Capitalism Doesn't Work... So What Would?

Nice (or sad?) to see Cargill is still No. 1 and collecting billions of tax payers dollars in farm subsidies still. - Oh, but we got to protect those now nearly extinct "famly farmers" with subsidies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rank,Company,State,Industry,......Revenue ($bil),Employees
1......Cargill.......MN...Farm Products 109.84 .........130,500

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL (look familiar joe?) poor joe has to resort to his usual fantasies and lies to respond.

Sure joe just as soon as you stop with the same and start using reason and evidence (you know ones that actually support what you say).

Seriously billyt. if can't see it in joe's response than you as well as other moderators are part of the problem, not the solution. Using the usual heavy solutions of banning people because they disagree with joe and by extension yourselves, is not the solution to producing an honest debate on any forum.

BTW- I will use this as a badge of honor and non conformity. I have banned sonewhere between 10-20x usually you are the culprit. You the trolling, inflaming and inciting (similar to your response here) where you simply don't name call.

Unlike you I don't kiss moderators asses and post made up stuff or fantasies to maintain good status with them.

You apparently didn't read or comprehend (for you is there a difference) what R.O.G. wrote. It was eerily similar to what I wrote. So I am not the only one that notices. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the mods for whatever strange reason haven't noticed. I know why in part (conformity to your primary purposes of posting) the other reason I can't post (else I will get banned). Gosh that would a shame because of your posting habits SF would lose some of its humor.

One last aside liar/fraud, my conclusions of taxation being thievery has nothing to do with lemming fallacy. It has everything to do with actually comprehending the constitutional wirtings and our history. We were never meant to be taxed directly it is history not revised socialist history.

By the way, it is law that you drive 55 on the highway, but I doubt seriously that you follow that. Yet you glorify laws of taxation and death. Truly a hypocrite.

For your sakes and billys, I will not pursuit any further. It is evident where the blindness comes from. I am absolutely positive I am not the only one who feels that way.

Don't bother returning post joefraud, and if you do. You should be permanently banned for harassing another member. And I bet that happens, in fact as usual it will be I that gets it. But that is okay, at least it is out there and everyone can see it.

In fact come to think of it that is exactly what you do only it is online on a forum, you harass those who disagree with you. You don't debate you harass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Instead of pointing fingers at others and pulling out the victim card every time you get banned for trolling, personal attacks and name calling perhaps you should do some introspection and learn from your mistakes. But no that just is not you, is it?

Just because others believe as you do, it does not make them or you correct. That is just one of the many fallacies you use in your arguements mr. galt. You have been repeatedly asked for a reasoned response based on evidence. You have repeatedly failed to produce same.

And no matter what you want to think, taxation is not thievery. Nor are US tax rates high by historical standards. In fact they are the lowest they have been in seventy years. And contrary to your claim, taxation did exist when Laissez-faire was widely practiced. So not only were you wrong to refer to taxation as thievery, you were also wrong when you said it did not exist when Laissez-faire was widely practiced.

You are yet again wrong on all accounts mr. galt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you are so confident about your claims, then prove them.

1) Prove that I claim to be a victim? Prove it, there is a colossal difference btween commenting on posting habits and claiming vicitmization. So prove it!

2) Prove where I am a part of some type of group think? Prove it, there is a colossal difference between writing something and having another person or two agreee with you, and simply regurgitating rhetoric that conforms with your ideology (a practice done consistently by yourself). Prove how your twisting my words and sources amount to me simply parroting those sources, after all I made the comment without showing any sources. Then after you cried like a baby, I provided sources that have made similar claims. You then twist it into I can't think for myself. Seriously, you cannot see this as a distortionary tactic? You or billy, or any other mod? Seriously!!

3) I absolutely defy you to show me where there has ever been a truly laissez faire capitalist society. If it is so widely practiced, then prove it.

Go ahead prove it, and try to do so without lying and twisting any words or their meanings around.

Finally, taxation is legal thievery! It isn't about being a view that others may or may not agree with it. It isn't about whether or not the rate is the highest or not in US history. Those points are immaterial to the philosophy of taking money from people through the use fo force. If taxation isn't legal thievery, then why are taxes withdrawn from your paycheck before you ever see it?

