BlueCollarCritic
Member
Curiosity question. What society(s) has failed because its governing power failed to expand the depth of its power and authority over the governed?
Thanks
Debunking Myths About Paying Taxes
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Curiosity question. What society(s) has failed because its governing power failed to expand the depth of its power and authority over the governed?
Thanks
What will collapse? Specifically? Everything.
Quite likely, if we keep going.
Maybe. Even so, fifty years is not an atom on the page of time.
In spite of your dislike for the bible - 'the pursuit of money is the root of all evil', is not a bad summing up by all reckoning.
Thinking has nothing to do with it. It's inevitable. And yes, maybe even in your lifetime.
That's a bit of a straw man you are raising there. I don't think that "expanding the depth of its power and authority" is necessary for a society to survive. I just said it seems like all large societies that have existed for any length of time have laws. The precise balance of how much law is ideal is another matter. Most people would at least say property rights would be a good basis, and probably not killing people.
One way or another societies end up with "laws", be they edicts, customs, mores, or rules of necessity.
BlueCollarCritic
Member
Mick
You read something into my question that was never there. Read the question as if none of the prior posts were made. Its just a straight forward question and not a trick question.
Thanks
Greg
New Member
I have an answer: none.
Maybe not a trick question, but a very poorly defined and overly simplistic one. I could say "all societies that failed due to civil unrest", because if the failure was defined as a collapse of order, then the imposition of a efficient totalitarian state would have fixed that. But it's all vastly more complex than that. What do you mean by "failed"? What constitutes a failure to expand the depth of power and authority?
One example though might be Rwanda. There was a total and brutal breakdown (over 500,000 dead) that could have been prevented by the enforcement of the rule of law (and was only ended when more powerful neighbors intervened).
The law is a component of a society, it's not the only thing. Some law, and some law enforcement, is generally good for society.
MikeC
Closed Account
I showed (along with Mick) that your idea that income tax is unconstitutional was false - or do you still disagree with that despite all the evidence?
I showed ther is nothing in the US constitution or Bill of Rights that says income tax is not allowed.
AFAIK that's 2 pretty obvious arguments of yours easily and obviously dismantled - not just a matter of disagreeing.
If you think otherwise then I think you are going to have a very angry life banging your head against brick walls.
Greg
New Member
Dude! I wasn't arguing about the constitutionality of anything! You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? You can't be that dense. Maybe you are confusing my posts with someone else's? Remember this?:
You completely ignored it. Please prove that a "people" isn't composed of "individuals" or that, by some magic, "rights" only exists in a collective. Somehow, "rights" only exist for abstract things and not real ones...? Explain that magic please?
and this:
So far you have only focused on my passing reference to the bill of rights, which I only used as an example to show that governments are cognizant of "natural rights" and therefore "natural law", which you and your team just deny without any method whatsoever. It is so tedious and boring. Angry? No. Bored out of my mind with your inability to defend yourself intellectually? Yes.
I'm not going to respond to anymore of your attempts to rope me in to an argument about the constitution. ok?
Greg
New Member
Talk about a "straw man" argument... He didn't say that there shouldn't be some type of system in place to protect the people in societies from crime and fraud (which is the only reason for a legitimate government to exist). I think what he was asking, if I'm understanding the terms of his question correctly, was: Is there a society that has failed due to a small government (still able to defend life, liberty and property). One that, say, doesn't have the power to collect income taxes?
Please correct me if I'm wrong about those terms.
I'll let him define his own terms. But he didn't ask about income tax. He asked "What society(s) has failed because its governing power failed to expand the depth of its power and authority over the governed?" I explained that was vague, and gave one possible interpretation and example.
Income tax is clearly not necessary for a society to work. Governments can raise money by other means.
Income tax is clearly not necessary for a society to work. Governments can raise money by other means.
