It's really too bad that philosophical discussions continually get side-tracked
into the kind of junk Nick is peddling. Seems like the right-wing cranks are
always the culprits and they never say anything I haven't heard many time
before. The right has been portraying taxation as theft and oppression for my
entire lifetime so far and there's no end in sight, for example. Did you notice
the recent "tea baggers" protests? With a similar kind of ignorant outrage they
conjured up the revolutionary war slogan, "no taxation without representation".
The fact that U.S. tax laws are written and passed by the people's
representatives in Congress has apparently escaped them.
There is a demographic irony in this attitude that I find pretty interesting.
As it turns out, people who are most opposed to this so-called distribution of
wealth live in states that receive more federal dollars than they pay out in
taxes. This ideology is most popular in places that would suffer most from it's
realization in practice. Without federal dollars, there are places that still
wouldn't have roads or electricity. The internet wouldn't exist either.
Anyway, this sort of talk really doesn't merit a response. Can I suggest that
everybody else just try to ignore it? Those of us who aren't pathologically
cranky, usually give up at some point and ask ourselves why we even bothered to
try. Why not short-circuit that process a bit? Just jump straight to the giving
up. Just know in advance that it's pointless to argue with such people and
don't bother. Guess I'm trying to convince myself as much as anyone else. It's
so easy to get sucked in.
But I mean, really? Nick's position seems to be that taxes are criminal and if
you think otherwise you're a criminal too. Disagreement with this extremely
dubious idea means, according to Nick, that you're a thief and murderer. I ask
in all seriousness, how ridiculous is that? How could something like that
possibly be taken seriously? How does it merit a response at all? It's very
ridiculous, can't be taken seriously and doesn't merit a response.
> Andre said:
> Agree dmb, and this is what I have been trying to convey to Platt and Ham
> and this time to this person called Nick (formerly woods) who doesn't even
> appear to know his own country's history nor the philosophical foundations
> upon which the Declaration of Independence rests nor the institution of
> Federal/local government. (who am I to even suggest this?).
>
> As Frank Zappa once said (and I'll paraphrase): there will never be a
> nuclear war because that would destroy the real estate industry. The
> Government has represented this industry since its inception... so those
> that have property can rest easy tonight because they shall be protected.
>
> Those without property can keep their fingers crossed or pray to Jesus with
> all of their might ( Billy Joel, Goodnight Saigon)!
>
> Regards
> Andre
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
