Exactly. People like myself are angry about how things are now because they are being done not just immorally, but illegally. If the government's charter were changed, then we would simply be arguing the merits of the ideas.
That's because I don't believe it is an opinion, I believe it is a natural law. If you believe differently, you are welcome to attempt to sway me.
I don't hold my beliefs on faith, but on conviction. Honoring the individual rights of others has gotten me far in life, and is the most workable system of government that I'm aware of.
If you don't see room for discussion, perhaps you realize my statement is correct?
Show me a means of avoiding all products of that taxation. Because you have forced something on citizens does not make it right, and it doesn't invalidate the argument.
And I don't offer T-shirts. Since you've devolved our conversation to petty name-calling, you're obviously illiterate.
Again - I can back up my statements both philosophically and factually. You've not bothered to engage me in debate, however, which tells me you're interested in nothing but attempting to offend me.
I don't think its "OK" to be on a list - I believe it is unavoidable. I take reasonable precautions to protect my info, but I'm not going to stress about what I can't control.
All mandatory taxation, regardless of its intended use, is immoral.
I'm not 12, and I'm not whining. I'm stating an opinion, and discussing it with my peers. You, on the other hand, decided to attack me personally. I'm not interested in discussing either of our personal characteristics, this is a discussion of ideas.
The armed forces protect everyone, jointly. Healthcare would apply to everyone, severally.
Big difference.
Also, why should Americans renounce their citizenship? Perhaps your ilk should move to a country where your socialist designs are already in effect, instead of trying to change our carefully designed governmental system outside the bounds of its authority.
The constitution of a country does not grant property rights, it may merely recognize them. Those rights are inherent in the individual, and exist whether or not they are recognized.
Also, democracy is a very poor form of government.
I live in the Ozarks, and there are many places here where you can purchase land and build a house without electricity. It is emphatically not a *right*, and many people go without it by choice.
A right, by definition, does not require anyone other than you take on a responsibility.
So let me get this straight - I don't wan't your healthcare plan, I'm happy with what I have. You are proposing that you know better than me, and want to "give" me healthcare, whether I want it or not.
Then you want to use the "free" healthcare you've provided to take control of my life to the point of telling me what to eat, whether or not I can smoke, or what risks I can take.
Do you really not see the problem here? You don't own me, and it is not your decision.
The issue most Americans opposed to "universal" (socialist) healthcare isn't the cost, and it isn't the way it is structure - its the fact that you're requiring others to pay for it. You have no moral right to take from producers and give to those who do not produce.
This is absolutely correct. That's why it really bothers me when "conservatives" get upset about Obama calling the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" - because that's exactly what it is, from the perspective of government.
Now, as far as changing that perception, I would fight that agenda in every way available to me.
It looks like he invented the term "anti-subsidy" to describe the disadvantaged condition of a behavior or product adversely affected by intervention external to the market.
If I sell widgets, and you sell widgets, but your widgets are subsidized by the government for 10% of the price, mine are going to be 10% more expensive to start out. My position is what the GP is referring to.
Living in the rural Ozarks, we have decent broadband, with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.
It eventually comes down to property rights, though. The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else. Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.
Yep - what gets really interesting is seeing the current crop of young adults entering the workforce. There is no separation at all between personal and professional life, and I'm interested to see how companies handle that.
The real issue is a generational one --- the younger generation doesn't have the expectation of privacy that the elder ones did.
I'm 25, and I don't have anything "secret", really. I'm about as political as you can be, and I think there is a damned good chance (as those things go) that I'll be on the "list" of my own government in the future. The thing is, I don't see that there is any way to prevent being on that list without changing who I am, so I'm okay with that.
Is there reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed? So long as he was not impeding the search process, I'm not aware of any requirement that he submit to questioning or follow orders.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you want to live in a forest full of anarchists be my guest."
Where?
"For the rest of us we realize there is a moral authority that sharing and cooperation is a net benefit to each of us."
How does taxing my earnings to pay for your healthcare benefit me? When did I give you the authority to do so?
Consensus does not make fact.
In Galileo's time, his ideas were so far off the radar, they killed him.
I don't concern myself with what is popular, I'm more concerned about what is true.
Exactly. People like myself are angry about how things are now because they are being done not just immorally, but illegally. If the government's charter were changed, then we would simply be arguing the merits of the ideas.
That's because I don't believe it is an opinion, I believe it is a natural law. If you believe differently, you are welcome to attempt to sway me.
