To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19754
19753  |  19755
Subject: 
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:16:50 GMT
Viewed: 
886 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:

I would rather that people have the ability to trick me losing my money than
to take it from me at gunpoint.  Isn't that how everyone would answer?

I presume you're talking about the government in the latter case, but can
you rephrase that without the "at gunpoint" phrase?  There's no initiation
of force involved; it's simple enforcement of social contract.  You may
disagree with the contract, but until you exit from it, you are subject to it.

False.  Contracts are things agreed to by both parties.

  That is absolutely true.

I was never given a
choice to reject taxes and the attendant benefits.

  By remaining in the country (and partaking of the benefits of government
programs) you have willingingly entered the contract (or your parents
entered you into the contract, which you must take up with them).

I am no more _morally_ bound by this "social contract" than were the Africans
enslaved in the south through their "social contract."  Do you fault them for
railing at their lot?

  False analogy.  You are free to leave the terms of the contract, but those
terms include leaving the country.  If you're so peeved at the tax situation
(which you characterize as gunpoint theft) then leave the country and
renounce your citizenship.
  Slaves were not similarly afforded an opportunity to exit from the contract.

Alternatively -- and preferably in my mind, now that we
have the technology to enable this -- we could do away with the representative
part of our democracy and vote individually.

  You're suggesting that every issue go to pure referendum, and by extension
that each of the 280million+ citizens gets to put as many issues to
referendum as he or she desires.  If you think the current system is bad,
then the one you propose would be abyssmal.

     Dave!



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
 
(...) False. Contracts are things agreed to by both parties. I was never given a choice to reject taxes and the attendant benefits. I am no more _morally_ bound by this "social contract" than were the Africans enslaved in the south through their (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR