If your point is that which is legal in 1891, may not be legal in 2016, I will stipulate that laws and values do change. I can quote the disparate definitions of 'stealing' and 'levying' and taxes and stolen property if that will help. It won't derail the topic. I won't let it. If Maximatic does not get the hint, or cannot comprehend the purpose of this reply, I won't pursue it.
I think he's saying that your singling out the income tax as it stands as theft amounts to special pleading. If that is what he's saying, I'm pretty sure he's right.
This is why I think there ought to be a minimum income tax, even for poor people, even if it's only 3%. I also believe in sales taxes, excluding food, medicine, and fuel and utilities. Everyone should have some skin in the game, even if it isn't much.
In our system, the laws are made by our representatives. We will not always agree with them, but that is just human nature. Like it or not, the "government" is us. If we have sh**ty laws, well, we elected them. Whose fault is that?
Ever get something for free? Ever paid for what could be the same thing and noticed you care more about what you paid for than what you were given? Skin in the game means a lot. When people see they have skin in game, they wake up to things happening wrong.
Are you suggesting that it's the fault of those who didn't elect them(maybe because they didn't vote hard enough(not mentioning the fact that they were born into the system and never agreed to any of it in the first place))?
In our system, the laws are made by our representatives. We will not always agree with them, but that is just human nature. Like it or not, the "government" is us. If we have sh**ty laws, well, we elected those representatives to represent us. If we re-elect them over and over, whose fault is that?
If you are American-born, you were lucky enough to be born into our system. If you don't think so, perhaps Russia, China, N. Korea, or Iran would make you luckier. Visit N. Korea and give your own opinion. Let us know how that works out for you.
Seth, it is far too easy to make laws. We need a new system. Let me tell a Robert story hoping to give up insider information. I was not an elected politician. Still, I did run for office and got elected. As it turns out, even being a director of a 3500 member real estate board ends up a bit political. I and some of the directors talked quite a bit. We talked because of the lot of directors, we listened. I respected people like Nick D because he did more than talk, he listened. So did his wife. Guy P listened so very well. I can come up with at least 8 of us that really paid close attention. There were 20 of us in that body. Take the case of insurance. Former directors sought people to be on the policy. Each member paid his own premium. But to help the board, how many paid for insurance was important. In comes Katie M and she wanted to kick off the policy those who had been paying for in cases, a long time. Take the case of Leon M. who passed away. Leon was a guy I was friends with. I really never got to know his wife. She buried him and kept paying her health plan. I think she paid for the Kaiser plan. Katie M wanted his widow booted off her policy. She did not care that Leon's widow might not be able to get a new one. Bear in mind things like illness she may have had at the time. I and some others fought like mad to prevent the board from booting them off. It cost the board nothing at all. Not one dime of member funds paid for those policies. I called Kaiser and asked them for advice. Did they care the member of the board died and his wife needed coverage? They told me she could stay. Katie M got her kicked off, her and other former board members and or spouses. OK my point in a nutshell is this. People in congress do not always win. The unjust also win. This is why I hate the present system. Why I see how unfair taxes are and argue to solve that problem. When I read forum members supporting just government, in opposition to citizens, I just do not understand that at all. It is as if government can do what it wants. We do not run the system. It runs us. This needs to be fixed. Voting is not cutting the mustard. If people recall, General Washington had that same problem with the King.
You keep drifting further from the topic. You were asked to define "unlawful". Do you plan to oblige?
Seth, Seth My good man You can do much better than that. Much better. You sound like a government authoritarian sounds. When they tell me ... government of the people, by the people, for them How then do they smile and say, wait, it is for the government, of it and by it?
I tried to be clear. I mentioned the law banning alcohol. But stop to think this over. Does the law make it right or wrong? I am challenged on my term theft. I think some agree that is wrong. I am using it as the victim does. The victim looks at the law as totally wrong. While it may later change to correct the wrong, to conclude that a group will decide for us all wrong and right, I stick to my own moral code. I suspect you stick to yours on matters that concern you. I knew by calling it theft I would get some, especially the so called LEFT to charge at me. The LEFT is submissive. They adore laws. Even bad law, they talk as if they love those laws. They feel obliged to obey bad law. They do not tell you it was Democrats making those bad laws. I tell it like it is. Think of my arguments like you would have due to the slaves. I could call that wrong even though the planters broke no laws.
Notice the sentence I put in bold ... This is why I am encouraged by the election of Donald Trump. The Republican Establishment didn't want him. The Dems didn't either. But the people spoke. This gives me hope.
adjective 1. not lawful; contrary to law; illegal. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unlawful Your turn ...
And you were worried about your thread being derailed by an arcane (and probably mistaken) point of logic.
Fair enough. My initial response to you was correct then. You define unlawful as anything the government says thou shalt not do, and lawful as anything the government does.
you do not make an argument that taxation is wrong by calling it theft. You don't make an argument at all. If I say that when police tthrow me on the ground to subdue and handcuff me, they are committing police brutality and abusing me, I do so because I see myself as a victim. the fact that I ran from a bank robbery, refused to stop when they told me to, and had 50,000 dollars in a pillow case is relevant to objective observers to redefine their behavior in terms of a lawful arrest as opposed to brutality or physical abuse, even if it is not relevant to me. It cannot be categorized as police brutality because the very definition of police brutality precludes the necessary force to subdue a fleeing suspect. Police brutality exceeds the amount of force necessary to subdue a fleeing suspect. The use of an improper perjorative to redefine that which is lawful and necessary, into something quite different is not redeemed simply because fleeing suspects of crime, who do not like to be thrown on the ground and have their arms turned behind their back like to see themselves as victims when it happens to them.
I feel as if I am discussing this with a person that is very prone to obey bad law and is submissive to authority.
I feel like I am discussing this with someone who likes to play fast and loose with words so that they will mean whatever he wants them to for emotional appeal, whenever he wants them to. when the left wants to redefine a riot as a 'protest' so that it looks lawful, you might just see the point I want to make. I Like this distinction between lawful and unlawful acts that words can convey. Its not about submission, it is about whether the essential elements of criminal conduct exists.
