It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past.
As your example illustrates, we know it is not right, and we have a common and instinctive urge to call it wrong. Thus, there is a human right that transcends government. It's wrong not just because a particular government says it's wrong, but because of something that is innate to humanity. (and I believe, the universe we exist in)
However that is academic.
What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?
No, it is not academic.
If you don't have the right to resist, why resist? If you don't have the right to free speech, why should you risk anything to speak against the majority/popular view?
Paying a heavy cost to assert a right is possible only when there is a concept of right and wrong that is more valuable than even one's own life.
Take away that ideal, and we are just bags of meat, and we are ultimately just slaves to the strongest bully in the neighborhood.
Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights.
You speak of truth as if it were desirable, while attacking the concept of rights. ("it's not a right if someone isn't strong enough to protect it")
"It's not true if it's uncomfortable" - how much would you disagree with that?
Because that is wrong in the same way as "it's not a right if it's not protected by a government".
Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.
Wrong. There is a God, and our instinctive desire for Justice, Right, and Protection of the Weak are strong evidence of His fingerprints.
We do need to protect the weak, and we are a part of governments - but governments are not the highest human authority - so we have the right to judge governments and force them to do what is right.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.
If that makes you uncomfortable (it should!), you ought to re-examine your logical position.
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.
The government can help you protect your rights, but it cannot be the source of the justification without it also having complete authority to do whatever it wants.
So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No.
By and large illegal immigrants are healthier than the average American and use fewer "health care resources", something which has been studied for decades now with lots of publications, in the hope that there's something there the rest of us can do.
You wouldn't know their health without doing a physical checkup, which isn't done on illegal immigrants bypassing official channels.
If you get down to it there is no such thing as natural right. You may have that right but unless you are physically stronger then the one who tries to violate that right you are going to need someone to protect that right. The government provides that someone, mostly by punishing those who violate that right.
Natural rights do not exist only in a world without objective morality.
The jury is out on that question, considering the inability to prove God does not exist, and the natural tendency of mankind to seek justice and the "right" of things.
So for each of the so called natural rights the government grants you protection from violation. I see no difference from the government granting that right in the first place.
So you have no problems if a government rescinds those rights and decides a portion of its population needs to be plundered and converted into fertilizer? As in mass killing/genocide, in case that's too subtle.
Because in a world without "natural rights" - that's not wrong. If you were principled about there being no such thing as "natural rights", you'd respect the Hitlers and Stalins and Maos of the world for doing whatever they wanted to do. Cause their might makes it right.
As for the government taking that protection away: they won't. Not without due process.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say they do, without due process. Is that a good/right thing?
Because it has happened in the past, and it might happen in the future. You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?
Never heard of herd immunity? Your minor inconvenience could save an immunocompromised person.
1. Flu shots aren't given to everyone. Heck, they run shortages frequently - and that's with voluntary shots. There is no herd immunity to maintain. There has never been a flu herd immunity.
2. With unrestricted illegal immigration, it doesn't matter how immune the rest of the herd is, because we're importing new disease vectors/reservoirs without even a quick physical checkup.
In many states of the US that is true: after due process you can be sentenced to death.
You do not remotely comprehend the point, then. If the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed (right to life) is granted by government, the government doesn't need due process - the government can do no wrong.
A distinction needs to be drawn between protection of a right (using police/legal system/military) and the granting of a right.
We pay taxes to sustain a government that protects our natural rights. We do not pay government to grant us natural rights. Otherwise, what government grants, it can take, and anything it does, is right by definition, since it is the source of rights.
where do these rights you speak of come from? by what right do you speak freely? and what is the guarantor?
A right is the moral right to fight for it.
If someone wants to kill you, you are in the right to protect your life. A right to life. (Assuming of course you aren't threatening him in a way that forces him to kill you to protect his life)
Why is it right? That speaks to a sense of right or wrong and morality. Where does that come from? "Natural Rights" comes from a Christian framework, which claims there's a God given order man lives under.
Coming from an atheistic, purely secular framework, there is no basis for "Natural Rights". Everything just boils down to might and power, and any concept of fairness or justice is a mere cover for survival of the fittest.
And you have no inherent natural right to electricity, plumbing, roads, safety from murder/rape/robbery, etc. Society gives that to you in EXCHANGE for your taxes.
Wait, so government grants you the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed?
You do realize that means the government can take it away for any arbitrary reason, right? Which means you have no right to life - you are merely a government serf, who continues to live at the whim of government.
Companies do not create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs, companies fulfill that role of producing. If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.
Where's my supercomputer for $1?
Who wouldn't want it? Demand is nigh infinite! Why hasn't it popped into existence from all that pent up demand?
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
People don't simply "make money". They trade goods or services to get paid.
There's a difference between working 1 hour to earn $100, and working a week to earn $100. The first sounds like a good deal, the latter sounds like a waste of time.
Everyone has a threshold, and taxes make it so that you earn less for the same effort. If there was a 99% tax so you could spend an hour to make $1, would you still do it?
To eliminate all need for human direct labor you would have to invent a machine that is as flexible as a human and costs less per unit. In other words a human level AI on the cheap. That simply isn't likely to happen anytime soon. (and don't give me any BS about the so called singularity or other paranoid hypothetical dystopian futures) Any scenario where we get human level AI in a robot body for less money than a human would cost is simply science fiction for the foreseeable future.
It is refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot who notices this (unlikely) prerequisite for the robotic dystopia fantasy where humanity is replaced with machines.
Silly, the overhead administering it is very, very low. Much lower than the private retirement funds.
Private retirement funds invest the money, and pay back from profits. SS does no such productive thing. Government collects 13% and then pays out minus its cut.
Are you really arguing against a system that helped old people live a little more decently? There is no denying that SS provided (and probably still does) a great social service.
SS is a Ponzi scheme that robs the next generation to feed a previous one. The "Rate of Return" of SS has been decreasing with each generation - because the ratio of suckers to payees has been decreasing.
Even if SS became "sustainable", the benefits are wanting. Within families that care for their elders, all SS does is add overhead and extra costs. So SS penalizes families that prepare for retirement and care for their old, to benefit those who ignore retirement and neglect their old.
Why would you want to discourage people planning for retirement and caring for their elders?
If you're lucky, you will get old too and it's very likely you'll see it differently from now.
If I'm lucky, I'll see SS abolished in my lifetime so future generations do not live under its burden. Even if right before my retirement such that I never get a single penny.
Some generation is going to have to bite the bullet, and I'll choose mine if the previous ones are too selfish to do so. I don't hate the future enough to enrich myself at their expense, and I despise your belief that I am so easily bribed.
When compared to the efficient way the other two agencies that command a large portion of the US budget (Health and SS) are run...
What the... ?
SS, efficient? How the hell is transfer payments from the young and poor to the old an rich efficient? What metric are you using, money spent to votes bought?
And that you put argument in scare quotes just betrays your unwillingness to examine it as an argument, not some clever takedown of my debate skills, or whatever "totally subtle" jab you thought you were delivering.
I'll bite. Please elaborate the argument contained in your post that I was responding to.
Oh right, I forgot about the literally infinite capability of anyone on the right wing to dismiss primary evidence on the grounds that it disagrees with their beliefs.
Sorry. Don't let me interrupt your fantasy, you can engage in those extraordinary mental contortions if you want. It's not like I'm going to stop you.
Here's what I see:
1. Accusation of being right wing. (how is this relevant to the topic?)
2. Accusation of dismissing primary evidence on the basis of beliefs.
3. Accusation of having a fantasy maintained with extraordinary mental contortions.
Are one of those points supposed to be an argument? Accusations are not arguments. So you can't tell the difference between a definition and an implementation, and you don't know what an argument is.