Oh and before you go claiming that I have now clarified my meaning of taxation to be payroll taxes, I already know that you knew damn well that was what I was referring to. Please, don't play games debate straight up without your typical distortionary tactics.

It is legal thievery, and only a true blooded socialist would say otherwise. And that is not namecalling or any other claim you try to use when using that term. It is flat out socialism.

Debunk with your famous (or is it infamous) logic and reasoned arguments. You can't all you will do is twist words around, accuse, and ridicule. Because in the end thats all you have!!

I rarely witness a leftist being a nuanced thinker, and surely that claim applies to you. So it is either you can't discern one point from another, or you are simply using dishonest tactics to "win" the debate. Which in your mind, you do frequently. But please remember, it is only in your mind. Thus, your victories are fantasies.

Dream on, little one.

 

First observation:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Second observation:
Thinking anything from World Nut Daily is trustable? *Spews coffee*
Using a link that says wnd makes me think the poster is spreading bs....

Third observation:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We could all wear that pair of trousers sometime, I expect.

 

Here, with respect to me at least, you are somewhat off base / in error. I have never banned anyone and have strenuously resisted the permanent banning of a poster in a Mod only forum, with ultimate success as mod wanting permanent ban of SAM has reversed his position.

I have a very light hand, will tolerate quiet a lot that some mods would at least give a warning with points for. I prefer to let the opponents "slug it out" if they don't degenerate to simple name calling. You will note that my last post as a mod to you, you were not even given a zero points official warning - only some friendly advice telling you to be more careful as you were pushing even my soft limits and likely to get some posts deleted if that continued. In fact I have never even given one point, only deleted some worse than useless posts.

 

--DOS, Manhattan, and Jack's cow, were all purchased for a pitiful handful of beans.
--Capitalism is 90% luck, 5% perspiration, 4% mommy's good graces, and 1% brains.
--Just because one can exploit an intelligence level lower than there own, doesn't preclude they are the apex of intelligence. Capitalism is a headless beast. It will fail....sooner than later.

 

LOL, mr. galt. The proof is in your writtings. If you are not bright enough to read through your last few posts and see that you are still blaming everyone else for your faults, then there is no point in repeating that dialogue.

You have been challenged to make a rational evidence based arguement in this thread. You have repeatedly failed to do so. The best have been able to do is to point out that others have misused words as you do and to make repeated personal attacks.

Now you are trying to weasel out of the issue at hand by including everything into the discussion including the bathroom sink.

I was wondering if you would get to this. The periods prior to the the early part of the last century were laissez faire economies. It was the chief economic belief of the period.

Now you are going to say well it was not Laissez Faire enough. A laissez faire economy does not mean there is no government intervention. It means that the chief mechanism for distribution of goods and services is accomplished through free markets. In the 19th century and earlier any government intervention in the economy/private industry was usually done at the behest of special business interests (e.g. railroads). That gets us back to the meaning of words again. Your world can only make sense if you make up new definitions for old words.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/laissez-faire economy

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/laissez-faire-economics.html

Repeating a lie a million times mr. galt does not make in any more true even though Republicans/Tea Partiers seem to believe it so. Repeating a lie is a political tactic mr. galt. A tactic people of your ilk love to do. The fact remains that thievery is not taxation. The words are distinct and different. They have two different meanings and you are trying to change the definition, again another common tactic for you and others with your political point of view.

So are you now saying only payroll taxes are thievery? If you are, it matters little. Because the words thievery and taxation are still totally different words. And if you meant payroll taxes only then you should have said so long before now (e.g. your original post or any of the many subsequent posts).

Ahh mr. galt you cannot go for more than a paragraph or two without going back to the personal attack.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is a headline for you mr. galt, just because someone disagrees with you and others of your ilk, it does not mean they are a socialist; a communist; a marxist or any of the other myriad of names you call people who disagree with you.

Yes that famous logic and reasoned evidence - such a pain it is for you I am sure. There you go again mr. galt with misusing words...creating new meanings for establish words.

