On Oct 28, 2008, at 2:26 PM, John Williams wrote: >> I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? > > When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth > forcibly > taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar, > he has responded with "straw man". Or complicated rationalizations on > why it is okay to take it from me, or why it is not really mine > (depending > on the poster). > >> I've seen >> disagreement to opinions you've expressed, but nothing I would >> interpret as what you seem to be seeing. > > I would consider disagreement to be an forthright statement that, no, > I do have the moral right to take from you. That is not what I have > been reading. The closest I have seen is vague statements about > democracy. But when I tried to pin that one down (as Julia quoted, > two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch), there was rapid backpedaling.
That also was not what I perceived, at least not exactly. But that leads to a more general perception I have, which is that the other pattern I see in your posting is one of binary logic and representing other's arguments as reduced to one extreme or the other, and a tendency to miss nuances, and your responses to my comments as well as others seems to be very consistent with that tendency, which was why I asked about your claim that other people are telling you your opinions are subordinate to theirs. Several people have tried to explain the more subtle implications of taxation as an aspect of collective responsibilities vs. individual rights, and every time you've responded, you've gone right back to the assertion that taxation is essentially theft of your wealth with no social benefits whatsoever (if I'm reading your posts correctly, I'm summarizing several you've made), which to me is not a defensible position. You do have a right to that opinion, and I want to make it clear that I do not intend to cross a boundary with you in terms of trying to state what you are required to believe or not believe -- having had my own such boundary crossed many times in my life, I'm particularly conscious of it and try to respect it at all times -- but I *am* free to remain unconvinced by your arguments simply because I feel you haven't backed up that argument to the point where I feel it's supported, because I feel you are also bound by the obligation to respect that boundary, and to be totally honest, I don't get the sense that you do from most of what you've posted here. If you agree that your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa, and that both of us are *equally* entitled to an opinion and *equally* entitled to examine each other's arguments on their own merits, then we don't have a problem. If you don't agree with that, then we have a very serious problem indeed, and one of much more immediate importance than the more superficial discussion of taxation and collective vs. individual rights. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