MikeC
Closed Account
I don't think so - here's one where you complained about government law that allows tax as beign unjust: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/11070
And here's one where you asked:
And here's another where you wrote:
No - I addressed it quite specifically here
What magic - of course a people is composed of individuals, but "rights" can only exist in a collective because they define what you are entitled to in regard of someone else - if you are the only person on the world the concept of "rights" is totally meaningless.
I have no idea what your comment "Somehow, "rights" only exist for abstract things and not real ones...? " means let alone how it applies to anything I said.
Method was provided - your inabilityor unwillingness to recognise it is unfortunate for you, but little else.
lol - well thank you for providing my answer for me.
Like the rest of your "argument" it is, unsurprisingly, wrong.
You don't need my permission to not reply...shrug.....but it seems to me that since you so obviously did discuss the constitutionality of tax laws, and linked those laws back to natural laws and rights via the DoI that you are being dishonest in suggesting that the linkage is somehow off topic.
Let me try and construct it in simple steps:
1/ you say that natural laws exist (which i will assume for this purpose)
2/ you say that the DOI recognises those laws
3/ I say that the constitution & BOR are the laws of the land that turn the DOI into actual law (ie that can be followed, recognised, enforced, etc) to which you agreed here
4/ therefore any discussion of how tax law somehow breaches "natural law" naturally must include the constitutional arrangments that recognise "natural law" on one side and indeed use it for justification of their existance, and permit tax law on the other.
I hope that helps you....really...I do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greg
New Member
If anyone is interested in learning more about the science of law (unlike the myths treasured in this thread), these are great reads:
Frédéric Bastiat - the law:
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
all of Lysander Spooner's work:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=4664&Itemid=28
Warning: Cognitive dissonance may occur if your religion is collectivism.
Frédéric Bastiat - the law:
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
all of Lysander Spooner's work:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fperson=4664&Itemid=28
Warning: Cognitive dissonance may occur if your religion is collectivism.
Greg
New Member
Thank you. Finally something to work with... First of all, I mistakenly fell for the constitution bait, won't happen again because I don't need it to prove my point. Second of all, you reduced my entire argument into 2 lines
Here's what it actually is:1. natural law exists (definition given as defined by the DoI)
2. since natural law exists, then justice exists as a natural principle
3. since natural law and justice are "naturally" existing, they can't be added to or subtracted from by a legislature (your "ACTUAL Law" argument is refuted at this point).
4. the conditions for justice are to protect justice and remove injustice
5. income taxes create injustice
6. therefore income taxes are in violation of natural law
I'm more comfortable with that super-compressed version of my argument. Please refer to my initial post for further details.
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC
Closed Account
Thank you. Finally something to work with... First of all, I mistakenly fell for the constitution bait, won't happen again because I don't need it to prove my point. Second of all, you reduced my entire argument into 2 lines
1. natural law exists (definition given as defined by the DoI)
2. since natural law exists, then justice exists as a natural principle
3. since natural law and justice are "naturally" existing, they can't be added to or subtracted from by a legislature.
4. the conditions for justice are to protect justice and remove injustice
5. income taxes create injustice
6. therefore income taxes are in violation of natural law
I'm more comfortable with that super-compress version of my argument. Please refer to my initial post for further details.
OK - that's fine.
I thnik you miss a couple of points though - natural law creates natural justice - it no more creates all justice than natural law comprises all law. I think you know this because although you left out "natural" from "justice" in pointsd 2-5 you reintroduced it in point 6.
When you rewrite your list putting "natural" in points 2-5 it reads:
1. natural law exists (definition given as defined by the DoI)
2. since natural law exists, then natural justice exists as a natural principle
3. since natural law and natural justice are "naturally" existing, they can't be added to or subtracted from by a legislature.
4. the conditions for natural justice are to protect justice and remove injustice
5. income taxes create natural injustice
6. therefore income taxes are in violation of natural law
And from that I do not see how you derive point 4 and 5.
Certainly I accept that natural justice cannot be changed by legislation.
However point 4 seems quiet meaningless - who/what/where is it stated that "the conditions for justice are to protect justice and remove injustice"?? Also do you perhaps actually mean that the purpose for justice are to protect justice and remove injustice?? "Conditions" in this context makes no sense.
Point 5 - there is no particular reason why income tax creates any injustice - natural or otherwise.
The natural law as defined in the Declaration of Independance is quite specific - it is the right of the people to form their own government, and to have that government take cogniscence of the wishes of the people, and that when overthrowing a government the reasons should be explainable:
There is no mention of property in the DoI as you suggest at all. The closes that it comes is the famous sentence from the preamble:When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
John Locke included the right to property in his version of inalienable rights - but Jefferson replaced property with "pursuit of happiness" in the actual declaration, and few if any other commentators allow any absolute right to property - Thomas Hobbes famously had his "war against all" - natural law is what you can get via nature, and therefore every man has the right -We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
as I said before - there aer many different versions of what constitutes "natural law"........to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."
you have chosen one that suits you, which is fair enough.....but it is not the only one, and seems no more defensible than any other - it has no a priori claim to pre-eminince that I can see.
Greg
New Member
You stumbled upon the fact that the part of my argument concerning natural justice and law was convoluted and over simplified because it assumed that the definitions were understood but your reasoning doesn't refute it. Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out that my statements were problematic.
Your reference to "all" justice is interesting because it assumes there is more than one type of justice. One is natural, the other is created by legislation. Is that a fair assessment? This reveals that you lack understanding of the way law and justice operate. Law is force, justice is peace. Natural law exists to maintain justice.
Justice is living in social peace and harmony, achieved by protecting individual natural rights through the enforcement of the law: “live honestly toward every other.”. To illustrate this on a basic level, all social animals naturally coalesce in social systems which enhance the safety and viability of all of it's individuals. Wolves run in packs, buffalo in herds, fish in schools. The same is true with people. However, people, through the use of their natural occurring faculties, have the ability to create, invent and to reason. This does not mean that whatever they do with these faculties is just. Injustice is created when justice is removed. What you have stated is: Injustice is a form of justice. This is false. They are two different animals entirely. It is absurd to assert that force (law is force) can be used against the life, liberty and property of individuals without it also being used against justice. The just use of law is to protect the natural rights of the individual.
If there is a law written to make slavery legal, it doesn't mean slavery is now just. Right?
I can tell by your signature that even you recognize this on some level ("Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal) You could replace “religious conviction” with “not knowing the difference between law and justice” or “thinking law creates justice”.
You are right, I would revise point 4 to be:
4. the purpose of law is to protect justice and remove injustice
Yes, this is another over simplification partly because your arguing the "super-compressed" version of my argument. However, though taxes don't necessarily create injustice, it is what the taxes are used for and how they are collected that creates injustice. I used two examples of this in my initial post. I think if people want to pool their resources and build a road, that's great. I think you, and most, would agree that a coercive tax which pays interest to a private bank for loans used to engage in preemptive war is unjust.
Yes, people have the right to organize to preserve their rights because the individual has the right to act in a way that preserves his own.
The purpose of civil governments was/is to secure inalienable rights, violations of one's inalienable right of property were/are subject to civil sanction. The right to private property is inferred by the reference to "inalienable rights" because property is an inalienable right.
Property is created by the extension of our natural occurring faculties. Using our minds we invent and using our bodies and labor we make property which belongs to us. Property is an extension of our body and mind. Therefore, it is absolutely a natural right. Also, the US fully recognizes private property as a natural right. If there is no right to property then there is no right to our own bodies and minds.
I think I've proved otherwise.
MikeC
Closed Account
It is not circular reasoning to point out that property rights are not specifically included in the DoI, and indeed teh text that DoI sentence came from was deliberately altered to exclude them. It is also not circular reasoning to point out that there are many versions of "natural law" that do not include property rights - including at least one that specifically EXCLUDES the concept.
I understand what "among" means - however you fail to understand that there simply is no universal set of natural laws that is inalienable - except for death. Everything else is a construct of society - and different societies have constructed their own set of "natural laws" or the equivalent to suit themselves.
As I said above - I have no particular problem with you choosing to beleive that property right is a natural law - you are perfectly entitled to do so.
But you cannot actually defend it as being universal and inalienable in any sense except one defined by a society........at which point the idea that it has any objective moral force is obviously untrue.
I understand what "among" means - however you fail to understand that there simply is no universal set of natural laws that is inalienable - except for death. Everything else is a construct of society - and different societies have constructed their own set of "natural laws" or the equivalent to suit themselves.
As I said above - I have no particular problem with you choosing to beleive that property right is a natural law - you are perfectly entitled to do so.
But you cannot actually defend it as being universal and inalienable in any sense except one defined by a society........at which point the idea that it has any objective moral force is obviously untrue.
Greg
New Member
From Mick:
I have a good idea. And since words are really just vessels that carry ideas from one consciousness to the next then, yes, it would apply to all languages.
Here's Spooner's definition (not sure where he got it or if it's original) but it's good enough for me:
1. that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another. 2. that each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.
Of course, this law must apply to all people with no exceptions. For example, I absolutely wouldn't create an income tax (or any tax) and then absolve myself from it. (aka Congress).
I have a good idea. And since words are really just vessels that carry ideas from one consciousness to the next then, yes, it would apply to all languages.
Here's Spooner's definition (not sure where he got it or if it's original) but it's good enough for me:
1. that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another. 2. that each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.
Of course, this law must apply to all people with no exceptions. For example, I absolutely wouldn't create an income tax (or any tax) and then absolve myself from it. (aka Congress).
MikeC
Closed Account
Whatever you choose to call it, you are still operating from the premise that there is a set of inalienable rights that aer universal, objectively correct, recognised by all, etc., and that property rights are included.
Various attempts to define inalienable rights have included property rights, and also specifically EXCLUDED property rights, therefore it is axiomatic that this premise is wrong - there simply is no such universal set of inalienable rights - although society may choose to define some that that society treats as if they were.
And in the USA you did that - you have a set of "inalienable rights" as enumerated by your various constitutional documents. And complete and undistirbed possession of your property is not one of them, insofar as there are legal means of taking it, and those legal means are also based upon "natural law" and "inalienable right" - in their case for representative government.
Various attempts to define inalienable rights have included property rights, and also specifically EXCLUDED property rights, therefore it is axiomatic that this premise is wrong - there simply is no such universal set of inalienable rights - although society may choose to define some that that society treats as if they were.
And in the USA you did that - you have a set of "inalienable rights" as enumerated by your various constitutional documents. And complete and undistirbed possession of your property is not one of them, insofar as there are legal means of taking it, and those legal means are also based upon "natural law" and "inalienable right" - in their case for representative government.
MikeC
Closed Account
You still have the same problem in that what constitutes justice is not universally defined, andfor those who beleive that good government is a basic human right then taxation is not unjust and is not theft or any otehr form of illegal activity.
MikeC
Closed Account
Let me explain more simply why I made it and why I think it still stands -
You choose to believe that property rights are inalienable, therefore include them as being "among" the rights in the DoI, and then say the DoI supports property rights because they are natural.
But in doing so you are begging the question that property rights are inalienable and natural, and then using the DoI to support that conclusion based upon the assumption that the DoI supports the conclusion - there is nothing to support your conclusion other than your conclusion itself.