Pointing out your errors in logic and evidence is not ridicule. It is honesty and truth. Insisting on using words the way they are defined in dictionaries is not twisting them mr. galt...one of those many little facts that keep getting in your way. The fact is that you and others like you deliberately misuse words, inventing new definitions and facts pro re nata. As previously pointed out on many occasions, you must deliberately misuse words that evoke strong emotions in order to sell your ideology. Because if anyone would rationally evalutate your ideology it would be rapidly exposed and rejected. That is one very compelling reason why you and your political leaders need to lie and misrepresent information.

Back on the personal attack I see. I think you would be much better served mr. galt if instead of projecting your own faults and insecurities onto others, you would engage in some serious introspection and some honest thought.

 

Nothing has ever been truer. There has to be a fair/objective mechanism ready to address wrongdoing and compensate victims of fraud, abuse, thievery etc.

But it can't be a guy sitting behind a desk making rules up that he thinks will cover every situation in the future.

It's got to be a case by case redressing of wrongs. And loser pays. It's got to be really expensive to cheat people, and you have to be so afraid of getting caught at it that you fix your peccadilloes immediately. That would cause great customer service. Now if the customer is an unreasonable jerk, and can't be satisfied, screw him. Let him sue. If the jury decides he was in the wrong they he pays you, and you didn't lose anything.

 

It can't. Whenever they try to kill it, it rises up in the shadows to do what it does. They call that the Black Market. People want to make their own deals. And they will always do it.

 

Right!

Epic fail on your part to prove anything. Lying and twisting things around while crying about personal attacks (which exist as much your posts do)doesn't prove jack squat, little man.

On all three points you failed to prove anything. In fact, you used your usual stock answers to prove it. Wow!!

A laissez faire economy does not mean there is no government intervention.

This is a colossal failure of comprehending political philosophy. If there is intervention, then by definition it cannot be laissez-faire.

Thus once again your argument is tenuous at best, completely uneducated at worst, uniformed somewhere in the middle. The fact that Laissez-faire policy was never absolute in any nation (wiki) doesn't really compute to you, nor does its basic principles.

The fact remains that thievery is not taxation.

The fact remains you cannot refute this truism. If it isn't thievery, then explain why it has to be taken from you before you get your hands on it? You can't, because you love and glorify government intervention. Because you are a socialist. I say this not because you disagree with me, but because you are. One can disagree and not be a socialist. But when you are arguing politics, and one side is for individualism then the other side is _____. There is no happy medium, at least not in todays world. There was a time when we could be nuanced about such things, but not anymore.

Yes that famous logic and reasoned evidence - such a pain it is for you I am sure.

This is what I meant by you providing humor here at scify. You are not logical or reasonable, your an _________!

There you go again mr. galt with misusing words...creating new meanings for establish words.

Care prove that joe, or can't you because this is another one of your stock answers where you try your distortionary tactics. Make an accusation so that any answer automatically proves guilt, well at least in your fantasy world.

But seriously joe, go ahead show what words I misused and created a new meaning for? Show it!!

Pointing out your errors in logic and evidence is not ridicule.
&
instead of projecting your own faults and insecurities onto others, you would engage in some serious introspection and some honest thought

I know what you are saying here. But why do these two phrases fit you better than anyone else here?

Could it be that you are devoid of logic and evidence (this one is especially true, since you don't read your own sources) and therefore you project your idea due to your own insecurities?

joe you get your ass handed to you repeatedly, by everyone who dares argue with you (even to the extent that they get accused of being in a cat fight, which in and of itself says something about the author of that comment). You may use logic sometimes, and occasionally you will provide good evidence. But then again a stopped clock is right twice a day!!

Let's examine why you get your ass handed to you? First, your arguments generally (occasionally this isn't so) are really amount to mud slinging. So when facts get presented to you. You ran to your list of stock answers and totally pass off what has been put forth before you.

Second, you cannot maintain any argument without doing one of two things, either lying/twisting words around, or simply denying other premises thrown at you.

Finally, when you are getting your ass handed to you in a really big way which is quite often, you change your own premise of the argument.

