Kinguendo: I already snipped it AND I already responded to the part you repeated, you claim it is without permission... your vote is permission. It doesnt matter who you vote for, no one is saying that they will get rid of all taxation thus you are giving your permission to the concept of taxation.
Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?! Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which robber party you want to see in power.
arbane: Taxes are the rent we pay to live in a functioning civilization.
Thus? Taxes are justified, thus they're not theft?
Theft can mean that it is taking someone's property without having the right to do this, or taking someone's property without that person's permission. Taxes are involuntarily and don't need the owner's permission. Thus taxes can be considered theft. This doesn't mean they're immoral or that I oppose their very existence.
Kinguendo: I already snipped it AND I already responded to the part you repeated, you claim it is without permission... your vote is permission. It doesnt matter who you vote for, no one is saying that they will get rid of all taxation thus you are giving your permission to the concept of taxation.
Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?! Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which robber party you want to see in power.
You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
I'd say that forcing me to essentially give up my life for a few years of service amounts to slavery. Pay is irrelevant if you can't back out of it. Don't think any government has a right to demand my life in its service. Such a deal is imbalanced, they don't provide me with anything worth my life itself. It is irreplaceable and the most valuable thing I own.
Kinguendo: I already snipped it AND I already responded to the part you repeated, you claim it is without permission... your vote is permission. It doesnt matter who you vote for, no one is saying that they will get rid of all taxation thus you are giving your permission to the concept of taxation.
Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?! Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which robber party you want to see in power.
You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
No, that's a narrow view of voting. One may vote to keep someone out who threatens them far more. It isn't consent to anything. Looking at it pragmatically it isn't necessarily a vote of confidence in the person you vote it. That would be like saying if I had to either choose a guy who wanted to kill me and a guy who wanted to beat me, and one was going to be chosen regardless of whether I participated in the selection process that I voted for being beaten when I really voted not to die.
My example: Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?! Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which robber party you want to see in power.
You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
You aren't quite understanding my point. Your logic is exactly what the robbers say. You could vote, you didn't vote for a zero taxes option, and if you voted for it it didn't get into power.
Do you agree with the robbers?
By the way, children are forced to pay taxes here, they don't get the right to vote.
Mortai Gravesend: No, that's a narrow view of voting. One may vote to keep someone out who threatens them far more. It isn't consent to anything. Looking at it pragmatically it isn't necessarily a vote of confidence in the person you vote it. That would be like saying if I had to either choose a guy who wanted to kill me and a guy who wanted to beat me, and one was going to be chosen regardless of whether I participated in the selection process that I voted for being beaten when I really voted not to die.
Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?! Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which robber party you want to see in power.
You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
No, that's a narrow view of voting. One may vote to keep someone out who threatens them far more. It isn't consent to anything. Looking at it pragmatically it isn't necessarily a vote of confidence in the person you vote it. That would be like saying if I had to either choose a guy who wanted to kill me and a guy who wanted to beat me, and one was going to be chosen regardless of whether I participated in the selection process that I voted for being beaten when I really voted not to die.
I am not talking about your intent, I am talking about the reception of your vote. The party views your vote for them as... surprisingly... a vote for them. The polling station doesnt ask you to explain why you voted the way you did, only who you are voting for and it will be received literally. So again I say, as you vote and no one is offering you a "No taxes" option then you are giving your concent to everything that person campaigned on.
You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
No, that's a narrow view of voting. One may vote to keep someone out who threatens them far more. It isn't consent to anything. Looking at it pragmatically it isn't necessarily a vote of confidence in the person you vote it. That would be like saying if I had to either choose a guy who wanted to kill me and a guy who wanted to beat me, and one was going to be chosen regardless of whether I participated in the selection process that I voted for being beaten when I really voted not to die.
I am not talking about your intent, I am talking about the reception of your vote. The party views your vote for them as... surprisingly... a vote for them. The polling station doesnt ask you to explain why you voted the way you did, only who you are voting for and it will be received literally. So again I say, as you vote and no one is offering you a "No taxes" option then you are giving your concent to everything that person campaigned on.
If you're talking about consent then you are most certainly talking about intent as well. The reception of my vote is not a binding agreement to anything. It doesn't matter if they view it as something else, that does not magically mean that I actually agreed to it. Just like in my example my vote is not consent to be beaten.
No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. No party is offering you "No taxes", lets not pretend you voted for someone offering you "No taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally. Your vote is your consent of everything that party campaigned for, it doesnt matter if you agree with it only that you voted for it and as NO ONE offers "No taxes" and you still vote then you are voting for taxes.
arbane: Taxes are the rent we pay to live in a functioning civilization.
Kinguendo: You arent quite understanding my point, forget everyone else... I am talking about who you vote for and how it doesnt matter as none of them offer you a ZERO taxes option, thus you vote for being taxed and that is that.
ClockworkPenguin: The government owns the land. It provides and pays for the services. I don't think it is 'exactly the same as'. That's why it's an analogy. And the point stands, if you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to, you can leave.
Agema: And that's the way it is. So, when someone says "tax is theft", it tells me very little about whether tax truly is theft. It tells me about the moral opinions of the person saying it.
Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947: Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
We shouldn't act like our modern form of government/taxes is 'perfect or all-wise' and it isn't inherently wrong to state that taxes are a form of theft. But I'm not claiming I can come up with a better system for the current situation.
Kinguendo: No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. No party is offering you "No taxes", lets not pretend you voted for someone offering you "No taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally. Your vote is your consent of everything that party campaigned for, it doesnt matter if you agree with it only that you voted for it and as NO ONE offers "No taxes" and you still vote then you are voting for taxes.
No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. Lets not pretend I voted for someone offering me "taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally.
I haven't actually ever voted for the National Dutch Government. And even if I had voted, 99% of all taxes that I have to pay have been thought up and voted for by generations that are completely dead by now!
No, that's a narrow view of voting. One may vote to keep someone out who threatens them far more. It isn't consent to anything. Looking at it pragmatically it isn't necessarily a vote of confidence in the person you vote it. That would be like saying if I had to either choose a guy who wanted to kill me and a guy who wanted to beat me, and one was going to be chosen regardless of whether I participated in the selection process that I voted for being beaten when I really voted not to die.
I am not talking about your intent, I am talking about the reception of your vote. The party views your vote for them as... surprisingly... a vote for them. The polling station doesnt ask you to explain why you voted the way you did, only who you are voting for and it will be received literally. So again I say, as you vote and no one is offering you a "No taxes" option then you are giving your concent to everything that person campaigned on.
If you're talking about consent then you are most certainly talking about intent as well. The reception of my vote is not a binding agreement to anything. It doesn't matter if they view it as something else, that does not magically mean that I actually agreed to it. Just like in my example my vote is not consent to be beaten.
No, you can consent to something that you dont like... and when voting you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a campaign you vote for, its all or nothing. It doesnt matter if you regret it later on, you still voted them into power. You gave them access and the only thing they know is they campaigned on certain issues... and you voted for them.
Given that no one offers a "Zero taxes" policy then 100% of voters are voting for taxation of some sort.
We shouldn't act like our modern form of government/taxes is 'perfect or all-wise' and it isn't inherently wrong to state that taxes are a form of theft. But I'm not claiming I can come up with a better system for the current situation.
No, its not perfect.However it is incorrect to call it theft and that southpark video hardly counts as an argument, especially since you are using it wildly out of context. Taxes, are you're membership fee. Pay up or join Sealand. simples.
i'm not going to reply to you anymore because we really should be arguing about conscription, not taxes. Please don't quote me again.
Kinguendo: No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. No party is offering you "No taxes", lets not pretend you voted for someone offering you "No taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally. Your vote is your consent of everything that party campaigned for, it doesnt matter if you agree with it only that you voted for it and as NO ONE offers "No taxes" and you still vote then you are voting for taxes.
No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. Lets not pretend I voted for someone offering me "taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally.
