DIYbanter - View Single Post

Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On Apr 1, 11:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:27 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
P.S. One is not a "freeloader" for demanding that they not be
robbed to make someone else's socio-political fantasies
come true.
No sensible person equates taxation with robbery.
Every sensible person knows that every government expenditure
of which they personally approve will be regarded by some others
and making someone's socio-political fantasies come true.
--
FF
There is a rule-of-law that was established at the foundation of
this nation (the US).

So?

As I recall you don;t believe in the rule of law prefering
social/legal contract theory instead.

Nonsense. I believe both have a place, however neither can be
preferred over morally right action. When either theory or formal
law exceeds the limits of moral behavior, they must be bounded.

It delimited the conditions under
which the Federal government was permitted to extract wealth under
threat of force to support a very small and narrow set of
governmental actions. Today's Federal government has vastly exceeded
these boundaries and is thus engaging in theft. I do not hold that
*all* taxation is robbery, merely that today's system is and that
it's means is the mob rule percolated by the self-anointed do-gooders
among us.

Twleve of the 13 original States permitted
bond (inherited) slavery and the prohibition
in the 13 was unenforced.

So if you are trying to argue that the
founding fathers had greater respect
for human liberty than does our government
today, I am strongly inclined to disagree.

I was arguing no such thing. As always when discussing these matters, it
is the sign of lost rhetorical end game (yours) when you appeal to
slavery. The fact that the US Framers were wrong in this particular
matter (they were) does not particularly bear on the merits of the
larger system they designed. One of the lessons most people seem not to
grasp - and you appear among them - is that something does not have to
be perfect for it to be good or right. Our foundational laws are such an
example. The Framers got most things right and failed miserably on
the matter of slavery.

Emancipation and women' suffrage were
also "mob rule" by self-anointed do gooders
among us.

No they were not. In their essence, they were remediations of faults
left behind in formation of the original canon of law. i.e. They were
actions taken to make a very good form of government even better. Most
importantly, they were not forced acts of charity or world-saving by the
self-anointed saviors of mankind for which there was no moral basis.
They were simply a matter of justice. The fact that do-gooders were
involved does not change this essential nature.

Note that this is entirely different than, say, using the force of
government via mob rule to make me pay for people who refuse to save for
old age or who use IV drugs and get horrid diseases. In neither case
were the actions these people undertook a consequence of a fundamental
denial of rights or legal injustice. They were bad personal choices.
Remediating them by raiding my wallet is a morally reprehensible.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/