Bottom line is joe everything you accuse others of is just as prevalent and in many cases more so with you. Take the very accusations you have made with me on this post alone. Look in the mirror and do your introspection, you cannot deny your own faults.

I do recognize my errors in debating, and in some cases I just can't help but realize they are true. In other cases, I get caught up in the moment. You do this frequently, very frequently. Hence all the flaming and trolling, and then you accuse me of the same thing.

So really where does that leave us. (And don't get arrogant here, you are in another losing battle, you just never see it because you keep changing the goal lines).

You want reasoned debate, then start by being reasonable. Show how another's POV is wrong, instead of resorting to your stock answers. I know I hae done this with you numerous times, only to have it totally glossed over and continue on with your flawed argument. But here is the thing joe, I am not the only one you do this to. I have seen your tactics with other posters.

And your right, I should do the same. Calling another a socialist is just as negligent as you using your stock answers, even if the end result is true. My tactics should change to providing why it is socialist without using the term. I have done this in the past sometimes with you, other times with others. But in the end, theirs and your response is the same when I finally do call it for what it is.

So, whats it gonna be joe? You a pissing contest, or do you want to actually debate ideas?

We can start with taxation is thievery. Tell me if it is not, then why does government need to take it from your paycheck before you get your hands on it?

 

Agreed!! It is far too easy to make accusations now a days, and there is absolutely no recourse for it.

 

All you need to prove my points mr. galt is a quick trip to the dictionary.

I suggest a trip to the dictionary.

Back to misusing words again mr. galt. I gave you a reference in the previous post that defined laisssez faire economies. A definition which you promptly ignored in your usual fashion.

Your misuse of words continues. Visit the dictionary mr galt. It does not say taxation is thievery. You are lying mr. galt. As previously stated you cannot make rational arguements so you miss use emotionally laden words in order to get people to accept what you are selling. Because if they for a second used evidence and reason to evaluate what you are selling you would be out of business.

Tell me why you have not looked up the meaning of the words taxation and thievery in the dictionary? Tell me why have you steadfastly refused to list those definitions in your posts. Tell me why the dictionary is a odds with the way you have used these words.

I suggest you keep your body excrements to yourself. Instead I suggest you use words more carefully and in accordance with normally accepted usage. And instead of a heavy dependence on illogical arguement, I suggest you use evidence and reason. And if you really want to get radical, use honest facts instead of fiction. But then if you did those things you really wouldn't have a leg to stand on...would you?

In order to have a debate mr galt, you cannot start by speaking jibberish. Starting by calling a house a horse. Is not a very good starting point for an honest debate. If you want a debate, then start by being honest. Start by using words they way they were intended. Stop inventing new meanings for well established words in order to advance a political agenda.

LOL, back to the old ad hominem…my my where would you be without illogical arguments? Nowhere. You have nothing without illogical arguements mr. galt. Thatis why you your posts consist largely of illogical arguements (e.g. ad hominem, lemming, etc,). Honesty and reason does not constitute twisting in the real world mr. galt.

I suggest a trip to the dictionary. Your continued refusal to acknowledge reason and fact does not mean it does not exist.

Wrong again mr. galt. I had previously posted proofs. Proofs which you failed to recognized and comprehend. I cannot be faulted for your failure to recognize fact or inablitiy to comprehend concepts and reality. The undeniable fact is you are wrong yet again. Taxation and government have always exist mr. galt. You cannot have government without taxation of some sort. And we have had long periods in which laissez faire was the dominant economic policy. And we did have taxation and thievery which is contrary to your previous claims. You have been repeatedly proven wrong on all accounts. And all you can do is double down, like Sarah Palin.

Back to the ad hominem again, illogical arguments are you mr. galt. How does the dictionary define thievery mr. galt? I will give you a clue, it doesn’t mention taxation. Your misuse of words continues. The dictionary does not support the way you use the language mr. galt.

Additionally this discussion has nothing to do with socialism. Calling me a socialist is at best a projection of your own inadequacies as well as an extension of your heavy reliance on illogical arguement. You have no clue as to my politics or my economic philosophy. You only know that I disagree with your views and the views of the right wing in American politics.