I haven't actually ever voted for the National Dutch Government. And even if I had voted, 99% of all taxes that I have to pay have been thought up and voted for by generations that are completely dead by now!
Havent voted? Then everything you say regarding this is irrelevent, you were given a voice and you rejected it. You gave up your say... and now you want your say? No sir, vote and then we will talk.
I am not talking about your intent, I am talking about the reception of your vote. The party views your vote for them as... surprisingly... a vote for them. The polling station doesnt ask you to explain why you voted the way you did, only who you are voting for and it will be received literally. So again I say, as you vote and no one is offering you a "No taxes" option then you are giving your concent to everything that person campaigned on.
If you're talking about consent then you are most certainly talking about intent as well. The reception of my vote is not a binding agreement to anything. It doesn't matter if they view it as something else, that does not magically mean that I actually agreed to it. Just like in my example my vote is not consent to be beaten.
No, you can consent to something that you dont like...
Seriously now, go back and see where I said that it wasn't consent because I didn't like it. I'll wait.
and when voting you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a campaign you vote for, its all or nothing. It doesnt matter if you regret it later on, you still voted them into power. You gave them access and the only thing they know is they campaigned on certain issues... and you voted for them.
Yes, they were voted for. And that is all that was done. Anything else they do after that? Not agreed to. Your idea of consent is not a good one. It takes a possible implication and runs with it like it was the truth.
Given that no one offers a "Zero taxes" policy then 100% of voters are voting for taxation of some sort.
Kinguendo: No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. No party is offering you "No taxes", lets not pretend you voted for someone offering you "No taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally. Your vote is your consent of everything that party campaigned for, it doesnt matter if you agree with it only that you voted for it and as NO ONE offers "No taxes" and you still vote then you are voting for taxes.
No, again... you arent understanding my point and confusing that with my supposed lack of understanding as I will now demonstrate. Lets not pretend I voted for someone offering me "taxes" because that didnt happen... you are stuck in hypothetical-land, I am talking literally.
I haven't actually ever voted for the National Dutch Government. And even if I had voted, 99% of all taxes that I have to pay have been thought up and voted for by generations that are completely dead by now!
Havent voted? Then everything you say regarding this is irrelevent, you were given a voice and you rejected it. You gave up your say... and now you want your say? No sir, vote and then we will talk.
That is a silly catch-22. To give a nice example, you are now being told you have to choose between the guy who will kill you, the guy who will beat you, and if you don't choose then you gave up your say and agreed to be beaten or killed.
"Risk your life for reasons you don't get to know about (but we'll tell you it's for your country) or go to jail."
Sounds kinda close to slavery to me.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in a draft-based military, because then it means every jackass with a GPA under 1.0 now has an assault rifle in his hands, and could be in my unit. Hell, let's not even get into the amount of people who wouldn't even *try* to kill the "enemy."
ClockworkPenguin: Taxes, are you're membership fee. Pay up or join Sealand. simples.
Kinguendo: Havent voted? Then everything you say regarding this is irrelevent, you were given a voice and you rejected it. You gave up your say... and now you want your say? No sir, vote and then we will talk.
1. You didn't show up during RobberAlleyElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when robbers rob you in that alley. 2. I wasn't 'given a voice', I rejected nothing.
If you're talking about consent then you are most certainly talking about intent as well. The reception of my vote is not a binding agreement to anything. It doesn't matter if they view it as something else, that does not magically mean that I actually agreed to it. Just like in my example my vote is not consent to be beaten.
No, you can consent to something that you dont like...
Seriously now, go back and see where I said that it wasn't consent because I didn't like it. I'll wait.
and when voting you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a campaign you vote for, its all or nothing. It doesnt matter if you regret it later on, you still voted them into power. You gave them access and the only thing they know is they campaigned on certain issues... and you voted for them.
Yes, they were voted for. And that is all that was done. Anything else they do after that? Not agreed to. Your idea of consent is not a good one. It takes a possible implication and runs with it like it was the truth.
Given that no one offers a "Zero taxes" policy then 100% of voters are voting for taxation of some sort.
Or maybe they don't vote.
Your vote is your say on who gets elected, that person said they will do certain things and by voting for them you are saying you want all of those things to happen regardless of whether you actually like all policies or even if your person gets into power. And if they dont vote then they dont vote, they chose not to have a say thus they dont have a say.
No, you can consent to something that you dont like...
Seriously now, go back and see where I said that it wasn't consent because I didn't like it. I'll wait.
and when voting you dont get to pick and choose what parts of a campaign you vote for, its all or nothing. It doesnt matter if you regret it later on, you still voted them into power. You gave them access and the only thing they know is they campaigned on certain issues... and you voted for them.
Yes, they were voted for. And that is all that was done. Anything else they do after that? Not agreed to. Your idea of consent is not a good one. It takes a possible implication and runs with it like it was the truth.
Given that no one offers a "Zero taxes" policy then 100% of voters are voting for taxation of some sort.
Or maybe they don't vote.
Your vote is your say on who gets elected, that person said they will do certain things and by voting for them you are saying you want all of those things to happen regardless of whether you actually like all policies or even if your person gets into power. And if they dont vote then they dont vote, they chose not to have a say thus they dont have a say.
And by voting you aren't saying that you want all that to happen. The only thing you are saying is that you prefer that candidate, not that you like everything he says. Doesn't matter if he and you want to jump to conclusions off of it, that is all that the vote says. Anything else is conjecture and not binding in any way.
Also the not voting thing is just a catch-22. Utter nonsense.
End of story.
Saying that after saying a bunch of nonsense doesn't actually give it validity.
1. You didn't show up during RobberAlleyElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when robbers rob you in that alley. 2. I wasn't 'given a voice', I rejected nothing.
1. Lets not be foolish, eh?
2. The question "Who do you choose?" was asked, and you chose to remain silent... all I ask is that you do what you chose to do and remain silent.
Only if you consider having to do chores for your parents as a child slavery.
I don't draw the line libertarians draw about these things. That if it's okay to tell someone not happy with their treatment at work to find another job, or someone ubnhappy with corporate behavior to shop elsewhere, somehow it stops being okay to tell someone unhappy with a governement's policies to find another country. It just reeks of a hypocritical laziness that seeks to bend the rules at the point they become inconvienent. Granted the left can be accused of this as well with a blind trust to government while demanding tight accountability in the private sector. Proof our values aren't really that different, we just apply them to different groups.
The draft (and taxes) aren't the most pleasent things, but we do use public services directly and / or benefit from the labor of others that do, so I feel they are a good civic duty, and the forced nature of them encourages us to not be complacent in our governement's actions with them.
You didn't show up during RobberAlleyElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when robbers rob you in that alley. ->foolish! You didn't vote for 'no taxes'/your no taxes party didn't get into power during GovermentElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when the government claims half your income. ->common sense!
Kinguendo: 2. The question "Who do you choose?" was asked, and you chose to remain silent... all I ask is that you do what you chose to do and remain silent.
Can you read? I wasn't 'given a voice', I rejected nothing.
You were silent during RobberAlleyElection 2009, thus you have to stay silent now we're robbing you in our alley.
Say people, rather than talking about 'taxes' and 'voting' which have little to do with war (apart from maybe going to war for whom you voted in to tax you). Why don't we simply address the issue of conscription at hand?
Now part of being the governing body of a nation, apart from protecting the rights of your nation's peoples, is that you are trusted in the defense of your nation itself. Now I've heard arguments that 'if you can't win the war with volunteers, you don't deserve to.' That seems like a strange argument to me. First, even if you could 'win' the war with 250K troops, wouldn't you rather have 1M so you could dominate it (and likely bring about peace more quickly?)
Second (assuming this is a crisis situation) do you think any government would allow itself, the nation it governs, and the way of life it embodies be dissolved because a bunch of people thought they didn't 'deserve it'?
Now again, I DO NOT contend that random compulsory service (I make an exception for general compulsory service) be made a standing and indefinite policy. But are those who truly believe that conscription is down-and-out immoral/unethical regardless of circumstances?
And by voting you aren't saying that you want all that to happen. The only thing you are saying is that you prefer that candidate, not that you like everything he says. Doesn't matter if he and you want to jump to conclusions off of it, that is all that the vote says. Anything else is conjecture and not binding in any way.
As I have said, your reason for voting for that person doesnt matter... all that matters is you voted for that person, that is literally the only thing they will take into consideration on election day. And when that person gets into office and does what they said they would do before you voted for them, is exactly what you voted for them to do regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
I cannot say it any clearer than that, please understand.
Also the not voting thing is just a catch-22. Utter nonsense.
Not really, you can cast a vote of no confidence by registering to vote... turning up at the polling station... and posting a crossed out ballot. You vote for none of the people yet you make it known that you do not have confidence in any of the people running for election, sitting on your arse doing nothing only shows apathy or laziness... or that you died.
Hell, if you want you could just write the name of someone else on your ballot.
Saying that after saying a bunch of nonsense doesn't actually give it validity.
And by voting you aren't saying that you want all that to happen. The only thing you are saying is that you prefer that candidate, not that you like everything he says. Doesn't matter if he and you want to jump to conclusions off of it, that is all that the vote says. Anything else is conjecture and not binding in any way.
As I have said, your reason for voting for that person doesnt matter...
You seem confused. I don't care what you said because you sure as hell didn't prove it to be true.
all that matters is you voted for that person, that is literally the only thing they will take into consideration on election day.
Yes, and what do they decide on election day? Whether you gave consent to the policies involved? No, they don't. They decide who gets into office. Your argument is a total non sequitur.
And when that person gets into office and does what they said they would do before you voted for them, is exactly what you voted for them to do regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Untrue. I didn't vote for them to do anything. I just voted them into the office. You're making nonsensical leaps.
I cannot say it any clearer than that, please understand.
Your position is clear. Your support is lacking.
Also the not voting thing is just a catch-22. Utter nonsense.
Not really, you can cast a vote of no confidence by registering to vote... turning up at the polling station... and posting a crossed out ballot. You vote for none of the people yet you make it known that you do not have confidence in any of the people running for election, sitting on your arse doing nothing only shows apathy or laziness... or that you died.
Hell, if you want you could just write the name of someone else on your ballot.
Which doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Saying that after saying a bunch of nonsense doesn't actually give it validity.
Claiming it isnt valid doesnt make it so either.
I didn't say it was or wasn't. I'm pointing out that you have done nothing to show it is.
I guess it depends? If it's something like a 2 year obligation for all people that come of age, it's more like indentured servitude and I don't really see the problem with it. If it's the local militia kidnapping children for their army where there is probably no hope of getting out then it's more like slavery.
You didn't show up during RobberAlleyElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when robbers rob you in that alley. ->foolish! You didn't vote for 'no taxes'/your no taxes party didn't get into power during GovermentElection 2009 and thus you aren't allowed to complain when the government claims half your income. ->common sense!
Ugh, fine I will put it in even simpler terms. At the time I was operating under the assumption that you voted in the first place thus your complaints (whatever they were) were legitimate, given that you didnt vote that second example should end at "You didnt vote.".
My original point was based on you having voted in the first place, and that no party offers you "No taxes" thus you must have voted for taxes. Given that you choose not to vote for or against anything then why should anyone be anything but apathetic toward you now? In the political arena, anyway. I am not advocating that everyone ignore you about everything just because we disagree on this.
Can you read? I wasn't 'given a voice', I rejected nothing.
You were silent during RobberAlleyElection 2009, thus you have to stay silent now we're robbing you in our alley.
No, you chose not to vote. Nobody stopped you from casting a vote of no confidence, sitting in your house isnt anti-establishment.
Kinguendo: Ugh, fine I will put it in even simpler terms. At the time I was operating under the assumption that you voted in the first place thus your complaints (whatever they were) were legitimate, given that you didnt vote that second example should end at "You didnt vote.".