I don't hold my beliefs on faith, but on conviction. Honoring the individual rights of others has gotten me far in life, and is the most workable system of government that I'm aware of.
If you don't see room for discussion, perhaps you realize my statement is correct?
Show me a means of avoiding all products of that taxation. Because you have forced something on citizens does not make it right, and it doesn't invalidate the argument.
I'm a capitalist. Sue me, the product sells.
And I don't offer T-shirts. Since you've devolved our conversation to petty name-calling, you're obviously illiterate.
Again - I can back up my statements both philosophically and factually. You've not bothered to engage me in debate, however, which tells me you're interested in nothing but attempting to offend me.
Well, I'm in a Crystal Reports class right now, posting on Slashdot. They're handling it fine.
I don't think its "OK" to be on a list - I believe it is unavoidable. I take reasonable precautions to protect my info, but I'm not going to stress about what I can't control.
All mandatory taxation, regardless of its intended use, is immoral.
I'm not 12, and I'm not whining. I'm stating an opinion, and discussing it with my peers. You, on the other hand, decided to attack me personally. I'm not interested in discussing either of our personal characteristics, this is a discussion of ideas.
I could write a treatise on how the creation of the Buffalo National Forest has negatively impacted my area.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about. Families' lives were ruined by the "assistance" you tout.
The armed forces protect everyone, jointly. Healthcare would apply to everyone, severally.
Big difference.
Also, why should Americans renounce their citizenship? Perhaps your ilk should move to a country where your socialist designs are already in effect, instead of trying to change our carefully designed governmental system outside the bounds of its authority.
The constitution of a country does not grant property rights, it may merely recognize them. Those rights are inherent in the individual, and exist whether or not they are recognized.
Also, democracy is a very poor form of government.
I live in the Ozarks, and there are many places here where you can purchase land and build a house without electricity. It is emphatically not a *right*, and many people go without it by choice.
A right, by definition, does not require anyone other than you take on a responsibility.
So let me get this straight - I don't wan't your healthcare plan, I'm happy with what I have. You are proposing that you know better than me, and want to "give" me healthcare, whether I want it or not.
Then you want to use the "free" healthcare you've provided to take control of my life to the point of telling me what to eat, whether or not I can smoke, or what risks I can take.
Do you really not see the problem here? You don't own me, and it is not your decision.
The issue most Americans opposed to "universal" (socialist) healthcare isn't the cost, and it isn't the way it is structure - its the fact that you're requiring others to pay for it. You have no moral right to take from producers and give to those who do not produce.
Good to know that 1-1.5% of someone else's money is "not a big deal" to you. Who gave you the authority to take that, exactly?
This is absolutely correct. That's why it really bothers me when "conservatives" get upset about Obama calling the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" - because that's exactly what it is, from the perspective of government.
Now, as far as changing that perception, I would fight that agenda in every way available to me.
It looks like he invented the term "anti-subsidy" to describe the disadvantaged condition of a behavior or product adversely affected by intervention external to the market.
If I sell widgets, and you sell widgets, but your widgets are subsidized by the government for 10% of the price, mine are going to be 10% more expensive to start out. My position is what the GP is referring to.
This is very telling. How does their being "useless" effect you, unless you believe you own the product of their labor?
Living in the rural Ozarks, we have decent broadband, with the exception of one provider that absolutely sucks.
It eventually comes down to property rights, though. The government lacks the legitimate moral authority to confiscate an individual's property to provide that property to someone else. Taxing one person to provide for someone else is theft, pure and simple.
Yep - what gets really interesting is seeing the current crop of young adults entering the workforce. There is no separation at all between personal and professional life, and I'm interested to see how companies handle that.
The real issue is a generational one --- the younger generation doesn't have the expectation of privacy that the elder ones did.
I'm 25, and I don't have anything "secret", really. I'm about as political as you can be, and I think there is a damned good chance (as those things go) that I'll be on the "list" of my own government in the future. The thing is, I don't see that there is any way to prevent being on that list without changing who I am, so I'm okay with that.
Is there reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed? So long as he was not impeding the search process, I'm not aware of any requirement that he submit to questioning or follow orders.
First you're going to have to convince the approximately 80,000,000 gunowners in America.
Your misinformed opinion doesn't matter a bit in the face of my recognized, actively defended Liberty.
Getting out of the car may not be smart, but it doesn't warrant being assaulted.
Americans are citizens, not subjects, and unless there is an investigation of a crime going on, then we are not required to "obey" law enforcement.