Two, you appear to have a very limited view of the world. We live in a world of grays and hues. There is no purely socialist or capitalist system. There are blends. So your taking an extreme and projecting on to others, in this case me, is just a continuation of illogical arguments and jibberish and lack of knowledge/education on your part.

That is easy. Have you not been paying attention? What have I not said repeatedly? Are you not able to read? Is someone else doing your typing and reading for you? Take a merry trip to the library mr. galt and use words the way they are defined in commonly accepted dictionaries. As stated many many times before, taxation and thievery are two very different issues with two very different meanings. Your insistence that they are the same is simply not true. Your claim that thievery did not exist when we were operating under lassiez faire is also demonstrably wrong. And it was proven to you in my last post. Your refusal to acknowledge evidence normally acceptable in any other forum does not mean it doesn't exist. Pretending that things do not exist may make you feel better. But it is not going to stop that train coming down the tracks. Your willingness to replace reason fact with jibberish is indeed remarkable mr. galt.

LOL, yeah. How do you know I don't read my own sources? You don't. This is just another example of your runnaway imagination mr. galt or just another example of your wreckless proclivity to lie and careless disregard for the truth. And as I stated earlier, instead of projecting your own shortcomings and insecurities onto others, perhaps you should do some serious introspection.

LOL, back to your anal fascination. All I can say mr. galt is that you have a very rich fantasy life. When you have to tell yourself this many times, I think it speaks more to your insecurities than anything else. [/QUOTE]

You are assuming facts not in evidence. But that never has been a problem for you has it?

Let's examine mr. galt why you have this need to keep telling yourself these lies and why you have such an anal facination.

Well if that is the case then you should be able to provide some examples. I will give you a clue mr. galt, insisting that standard word definitions be used, is not twisting words nor is it denying fact. Insisting that one not speak jibberish mr. galt is not twisting words. It is being reasoned. It is being honest.

OK, back to your anal fantasies again. 

If that is he case mr. galt, let’s see some examples. Here is one difference between you and I mr. galt. I don’t project as you do. And I could care less about you as an individual. What I do is point out errors in your claims and try to keep you honest.…that is not projection mr. galt.

Being reasonable mr. galt begins with using words they way they are defined in the dictionary. Reason does not mean inventing new meanings for words. Reason mr. galt does not mean using any of a number of fallacies to justify your positions. Reason mr. galt does not mean ignoring evidence.

Because that is not how taxation and thievery are defined in the dictionary. These are emotionally charged words that are intended to circumvent reason and do not describe the topic to be discussed. It is like calling a car death machine or in the case of PPCA, death panels. If you want to discuss tax policy that is one thing; if you want to discuss thievery that is another. But to start by referring to something which it is not, that is not reasoned.

 

Just as a poster, not as mod (When I am a mod, there is always red notice of that at start of the post) I am confused by what seem to be great inconsistency in your logic.

You totally ignore / refute the dictionary definitions of "taxation" and "thievery" both of which do exist so they should settled down to generally well accepted meanings – i.e. have clear and different dictionary meanings; yet you want the dictionary definition of "laissez-faire" to be strictly observed. I.e. you insist: "If there is intervention, then by definition it cannot be laissez-faire."

You point out that “laissez-faire" has never existed as any interference by government would make that a non-laissez-faire government. Something that does not exist, like unicorns, should be allowed some flexibility as to what that word refers to. For example, a unicorn is a sort of horse like creature but has a forehead horn but the concept is not precisely definable. If the forehead horned creature’s front legs are shorter than hind legs like a rabbit, some may say it is a unicorn and others that it is not. Likewise, it seems reasonable that one could refer to a government that makes very little interference compared to most as a “laissez-faire" government as like the unicorn, non-existent “laissez-faire" is not precisely defined. BTW, is strict “laissez-faire" what you are advocating? Or is taxation for things you like OK, not "thievery"? As I said at start, your inconsistencies have me confused as to what your position is.

Another inconsistent, actually a complete contradiction of fact in most cases, is your idea taxation is thievery as it is taken away from you before you even get your hands on it. Last year by US tax bill was about, $20,000, even though I live in Brazil. I certainly had my hands on that money and paid it just before 15 April. Why does having your money in your hands or not before it transferred to the government (as the law requires) important as to whether or not it is taxation or thievery?