To also touch on the substance of the discussion:
I could cite the powers granted to congress that defy your stupid beliefs, but you'd say there were secondary...
Maybe. Considering your reading ability, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to read my mind. Asserting your ability to provide an argument is not actually an argument.
But clearly the most important thing is to delegitimize and shame those who disagree with you. They don't know anything, after all.
Primary... evidence? You can't even tell the difference between the source code and the compiled object, and you want to talk about evidence and fantasy?
"federal government" != "Constitution"
That you can't tell the difference demonstrates all that one needs to know about your "argument". The name of the object pointer is not the name of the object. The purpose of the government definition document is not the purpose of the government implementation.
Yeah, and that's absolutely and undeniably bullshit and frankly you should feel ashamed to be pressing the point when the primary purposes of the government are exactly what the preamble establishes.
The Preamble describes the primary purposes of the Constitution.
The Constitution then assigns and limits powers to the federal government. The purpose of the federal government is not the same as the purpose of the Constitution, because the document and the system it defines are different things.
Have you ever confused a man page with the tool it described?
It's hard to feel shamed by a person who casually makes unjustified substitutions.
"t 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet."
this just keep driving me up a wal. So by your "logic" a female vet works 3 hours a day?
An observation is not logic.
But by this observation, yes - if 4 part-time female vets are needed to do the same job as 1 full time male vet, then they are working the equivalent of 3 hours a day. On average - that number may not be the actual number of working hours per day.
When you consider that they're working part time and having families (pregnancy, maternity leave, taking care of kid's events), that number sounds plausible. It's the equivalent of working 2 days a week instead of 6.
I may or may not be rude and arrogant. But I note that you did not claim it was the wrong thing to say. Based on your latest post, that's because my statement was true.
I've made two points in this discussion thread:
1. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce by collecting/authorizing an internet sales tax.
2. State use taxes are simply a relabeled sales tax on inter-state transactions and are thus unconstitutional under current federal law.
Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.
Neither of my points care what the text of the rejected federal sales tax bill says. Your response is irrelevant - which means my comment is accurate. You are not paying attention to the content of my posts when you respond to them. That's the charitable interpretation.
You presume to correct a misunderstanding that is not there. Your behavior is rude and arrogant - which makes your accusations of the same in me seem like projection.
You can't even summarize your own article correctly. From your link: "the bill... would allow states and local governments to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located outside their borders".
That's not one state forcing another state to act. Businesses are not states. Why don't you take your own advice on reading up and getting a clue?
Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.
You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.
The authority of the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the states is not in question. The federal government can collect a sales tax because it wants to, just like it collects an income tax.
What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business - it can then pass federal laws to give money to states based on a set of rules. (subject to some equitable standard; no giving all the money to a single state)
State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.
Slashdot Mirror
It does lead to "might makes it possible to do what the hell you want" but that doesn't mean that that is right. 10 minutes of medieval history tells you that that is exactly what happened in the past.
As your example illustrates, we know it is not right, and we have a common and instinctive urge to call it wrong. Thus, there is a human right that transcends government. It's wrong not just because a particular government says it's wrong, but because of something that is innate to humanity. (and I believe, the universe we exist in)
However that is academic. What is the practical difference between protecting a right for someone and being the source of that right? If you protect someones right you can simply remove that protection. If the other isn't capable of protecting that right, what use is that right? If someone is raping you what protection is "It's my right not to be raped"?
No, it is not academic.
If you don't have the right to resist, why resist? If you don't have the right to free speech, why should you risk anything to speak against the majority/popular view?
Paying a heavy cost to assert a right is possible only when there is a concept of right and wrong that is more valuable than even one's own life.
Take away that ideal, and we are just bags of meat, and we are ultimately just slaves to the strongest bully in the neighborhood.
Another uncomfortable truth is that there isn't some magical protection on rights.
You speak of truth as if it were desirable, while attacking the concept of rights. ("it's not a right if someone isn't strong enough to protect it")
"It's not true if it's uncomfortable" - how much would you disagree with that?