Greg
New Member
Ok. I see where you're coming from. I guess there is slight, extremely implausible, possibility that Jefferson (and the signers) didn't mean to include property rights as part of inalienable rights. But you have to consider that, 1. Jefferson was Locke's biggest fan (Locke actually coined the term "pursuit of happiness"). 2. The common law of the time supported property rights, and 3. Property rights were defined, specifically, later in the BoR. (don't want to argue about the BoR). So it's these criteria I use to infer that property was indeed one of the rights meant by inalienable. If you want to still say that I'm dreaming, fine, that's as good as I can do. I mean there's obviously no way to prove that they didn't want to include property in that statement.
MikeC
Closed Account
Fair enough - but I think there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that they didn't want to include property in the statement - the statement does not have property included in it, and we know that they had the knowledge of Locke's ideas to include it if they wanted to.
Also sorry about this - you say you don't want to debate the BoR, but you have bought it up as including property rights - but you have bought it up, and I do not think it says what you seem to be sugesting - the 5th amendment prohibits taking of private property by the government without "just compensation", and "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - so clearly that supports the contention that the government DOES have power to take property in at least some circumstances, and therefore nullifies any suggestion that doing so must be a breach of some inalienable right.
What constitutes "due process" for the purpose of income tax is discussed by the IRS in a document of theirs covering various arguments people advance to justfy not paying taxes -
Also sorry about this - you say you don't want to debate the BoR, but you have bought it up as including property rights - but you have bought it up, and I do not think it says what you seem to be sugesting - the 5th amendment prohibits taking of private property by the government without "just compensation", and "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - so clearly that supports the contention that the government DOES have power to take property in at least some circumstances, and therefore nullifies any suggestion that doing so must be a breach of some inalienable right.
What constitutes "due process" for the purpose of income tax is discussed by the IRS in a document of theirs covering various arguments people advance to justfy not paying taxes -
The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” The United States Supreme Court stated that “it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916). Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931).
The Internal Revenue Code provides methods to ensure due process to taxpayers: (1) the “refund method,” set forth in section 7422(e) and 28 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 1346(a), where a taxpayer must pay the full amount of the tax and then sue in a federal district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a refund; and (2) the “deficiency method,” set forth in section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process.
Greg
New Member
All taxes must be voluntary and specifically designed to protect natural rights (like defense against invasion), otherwise they are theft. The only reason for law is to protect natural rights, anything else leads to injustice (as I have shown). You can spot unjust laws with 2 criteria, 1. property is taken from the person it belongs and given to someone it doesn't belong. 2. the law performs what it defines as "illegal" for an individual to perform.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Jefferson
I suppose people reading this thread, and if they can stay awake, will draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to expand the argument into nit-picking IRS codes. It should be obvious, by now, that I think the IRS should be immediately dissolved.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Jefferson
I suppose people reading this thread, and if they can stay awake, will draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to expand the argument into nit-picking IRS codes. It should be obvious, by now, that I think the IRS should be immediately dissolved.
MikeC
Closed Account
So rather than discuss the basis of your beliefs you have gone back to simply restating them as if they were the only truth.
well OK - it is obvious to me now that you have a very warped perception of what consitutes "natural law" - one that is designed to support your particular view to the exclusion of anyone else's who may disagree with you. And yet no doubt you do this without any irony, on a computer that owes its existence, at least in part, to taxes paid in the past, using electricity that was similarly supported, no doubt you drive or ride on highways that weer built with the public purse, and you would scream for eth police to defend you if you weer attacked i the street (as would I!)
But even within that view your conclusions are simply wrong - even in your anarchist libertarian utopia the IRS would still be required for those people who do want to pay taxes and benefit from the stable society that they enable.
well OK - it is obvious to me now that you have a very warped perception of what consitutes "natural law" - one that is designed to support your particular view to the exclusion of anyone else's who may disagree with you. And yet no doubt you do this without any irony, on a computer that owes its existence, at least in part, to taxes paid in the past, using electricity that was similarly supported, no doubt you drive or ride on highways that weer built with the public purse, and you would scream for eth police to defend you if you weer attacked i the street (as would I!)
