Why? Yes or No

[ChrisL]

Oh good grief. Lol. Ridiculous.


Do you pay taxes or not?

As I said in my previous post, I do pay taxes in accordance with current law.

And I think I need to make this clear. I'm not objecting on my own behalf. I am saying that I object to OTHERS being taxed in my name. I object to the government violating my neighbors' property rights in order to provide free contraception.

I am not going to cheerlead for people who use violence to take my neighbors' property in order to use it to provide "free" contraception, or to take care of unwanted children.

Taking other people's property isn't cool, and while many people (including you, I'm disappointed to realize) are fine with taking other people's shit, I am not, and I wont support laws that do so.

Good grief. ALL of us pay taxes. This is just a silly argument. This is the way our country runs. How would you expect to have a functioning government in today's day and age without tax monies?

 

[ChrisL]

The use of force to take money or other property from another is called Robbery; taxation is legal and thus not wrong.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. You recall that slavery was legal at one point, yes? Are you going to argue that slavery was right because it was legal?

I oppose the government taxing people in order to provide "free" contraception because I think it's wrong to use force to take other people's property.

Good point: "Just because something is legal doesn't make it right". The argument than becomes philosophical and ultimately ideological.

Now, the means to decide issues of morality have been argued for at least two thousand years, by minds greater than mine. So let's put the philosophical aside and concentrate on the ideological.

Let's also limit the argument to two sides: The bleeding heart liberal (BHL) and the callous conservative CC).

The BHL has empathy for the fetus and the expectant mother, and supports a women's right to choose but doesn't like the outcome. Thus s/he seeks a solution to this paradox. The BHL decides that to educate women and men (girls and boys) in an age appropriate health curriculum the methods to prevent pregnancy, and prevent sexuall transmitted disease, would reduce unwanted pregancies, abortions and the transmission of disease. Thus they support free contraceptives to men and women and to boys and girls who are sexually active.

The CC has empathy for the fetus and condemns the pregnant women for lacking self control. They will argue abortion is immoral and must be illegal and punished. They will force a pregnant women to have her child, support it for at least 18 years and not expect any aid from the government. I should had that the empathy the CC has for the fetus ends at the child's birth and for many CC's the issue of abortion as a wedge issue is more important than the fetus.

IMO there is no rational nor is there any honsest explanation for any person of faith to object to the BHL's POV.

Bravo!

It's not very often that I agree with you, but you hit the nail on the head with this one!

 

[Centinel]

Good grief. ALL of us pay taxes. This is just a silly argument. This is the way our country runs. How would you expect to have a functioning government in today's day and age without tax monies?

I'm saying that the government shouldn't have a law requiring that people fund contraception or raising unwanted children with taxpayer dollars. I (as part of the government) don't want to take peoples' property in order to do these functions. I can't see how it's legit to take peoples' property by force in order to provide "free" contraception. I don't feel as if I (even as part of the government) have any legitimate cause to take my neighbors' stuff to suit my purposes.

 

[ChrisL]

Good grief. ALL of us pay taxes. This is just a silly argument. This is the way our country runs. How would you expect to have a functioning government in today's day and age without tax monies?

I'm saying that the government shouldn't have a law requiring that people fund contraception or raising unwanted children with taxpayer dollars. I (as part of the government) don't want to take peoples' property in order to do these functions. I can't see how it's legit to take peoples' property by force in order to provide "free" contraception. I don't feel as if I (even as part of the government) have any legitimate cause to take my neighbors' stuff to suit my purposes.

Because it helps the COMMUNITY and the country as a whole. That's why.

 

[Centinel]

Because it helps the COMMUNITY and the country as a whole. That's why.

I support your right to support whatever laws you want.

I just keep in mind that many laws that "help the community" were unjust: segregation laws, slavery laws, and laws targeting undesirables. "Helping the community as a whole" has been used as an excuse for genocide.

I judge a law based upon what I would feel justified doing. Would I feel justified taking my neighbors' property so that I could buy contraceptive devices to give out for free? Nope. So I'm not going to ask the government to do so on my behalf. I'm not going to ask the government to do something that I don't have a right to do myself.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Op doesn't understand what free means.

Funny stuff

Compare the cost of bc to the cost of abortions and starving, homeless kids.

Of which nothing would change. Liberals have been giving away "free" shit for decades yet the problems they claim will be solved only continue to grow.

Responsibility is not taught by enabling the very behavior you wish to alter.

Liberals are so dumb

Come on Grampa. You can figure it out if you try. If you fixed a flat on your car, would you expect that you would never have to fix another flat? I'm not sure there are very many permanent, forever fixes for anything. You fix what you can, and try to reduce the chances of it happening again, but no matter what you do, there is still a chance that tire will go flat again. That's why it's seen as preventative maintenance instead of a permanent fix. Right wingers always whine because things get broke when they don't even want to pay the price for simple maintenance.

Excellent analogy.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Because buying rubbers for my neighbors is the same as a tune up on MY CAR.