Because that is wrong in the same way as "it's not a right if it's not protected by a government".
Most likely there is no god, and if there is He isn't doing much on this front. We have to protect the weak ourselves. For that we use governments.
Wrong. There is a God, and our instinctive desire for Justice, Right, and Protection of the Weak are strong evidence of His fingerprints.
We do need to protect the weak, and we are a part of governments - but governments are not the highest human authority - so we have the right to judge governments and force them to do what is right.
How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations?
"Steal from the right people" is still worse than "don't steal".
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that might makes things right.
I am not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out where the logic of your position leads to.
If that makes you uncomfortable (it should!), you ought to re-examine your logical position.
Please understand that natural rights are pointless if nobody protects them. Then we can talk.
That's nonsense. A right is not some object you have, it's something you are justified to do. At the very bare minimum, you are protecting your right - and if you aren't willing to protect it, you can't complain that someone else isn't protecting it.
The government can help you protect your rights, but it cannot be the source of the justification without it also having complete authority to do whatever it wants.
So let's clear this up if you wish to continue talking: Is the government the source of rights? Yes/No.
By and large illegal immigrants are healthier than the average American and use fewer "health care resources", something which has been studied for decades now with lots of publications, in the hope that there's something there the rest of us can do.
You wouldn't know their health without doing a physical checkup, which isn't done on illegal immigrants bypassing official channels.
So what are these studies based off of?
There is herd immunity, but all that happens is a different strain of flu ends up spreading.
So every year, a number of people get sick with the flu ... and that demonstrates flu herd immunity exists and works.
I'm afraid I do not find your concept of herd immunity to be useful.
If you get down to it there is no such thing as natural right. You may have that right but unless you are physically stronger then the one who tries to violate that right you are going to need someone to protect that right. The government provides that someone, mostly by punishing those who violate that right.
Natural rights do not exist only in a world without objective morality.
The jury is out on that question, considering the inability to prove God does not exist, and the natural tendency of mankind to seek justice and the "right" of things.
So for each of the so called natural rights the government grants you protection from violation. I see no difference from the government granting that right in the first place.
So you have no problems if a government rescinds those rights and decides a portion of its population needs to be plundered and converted into fertilizer? As in mass killing/genocide, in case that's too subtle.
Because in a world without "natural rights" - that's not wrong. If you were principled about there being no such thing as "natural rights", you'd respect the Hitlers and Stalins and Maos of the world for doing whatever they wanted to do. Cause their might makes it right.
As for the government taking that protection away: they won't. Not without due process.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Let's say they do, without due process. Is that a good/right thing?
Because it has happened in the past, and it might happen in the future. You can't say it will not happen or did not happen - only that it should not - but why should it not happen if it's not wrong?
Never heard of herd immunity? Your minor inconvenience could save an immunocompromised person.
1. Flu shots aren't given to everyone. Heck, they run shortages frequently - and that's with voluntary shots. There is no herd immunity to maintain. There has never been a flu herd immunity.
2. With unrestricted illegal immigration, it doesn't matter how immune the rest of the herd is, because we're importing new disease vectors/reservoirs without even a quick physical checkup.
In many states of the US that is true: after due process you can be sentenced to death.
You do not remotely comprehend the point, then. If the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed (right to life) is granted by government, the government doesn't need due process - the government can do no wrong.
A distinction needs to be drawn between protection of a right (using police/legal system/military) and the granting of a right.
We pay taxes to sustain a government that protects our natural rights. We do not pay government to grant us natural rights. Otherwise, what government grants, it can take, and anything it does, is right by definition, since it is the source of rights.
Not $1. Not the sort of supercomputer I was asking for.
Things don't come into existence just because someone wants them, or there wouldn't even be a concept of world hunger or poverty.
where do these rights you speak of come from? by what right do you speak freely? and what is the guarantor?