But even within that view your conclusions are simply wrong - even in your anarchist libertarian utopia the IRS would still be required for those people who do want to pay taxes and benefit from the stable society that they enable.
Greg
New Member
Mike, what is so different about "my view" of natural law than, say Aristotle or any classical liberal? I've tried to to support my view with deductive logic. That's the best I can do. Of course, I do "believe" in causality and therefore objective truth. Maybe that's the problem. There are philosophies (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) which reject objective truth and have differing views of causality (although they would still duck if you threw a glass of water at their head). This might be more your cup of tea. I only have my five senses with which to experience existence and only my mind with which to understand and know "reality" and the same is true with everyone. So why should anyone have "power" over anyone else since we are all in the same predicament, made of the same stuff?
Actually, people build roads, computers, houses, provide protection, care for the sick and defenseless etc... governments don't know how and don't do anything except make laws. Governments are an abstract entity; people (individuals) generate the ideas, make the designs and do the labor.
I'm certainly not an anarchist ("classical liberal" maybe, but I don't prefer to limit myself with labels),and there are so many examples, especially today, of governments acting outside of their own laws, enslaving, murdering, coercing, defrauding and it is fundamentally because there is this strange belief, which I simply can't understand, that law is justice.
MikeC
Closed Account
Aristotle did not, as far as we know, actually postulate what the "natural laws" were - he certainly did not specifically include ownership of property as far as we know.
His idea of natural law was nothing more than those things which will always be the same regardless of the laws of man or your location or situation.
My own interpretation of this is that gravity would be a natural law of his, water is wet, stars are in the sky, and the like.
his laws of politics, which were greatly studied and admired before the revolution, are not, AFAIK, his "natural laws" - rather they are rules that he thinks would ensure the best form of government.
Much of what we do know is due to interpretation of him by Aquinas, who conflated natural law and natural right and built the whol lot around "natural law" being solely determined by god - which of course completely colours the argument.
I didn't say that government built roads - I said they were paid for from the public purse, as are the police you would call for if you needed them.
According to your own arguments, governments do not act outside laws - people do! And the indisputable fact that laws get broken seems liek a poor argument not to bother having them in the first place.
IMO you are an anarchist - it sems to me that your concept of natural law cannot co-exist with any sort of communal effort that is utterly voluntary - anythign else would be theft - and that means there cannot be any laws to enforce anything. Hence anarchy in the clasical definition rathe than the modern perjoratve.
His idea of natural law was nothing more than those things which will always be the same regardless of the laws of man or your location or situation.
My own interpretation of this is that gravity would be a natural law of his, water is wet, stars are in the sky, and the like.
his laws of politics, which were greatly studied and admired before the revolution, are not, AFAIK, his "natural laws" - rather they are rules that he thinks would ensure the best form of government.
Much of what we do know is due to interpretation of him by Aquinas, who conflated natural law and natural right and built the whol lot around "natural law" being solely determined by god - which of course completely colours the argument.
I didn't say that government built roads - I said they were paid for from the public purse, as are the police you would call for if you needed them.
According to your own arguments, governments do not act outside laws - people do!
And the indisputable fact that laws get broken seems liek a poor argument not to bother having them in the first place.IMO you are an anarchist - it sems to me that your concept of natural law cannot co-exist with any sort of communal effort that is utterly voluntary - anythign else would be theft - and that means there cannot be any laws to enforce anything. Hence anarchy in the clasical definition rathe than the modern perjoratve.
Greg
New Member
I defined it as social peace and equity, which is true according to definition 1c and 3.
I defined law as force. True again.
And from the Encyclopedia Britannica...
You said:
Apparently, you thought wrong.
If you actually do some studying of the subject, you will find that my definition is a theoretical reduction of all definitions that follow in the line of Aristotle.
Is this a good stopping point? Should we exhaust the concept of property next?
MikeC
Closed Account
Oh - so Aristotle did not think that water being wet is a natural law? What is your source for that?
The examples in the quote you gave do not exclude mine - they fit what I said precisely - no matter where yuo go, women are subordinate to men, slaves to free men, etc.
Do you support those examples of "natural law" in today's society?
I am curious why you think your extensive selective quoting and selective definitions are at all relevant to the issue of taxation as being wrong? Eg why did you not consider definitions 1a and 1b and 2 of justice as relevant? Why is your definition of law as force better than all those ones from the EB that are not the same as it?
The examples in the quote you gave do not exclude mine - they fit what I said precisely - no matter where yuo go, women are subordinate to men, slaves to free men, etc.
Do you support those examples of "natural law" in today's society?
I am curious why you think your extensive selective quoting and selective definitions are at all relevant to the issue of taxation as being wrong? Eg why did you not consider definitions 1a and 1b and 2 of justice as relevant? Why is your definition of law as force better than all those ones from the EB that are not the same as it?
BlueCollarCritic
Member
I'm not disagreeing with your statement about societal collapse or your point about some law enforcement and some law being generally good but you are wrong about classifying my question as poorly defined and overly simplistic. If there was need for clarification or more details then a request for that would be appropriate. Even after clarifying for you that it was a straight up simple question and not some trick you still took a defensive posture. In the short time I’ve been visiting your site I’ve come to expect that kind of thing from some of the other commenters however I’m surprised to see you respond this way.
I asked you the question because you appeared to have a broad depth of knowledge with regards to world history and I was curious if there had in fact been any society that collapsed because its government failed to expand its power. The idea that a society could fail because of that is not a ridiculous one. If you have a society with laws and a governing body that is invaded by a foreign entity that if left unchecked would wreak havoc and effectively bring down that society then it is reasonable to say that the society collapsed because its government failed to expand its power to the level necessary to protect the polace and drive out the invading force. This kind of thing would not be likely for large society’s like our modern day version but a smaller society of long ago could have faced something like this
BlueCollarCritic
Member
Greg,
Actually I was just asking a history question on a topic that I figured Mick would be knowledgeable about. That said you make an interesting point about not collecting taxes.
I will admit that I could be wrong about this but I’m fairly certain that for a number of years, decades even after the inception of our Republic, the American economy thrived and did so without the need to collect taxes from the wages on individual American citizens and without the need to tax personal property.
This growth and prosperity was achieved without the need to directly taxes an individual’s wages and or from taxing their personal property. That’s not to say there was not a property tax before the income tax only that our country did see a period of time of economic growth that did NOT depend on taxation of the individual citizen, something that some commenters here (namely those who like to use derogative terms and slang to describe those who are opposed to the income tax) imply is an absolute necessity for our government to exist and function. Whether by deliberate omission or by accident this stance ignores the fact that none of the monies the government takes in from taxation on income is used to pay for any government service or to run any part of government but is instead either wasted, lost or used to pay the interest on the countries debt, a debt that is not necessary because the constitution empowers the government to create its own fiat currency and not depend on borrowing fiat currency from outside parties. I also admit I have not read very post in this thread so if this issue with the Grace Commission has already been mentioned then I apologize for the spam.
Unless the Grace Commission is wrong in its findings the fact is we could stop paying all income taxes and the money needed to run government would not be directly affected because none of that tax money is used to run government thereby establishing the fact that its bunk to say that our modern government is dependent on the taxation of individual citizens income.
Thanks Greg
That's kind of what I was thinking when I responded "all of them". Historically the rulers had nominally much more power than they do now. They could impose any kind of tax they liked. When those societies failed they essentially failed because of the actions or inactions of the rulers - but more from a poor exercising of their absolute power than from an "expansion". They could not expand their power as they were already the king, the absolute ruler. But they could have done things to meet whatever the problem was. Of course they were often hampered there with lack of knowledge as to what the actual problem was.