My original point was based on you having voted in the first place, and that no party offers you "No taxes" thus you must have voted for taxes. Given that you choose not to vote for or against anything then why should anyone be anything but apathetic toward you now? In the political arena, anyway. I am not advocating that everyone ignore you about everything just because we disagree on this.
But how does any of that matter? There are more robbers than non-robbers in RobberAlley - does that mean that robbers stealing half your income in RobberAlley is not theft because it represents Societal Will?
The fact that I can be one of 10 million voters once in 4 year doesn't mean I'm subject to absolute government authority.
Kinguendo: No, you chose not to vote. Nobody stopped you from casting a vote of no confidence, sitting in your house isnt anti-establishment.
Sigh. You just don't get it, do you? I wasn't old enough to vote during the last national elections.
Now part of being the governing body of a nation, apart from protecting the rights of your nation's peoples, is that you are trusted in the defense of your nation itself. Now I've heard arguments that 'if you can't win the war with volunteers, you don't deserve to.' That seems like a strange argument to me. First, even if you could 'win' the war with 250K troops, wouldn't you rather have 1M so you could dominate it (and likely bring about peace more quickly?)
Sure. Doesn't say anything about what lengths I think are okay to obtain those troops though.
Second (assuming this is a crisis situation) do you think any government would allow itself, the nation it governs, and the way of life it embodies be dissolved because a bunch of people thought they didn't 'deserve it'?
No. Don't really care what they would or would not allow though when it comes to judgement of whether their action in this is okay or not.
Now again, I DO NOT contend that random compulsory service (I make an exception for general compulsory service) be made a standing and indefinite policy. But are those who truly believe that conscription is down-and-out immoral/unethical regardless of circumstances?
Yes, I do. I do not think it is ever fair to put such a demand on someone without giving them a choice in the matter. It demands more than I think anyone has a right to demand of them.
You seem confused. I don't care what you said because you sure as hell didn't prove it to be true.
I am sorry, are you under the impression that politicians do what YOU want them to do opposed to trying to achieve the things they said they would do? Clearly they dont, and there is your proof that your reasons for voting for that person dont matter.
Yes, and what do they decide on election day? Whether you gave consent to the policies involved? No, they don't. They decide who gets into office. Your argument is a total non sequitur.
You give them the power to run your nation through your vote and you base your vote on their campaign (provided you are informed, if you arent then you dont have a leg to stand on), your vote is giving them the power to do everything they said they would do.
Untrue. I didn't vote for them to do anything. I just voted them into the office. You're making nonsensical leaps.
So you dont vote based on their campaign? Then as I said, you are uninformed and have no leg to stand on. You are voting for someone to do something... without knowing what that thing is.
And if you do vote based on their campaign then your point in the sentence I am replying to is moot.
Which doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Thats the general idea of a vote of no confidence, you arent actually voting for someone called "no confidence" you are just voicing your displeasure with the current options. Rather than sitting at home and hoping that they telepathically hear your displeasure among all the lazy and apolitical.
arbane: Taxes are the rent we pay to live in a functioning civilization.
Thus? Taxes are justified, thus they're not theft?
Theft can mean that it is taking someone's property without having the right to do this, or taking someone's property without that person's permission. Taxes are involuntarily and don't need the owner's permission. Thus taxes can be considered theft. This doesn't mean they're immoral or that I oppose their very existence.
English syntax time:
If I have a dinner "without salt or pepper", that means my dinner lacks both of them, not that it lacks just one or the other; it is a dinner without salt and a dinner without pepper.
In this manner, "taking someone's property without right or permission" does not mean "taking someone's property without right or taking someone's property without permission" but "taking someone's property without right and without permission." Having just permission or just right is enough to make something not theft under your definition.