A right is the moral right to fight for it.
If someone wants to kill you, you are in the right to protect your life. A right to life. (Assuming of course you aren't threatening him in a way that forces him to kill you to protect his life)
Why is it right? That speaks to a sense of right or wrong and morality. Where does that come from? "Natural Rights" comes from a Christian framework, which claims there's a God given order man lives under.
Coming from an atheistic, purely secular framework, there is no basis for "Natural Rights". Everything just boils down to might and power, and any concept of fairness or justice is a mere cover for survival of the fittest.
And you have no inherent natural right to electricity, plumbing, roads, safety from murder/rape/robbery, etc. Society gives that to you in EXCHANGE for your taxes.
Wait, so government grants you the right to not be murdered/raped/robbed?
You do realize that means the government can take it away for any arbitrary reason, right? Which means you have no right to life - you are merely a government serf, who continues to live at the whim of government.
Companies do not create jobs, demand for goods creates jobs, companies fulfill that role of producing. If that company was not there the job would still be there. That is a myth created by the right.
Where's my supercomputer for $1?
Who wouldn't want it? Demand is nigh infinite! Why hasn't it popped into existence from all that pent up demand?
Show me anyone outside the 1% and even 99% of the 1%'ers that would choose to make less money because they where being taxed too heavily on it. That is a complete fallacy.
People don't simply "make money". They trade goods or services to get paid.
There's a difference between working 1 hour to earn $100, and working a week to earn $100. The first sounds like a good deal, the latter sounds like a waste of time.
Everyone has a threshold, and taxes make it so that you earn less for the same effort. If there was a 99% tax so you could spend an hour to make $1, would you still do it?
To eliminate all need for human direct labor you would have to invent a machine that is as flexible as a human and costs less per unit. In other words a human level AI on the cheap. That simply isn't likely to happen anytime soon. (and don't give me any BS about the so called singularity or other paranoid hypothetical dystopian futures) Any scenario where we get human level AI in a robot body for less money than a human would cost is simply science fiction for the foreseeable future.
It is refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot who notices this (unlikely) prerequisite for the robotic dystopia fantasy where humanity is replaced with machines.
Boys excluded from cool activity. Not sexism against boys. Girls get to do cool activity. Sexism against girls, because Christmas lights are pretty.
Yep.
Silly, the overhead administering it is very, very low. Much lower than the private retirement funds.
Private retirement funds invest the money, and pay back from profits. SS does no such productive thing. Government collects 13% and then pays out minus its cut.
Are you really arguing against a system that helped old people live a little more decently? There is no denying that SS provided (and probably still does) a great social service.
SS is a Ponzi scheme that robs the next generation to feed a previous one. The "Rate of Return" of SS has been decreasing with each generation - because the ratio of suckers to payees has been decreasing.
Even if SS became "sustainable", the benefits are wanting. Within families that care for their elders, all SS does is add overhead and extra costs. So SS penalizes families that prepare for retirement and care for their old, to benefit those who ignore retirement and neglect their old.
Why would you want to discourage people planning for retirement and caring for their elders?
If you're lucky, you will get old too and it's very likely you'll see it differently from now.
If I'm lucky, I'll see SS abolished in my lifetime so future generations do not live under its burden. Even if right before my retirement such that I never get a single penny.
Some generation is going to have to bite the bullet, and I'll choose mine if the previous ones are too selfish to do so. I don't hate the future enough to enrich myself at their expense, and I despise your belief that I am so easily bribed.
When compared to the efficient way the other two agencies that command a large portion of the US budget (Health and SS) are run ...
What the ... ?
SS, efficient? How the hell is transfer payments from the young and poor to the old an rich efficient? What metric are you using, money spent to votes bought?
And that you put argument in scare quotes just betrays your unwillingness to examine it as an argument, not some clever takedown of my debate skills, or whatever "totally subtle" jab you thought you were delivering.
I'll bite. Please elaborate the argument contained in your post that I was responding to.