Greg,
You have done an EXCELLENT job at stating your argument by providing substantial facts and evidence in support of it. Over the course of the entire discussion, you held fast to the same argument while also submitting additional proof to validate your claim. As you pointed out at times, the opposition used many fallacies to try and support their position: therefore, negating them was a simple task. I'm not going into specifics because I don't have the time, nor do I have the patience. Besides, my experience here has shown me that anything that supports your position, whether substantial or slight, will be met with more rhetoric and logic of an unreasonable, and, dare I say it, dishonest nature.
If anyone is offended by these observations, understand they are not meant personally, as I am new here. When one is thrown into a body of water, it is easy to assess whether it is hot or cold quickly as compared to those who have been swimming in it all day.
You have done an EXCELLENT job at stating your argument by providing substantial facts and evidence in support of it. Over the course of the entire discussion, you held fast to the same argument while also submitting additional proof to validate your claim. As you pointed out at times, the opposition used many fallacies to try and support their position: therefore, negating them was a simple task. I'm not going into specifics because I don't have the time, nor do I have the patience. Besides, my experience here has shown me that anything that supports your position, whether substantial or slight, will be met with more rhetoric and logic of an unreasonable, and, dare I say it, dishonest nature.
If anyone is offended by these observations, understand they are not meant personally, as I am new here. When one is thrown into a body of water, it is easy to assess whether it is hot or cold quickly as compared to those who have been swimming in it all day.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
I think Greg is trying to use John Locke for his argument. While he is a spiritual founder of the US, he is nothing more. Also while he talks of natural rights and freedom, he consents that man has to give up some rights and freedoms to live in a society. Basically everybody in a village cannot hold supreme authority. that authority is vested in some sort of body that at least in democracies has been agreed to by the majority. Basically if you want all your natural rights you have to live reclusively in nature. Just do not blame the government when some other hermit takes your shit, rapes you, and/or kills you.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes who was a supreme put it taxes are the price you pay for civilization.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes who was a supreme put it taxes are the price you pay for civilization.
Mike,
I don't think your arguments will find much support here. As Mick has told me, this site is not a place for philosophy. Something I find somewhat irrational since the word, "philosophy" simply means search for TRUTH. If someone is "debunking" something, supposedly (although I don't necessarily believe this) they are "proving" that some claim is UNTRUE, false, or invalid. I believe your reasoning to be completely sound and the most telling statement Mick made was in response to your question about the existence of "natural laws". He simply responded, "No, natural laws do not exist". This mind set, of course, is EXACTLY what those who wish to continue their immoral, unlawful control and subjugation of the human race to believe. That is, that there are no immutable and binding laws that govern the consequences of human behavior. I think "law" is somewhat of a misnomer when discussing these things. "Principles" would be a better term as "laws" are man made constructs that, again, are simply used to control us. The "rule of law" is the single most dangerous idea ever inflicted upon mankind. If someone like Mick dismisses that idea of natural law and specifically the idea that there are indeed moral absolutes; that "right" and "wrong" do exist outside of the pronouncements, desires, or proclamations of man, it does not negate those laws. Those laws have ALWAYS existed, they exist in spite of another's ignorance of them, and they will exist in spite of anyone's attempt to deny, obfuscate, or delete them. They were known and taught in the ancient mystery schools and have been occulted for thousands of years. Those in power still do their best to keep them hidden, for the unvieling of these immutable principles coupled with the knowledge of them being propagated throughout society, is the ONE THING that will ensure that those in power LOSE their power. Conversely, ignorance of these principles will keep us forever in the darkness we now find ourselves. It gives me hope when I run across someone who has actually taken the time and energy to gain the knowledge necessary to attain the liberty that has eluded our society. The naysayers can deny all they want. Like you said, claiming something is "false, false, false," doesn't make it so. Shoot me a line sometime. chefclary60@gmail.com
Similar threads