Now part of being the governing body of a nation, apart from protecting the rights of your nation's peoples, is that you are trusted in the defense of your nation itself. Now I've heard arguments that 'if you can't win the war with volunteers, you don't deserve to.' That seems like a strange argument to me. First, even if you could 'win' the war with 250K troops, wouldn't you rather have 1M so you could dominate it (and likely bring about peace more quickly?)
Sure. Doesn't say anything about what lengths I think are okay to obtain those troops though.
Second (assuming this is a crisis situation) do you think any government would allow itself, the nation it governs, and the way of life it embodies be dissolved because a bunch of people thought they didn't 'deserve it'?
No. Don't really care what they would or would not allow though when it comes to judgement of whether their action in this is okay or not.
Now again, I DO NOT contend that random compulsory service (I make an exception for general compulsory service) be made a standing and indefinite policy. But are those who truly believe that conscription is down-and-out immoral/unethical regardless of circumstances?
Yes, I do. I do not think it is ever fair to put such a demand on someone without giving them a choice in the matter. It demands more than I think anyone has a right to demand of them.
Oh good, someone discussing something other than taxes or voting. Finally.
Alright, MG, real-world example (not going for a 'gotcha' just trying to establish your baseline) during WWII, the US government deemed it necessary to conscript soldiers to fight the Axis powers, as did the USSR.
Now with Germany in its very back yard, lacking the training and equipment to mount an effective defense immediately (note: I said immediately, I know people like to debate whether or not Germany would have been pushed back anyway) via conventional means, why exactly was it 'wrong' for Russia to direct its citizens to defend their motherland?
Alternately, with a war being waged on multiple fronts with dozens of countries calling for help, was the United States more/less/just as wrong as Russia in conscripting soldiers in fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan?
You seem confused. I don't care what you said because you sure as hell didn't prove it to be true.
I am sorry, are you under the impression that politicians do what YOU want them to do opposed to trying to achieve the things they said they would do? Clearly they dont, and there is your proof that your reasons for voting for that person dont matter.
Is there something I can do to make you stop making wild assumptions? Some fee I can pay? Because I didn't say anything about how the politicians take it. That is not the argument at hand. How the politicians take it is not the same as consent. We are talking about consent. What the politicians think is irrelevant. So what you provided isn't proof that it doesn't matter. Because we're not talking about how they will act, we're talking about consent.
Yes, and what do they decide on election day? Whether you gave consent to the policies involved? No, they don't. They decide who gets into office. Your argument is a total non sequitur.
You give them the power to run your nation through your vote and you base your vote on their campaign (provided you are informed, if you arent then you dont have a leg to stand on), your vote is giving them the power to do everything they said they would do.
It is giving them the power to be in office. Whether they decide to follow through on their campaign or not is quite irrelevant. I also only need to vote for them based on whether I think their campaign is the best available, not whether I think that it is all good.
Untrue. I didn't vote for them to do anything. I just voted them into the office. You're making nonsensical leaps.
So you dont vote based on their campaign? Then as I said, you are uninformed and have no leg to stand on. You are voting for someone to do something... without knowing what that thing is.
More bullshit leaping to conclusions. I did voted for them based on what they said. However as I am capable of something besides narrow and useless views I take note that voting for them is not the same as supporting everything in their campaign. I have pointed this out before.
And if you do vote based on their campaign then your point in the sentence I am replying to is moot.
Untrue. It is not moot. You're making the incorrect assumption that if I vote based on their campaign that I support everything in it. You're drawing illogical conclusions by denying the most realistic possibilities.
Which doesn't actually accomplish anything.
Thats the general idea of a vote of no confidence, you arent actually voting for someone called "no confidence" you are just voicing your displeasure with the current options. Rather than sitting at home and hoping that they telepathically hear your displeasure among all the lazy and apolitical.
They won't care if you provide that vote of no confidence or if you don't vote at all. Easy for most to see. But instead you continue to make assumptions to try and confirm your world view.
Hard-working guy; No robbers, I'm not going to give you half of my income! Who gave you the right to rob me?!
Robber: We're the democratic majority in this alley and we gave you the right to vote. In three years you can choose which
robberparty you want to see in power.