVACY legislation will pass both the
>Senate AND the House since they hold the majority? I would be
>interested in the BASIS for this conclusion you hold.
As noble as Paul's proposed legislation is (remarkable given the current
legislative climate), it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. But
how did you infer the negative of this opinion from what I wrote??
>MJ:
>At the turn of the Century, ALL Government consumed 1% +/- of an
>individual's earnings ... in the 1950s it was less than 10 percent.
>Currently the Government STEALS 50% +/- of an individual's earnings
>and utilizes these 'just collections' for unconstitutional programs.
NOLO CONTENDRE!! You'll get no argument from me regarding the
inefficiencies of government revenue generation and/or spending in any
category. The only way in which we differ are what constitutes necessary
spending.
>How much of these 'just collections' are just?
Again, nolo contendre. The current system of taxation IS UNJUST, but, so
far, our discussion has been limited to what is "necessary for social
function/maintenance.
Were we to discuss a flat tax or national sales tax, perhaps we would find
ourselves in agreement.
Edward ><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
"From the rage of today's downtrodden comes the revenge of tomorrow's
revolutionary force." Edward Britton ><>
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html
Talk to the planet: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
