On Dec 30, 6:50*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 7:24 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:



On Dec 30, 5:52 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 6:21 PM, Neil Brooks wrote:

On Dec 30, 3:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 12/30/2009 4:08 PM, Neil Brooks wrote: On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

SNIP

As for the rest of your post ... it's tantamount to a "Bush-Cheney" or
"McCain-Palin" sticker on a Suburban or Yukon: redundant and
superfluous :-)

I liked neither. *However, the current Messiah's performance is guarnteeing
that I am going to do something I have not done in literally decades -
vote a straight, blind R ticket for the next several elections. *I'd even
take Gingrich-Palin over what we have now. (And I almost NEVER vote for a
Republican.)

I wonder how I made it through eight years of GWB without ever calling
him some horrid media-propagated nickname, despite having been
repulsed by virtually everything he ever did as the Leader of the Free
world.

I have no personal animus towards the current Prez. *

Your language says otherwise.

I have a loathing
for almost every policy decision AND contempt for those who worship him
as some salvific figure. *Hence the term "Messiah".

Your language says otherwise. *If you don't like his supporters, then
demonize them, but -- for a lark -- try doing it like an adult might.

Meanwhile, your schoolyard name-calling (ie, "Messiah") is naught but
silly and puerile.

SNIP

Now ... to help re-frame your question ....

Why should you pay taxes?

Because the collective good is served -- in some cases, better, and in

You lost me already at "collective good". *

That's America. *The words "General welfare" mean anything to you??

More evil has been done
in the name of the "collective" than any other word in human history..

Then lower yourself to THEIR level by twisting the benevolent meaning
of that phrase ... and/or outlaw religion on the same premise.

Nah. *Your argument went "thud" when it fell down.

It has been used to justify all manner of mischief, oppression, brutality,
and horror. *So, frankly, I am uninterested in the "collective good."

I'm interested in preserving freedom for as many people and in as large
amount as possible. * So, by that definition, the only legitimate
use of taxation is to fund the defense of liberty from threats both within-
and without. *

Hm. *That certainly just sounds like your own vision of the collective
good.

And nobody could EVER get hurt by that worldview, huh? *And no
illegitimate wars could EVER be started if that's the deal, right?

Your former argument now has company on the floor.

*Everything else is some form of imbalance of liberty where some
pay and some benefit, but the net amount of freedom does not increase (and in
fact is decreased from some people).

Proof by assertion, huh?

And yet ... the elements of "general welfare" that absorb a lot of tax
dollars ARE some of the primary things that Americans crow about when
marketing their nation to ... nobody in particular.

The answer is: I should happily pay taxes to defend my freedom. (And I do.)
* * * * * * * *I should resist - by all legal and ethical means - to see
* * * * * * * *tax money used for any other purpose because that is stealing.

Cut a few words, and it'll fit nicely on a bumper sticker.

cf The Constitution Of The US
* *The Federalist Papers
* *The Declaration Of Independence
* *The letters of Jefferson et al

Therein you will find the source for my "failed arguments" and bumper stickers.

Please provide demographics, and a rather comprehensive view of the
nature of our society, the % rural vs. % urban, the percent of the GDP
that is represented by Agriculture vs. industry, etc.

Thanks.

Do you read 225 year old health texts, too, if you get MRSA?

I study books that have a demonstrated track record of either great
success or great failure - to learn to succeed or to avoid failure
respectively. *The Lockeian government formed by Jefferson et al
was a smashing success. *All collectivist systems have been abysmal
failures and usually human rights horror shows.

The demographic composition then- and now is irrelevant to this discussion
except for people trying to find ways to justify their collectivist
ideology.

It's one thing to try to model the ideals of "Conservatism," but ...
to actively ignore -- as you make it sound as though you do -- ALL of
the myriad and profound changes that have taken place in our world
since our nation's inception ... seems ... rather closed-minded, no?

To rhetorically reject all advancements of society for the purposes of
viewing -- as narrowly as humanly possible -- the intentions,
implications, scope, and ideals of the Founding Fathers ... while ...
posting on the Internet ... is something I can't quite get my head
around....

Or ... should I just adopt your approach to a discussion and say
that ... 'such a narrow view of the construction of these documents is
nothing but a way for people to justify their Social Darwinism
ideology?'