Oh right, I forgot about the literally infinite capability of anyone on the right wing to dismiss primary evidence on the grounds that it disagrees with their beliefs. Sorry. Don't let me interrupt your fantasy, you can engage in those extraordinary mental contortions if you want. It's not like I'm going to stop you.
Here's what I see:
1. Accusation of being right wing. (how is this relevant to the topic?)
2. Accusation of dismissing primary evidence on the basis of beliefs.
3. Accusation of having a fantasy maintained with extraordinary mental contortions.
Are one of those points supposed to be an argument? Accusations are not arguments. So you can't tell the difference between a definition and an implementation, and you don't know what an argument is.
To also touch on the substance of the discussion:
I could cite the powers granted to congress that defy your stupid beliefs, but you'd say there were secondary ...
Maybe. Considering your reading ability, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to read my mind. Asserting your ability to provide an argument is not actually an argument.
But clearly the most important thing is to delegitimize and shame those who disagree with you. They don't know anything, after all.
Primary ... evidence? You can't even tell the difference between the source code and the compiled object, and you want to talk about evidence and fantasy?
"federal government" != "Constitution"
That you can't tell the difference demonstrates all that one needs to know about your "argument". The name of the object pointer is not the name of the object. The purpose of the government definition document is not the purpose of the government implementation.
Yeah, and that's absolutely and undeniably bullshit and frankly you should feel ashamed to be pressing the point when the primary purposes of the government are exactly what the preamble establishes.
The Preamble describes the primary purposes of the Constitution.
The Constitution then assigns and limits powers to the federal government. The purpose of the federal government is not the same as the purpose of the Constitution, because the document and the system it defines are different things.
Have you ever confused a man page with the tool it described?
It's hard to feel shamed by a person who casually makes unjustified substitutions.
No, it's not. The purpose of Wal-Mart's price matching policy is to drive competition out of business.
While they may wish to be the only store around, it'll take far more than price-matching to drive the competition out of business.
Saying that it's the policy's one true purpose is silly.
i kan reed (749298) said:
Uh, actually, that constitution you mention lists a few more things than "common defense and currency"
Trying to disprove your user name?
The Federal government was to provide for the common defense, and currency, primarily.
"t 4-5 female vets do the job of one male vet." this just keep driving me up a wal. So by your "logic" a female vet works 3 hours a day?
An observation is not logic.
But by this observation, yes - if 4 part-time female vets are needed to do the same job as 1 full time male vet, then they are working the equivalent of 3 hours a day. On average - that number may not be the actual number of working hours per day.
When you consider that they're working part time and having families (pregnancy, maternity leave, taking care of kid's events), that number sounds plausible. It's the equivalent of working 2 days a week instead of 6.
What an rude, arrogant thing to say.
I may or may not be rude and arrogant. But I note that you did not claim it was the wrong thing to say. Based on your latest post, that's because my statement was true.
I've made two points in this discussion thread:
1. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce by collecting/authorizing an internet sales tax.
2. State use taxes are simply a relabeled sales tax on inter-state transactions and are thus unconstitutional under current federal law.
Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.
Neither of my points care what the text of the rejected federal sales tax bill says. Your response is irrelevant - which means my comment is accurate. You are not paying attention to the content of my posts when you respond to them. That's the charitable interpretation.
You presume to correct a misunderstanding that is not there. Your behavior is rude and arrogant - which makes your accusations of the same in me seem like projection.
You can't even summarize your own article correctly. From your link: "the bill ... would allow states and local governments to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located outside their borders".
That's not one state forcing another state to act. Businesses are not states. Why don't you take your own advice on reading up and getting a clue?
Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.
You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.
The authority of the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the states is not in question. The federal government can collect a sales tax because it wants to, just like it collects an income tax.
What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business - it can then pass federal laws to give money to states based on a set of rules. (subject to some equitable standard; no giving all the money to a single state)
State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.