 

[ChrisL]

Because it helps the COMMUNITY and the country as a whole. That's why.

I support your right to support whatever laws you want.

I just keep in mind that many laws that "help the community" were unjust: segregation laws, slavery laws, and laws targeting undesirables. "Helping the community as a whole" has been used as an excuse for genocide.

I judge a law based upon what I would feel justified doing. Would I feel justified taking my neighbors' property so that I could buy contraceptive devices to give out for free? Nope. So I'm not going to ask the government to do so on my behalf. I'm not going to ask the government to do something that I don't have a right to do myself.

Yes, well if it helps control unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children, then I'm all for it 100%. We don't want to go back to days where we had streets loaded with beggars and thieves. With the population explosion and inflation we've had, I imagine things would be a lot more grim than they were back in the old days. Not to mention, even some people who do actually work still have to get help from social services.

 

[ChrisL]

If you are poor and you were born poor, you don't have very many "opportunities" to escape from poverty without any government help. That is just a fact. Life is harder and much more complicated than it was in the old days.

 

[ChrisL]

I know, I know, you all will say, "no, things are easier than they've ever been," but not really. You need "good credit" to get anything unless you have cash. Of course, if you have no money, there's no possible way you could attend college nowadays. The costs of college are phenomenal. Even the middle class is having a hard time keeping up. A lot of them can't even afford it without some kind of help (a loan or something). If you are poor, chances are your credit isn't all that great and you don't have enough cash. If you live in New England, things are VERY expensive. Rent alone is way more here than a lot of you pay. For a small 2-bedroom apartment, you pay upwards of $1200 to $1500 a month.

 

[Seawytch]

The liberals want faith-based employers to pay for contraceptives

Correction: They can complete an opt out form and the government will pay for the contraceptives for them.

 

[Centinel]

Yes, well if it helps control unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children, then I'm all for it 100%. We don't want to go back to days where we had streets loaded with beggars and thieves. With the population explosion and inflation we've had, I imagine things would be a lot more grim than they were back in the old days. Not to mention, even some people who do actually work still have to get help from social services.

Do you believe that you, personally, had the legitimate ethical authority to take your neighbors' property by force and use it to provide contraceptives?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, well if it helps control unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children, then I'm all for it 100%. We don't want to go back to days where we had streets loaded with beggars and thieves. With the population explosion and inflation we've had, I imagine things would be a lot more grim than they were back in the old days. Not to mention, even some people who do actually work still have to get help from social services.

Do you believe that you, personally, had the legitimate ethical authority to take your neighbors' property by force and use it to provide contraceptives?

No individual has the right to take the property of others by force, unless the property in question has been vetted by a trier of fact, and an order to take said property has been issued.

 

[Centinel]

No individual has the right to take the property of others by force, unless the property in question has been vetted by a trier of fact, and an order to take said property has been issued.

I agree 100% with you.

Which is why I oppose any individual taking people's property by force in order to provide contraception.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No individual has the right to take the property of others by force, unless the property in question has been vetted by a trier of fact, and an order to take said property has been issued.

I agree 100% with you.

Which is why I oppose any individual taking people's property by force in order to provide contraception.

And what does that have to do with the free distribution of contraceptives? If it is income tax dollars, the 16th amendment made the collection of taxes to fund the Federal Government a legal act and the PPACA was vetted and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

 

[easyt65]

Why is not a yes or no question...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why is not a yes or no question...

It was added at the request of a poster. You don't like it .... tough shit.

 

[Centinel]

And what does that have to do with the free distribution of contraceptives?

No individual has the right to take the property of others by force. So no individual has the right to take the property of others in order to buy contraceptives and give them out for free.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And what does that have to do with the free distribution of contraceptives?

No individual has the right to take the property of others by force. So no individual has the right to take the property of others in order to buy contraceptives and give them out for free.

Taking property by force is Robbery (211 PC in the CA Penal Code); taxes collected are legal, not illegal and are not robbery. You are simply echoing a ridiculous Libertarian talking point. If you object to taxes don't pay them, read Thoreau and act as he acted. Or, find a country, a state, a county or a city/town which does not tax its residents and visitors. Good luck with that.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, well if it helps control unwanted pregnancies and unwanted children, then I'm all for it 100%. We don't want to go back to days where we had streets loaded with beggars and thieves. With the population explosion and inflation we've had, I imagine things would be a lot more grim than they were back in the old days. Not to mention, even some people who do actually work still have to get help from social services.

Do you believe that you, personally, had the legitimate ethical authority to take your neighbors' property by force and use it to provide contraceptives?

I'm not taking anyone's property. Once you pay your taxes, that money is not yours anymore. It then becomes part of the collective "ours." Yes, birth control and helping control our population is a good use of that money. It benefits everyone.

 

[Centinel]

Taking property by force is Robbery (211 PC in the CA Penal Code); taxes collected are legal, not illegal and are not robbery.

So you are asserting that one person has the ethical authority to the the property of others by force?