I am retired nearly two decades now, but if I had a salary with tax deduction, then according to you the government getting my $20,000 would be thievery, but as I paid the $20,000 it is not, it is only taxation. (That is a crazy rule you have invented, never mentioned in any dictionary.) Words do have meanings you can look up. I have three dictionaries and not one distinguishes thievery from taxation by any mention of getting your hands on the money or not. The essence of the difference in all three is that thievery is the illegal taking and taxation is the legal taking.

SUMMARY Thus it would seem to me, that as Joe states, you are making up strange, even inconsistent, rules and definitions as you go along just to back up your political POV.

 

joe have you ever opened a dictionary? Have you ever read the meaning of liberal and conservative? They nearly opposite of they actually mean.

I don't need to read a dictionary to understand my point as does anyone else. Words are words and sometimes they don't necessarily reflect a dictionary meaning.

The word thievery means the art or practice of stealing. So tell me joe, how is taxation and I mean direct taxation, and you knew this from the beginning you are playing dumb and know it (because you think are intellectually superior of which you are not). Tell me how taxation isn't thievery when the government has mandated (force) that taxes be taken from your payroll check before you have it in your hands. This is thevery by definition. The government is stealing your money without your being able to collect that money. That is stealing joe and by extension thievery. Stealing is stealing joe, whether you have the backing of law or not. It is unethical.

Playing semantics will not earn you any victories.

So again, I ask you and you still haven't provided an answer, if it isn't thievery, than why does the government need to take it from you before you get your hands on it?

Note, I am not even going to reply to all your insults and distortionary tactics.

Answer the question, joe. Saying they are not the dictionary definition is not answering the question, and you have been shown why that answer is irrelevant.

Answer the question joe!!!!

If you cannot except the premise (which is flawless) then show why? And I will even reiterate it in case you glossed by it. Thievery is the art or practice of stealing. Government mandates (force) requires taxes be removed from your paycheck before you collect your money.

Answering with LOL your living your fantasie again mr. galt, or again, you are wrong mr. galt will not do it.

Whatever, dispense with the retardness will ya. You want debate? Here is your chance. Don't debase yourself with insults and distortions. I have backed up my claim even using your method. Now answer the question with a reasoned thought that attempts to refute the statement.

Here is your chance joe!!

 

As thievery and stealing are essentially synonyms that is a circular self reference. The difference between thievery and taxation is one is against the law and the other is the law.

If you do not think thievery and stealing are essentially synonyms, please give an example of someone stealing something but not committing thievery.

I.e. all you state is “X is X.” You are not defining or explaining the meaning of anything with circular logic.

BTW, please answer the question in bold type in my last post, 213.

Also please explain why in some cases you ignore dictionary definitions and in other cases insist they be strictly observed? (And other inconsistencies pointed out in that post.) When it comes to definitions, you seem to cut the foot to fit your political shoe. I.e. use dictionary definitions when politically convenient and ignore them when not.

 

That is not relevant to the discussion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Especially in your case mr. galt - you know there is a reason for the dictionary. And if we are not clear in how words are used, then we cannot be clear in thought.

No galt it is not thievery. I thought we had a break through. Now you are back to misusing words again and personal attacks. Taxation is not illegal mr. galt. Theft is. There is a big difference. And it mattters little when the tax is collected.

For one, how this even remotely relevant? It isn't. And then it gets back to the old dictionary. And it is not the government who withholds the money from paychecks, it is the employer who does so. And it is the employer who pays the tax to the government for the employee.

The tax is paid at the time the employee is paid, not before the employee is paid as you claim. And in the end this is just more chaff to distract from the issue which you yourself have admitted to, misuing words.

LOL, yeah...the truth hurts you mr. galt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What question mr. galt? Your claims have been repeatedly disproven. Tax and theft are two different things...evidence the dictionary. Taxes are legal, theft is not. Two taxes are paid at the time employees are paid.

I tell you what mr. galt you ask me a relevant question using appropriate words in appropriate context, I will answer your questions. But if you want to continue with jibberish using words inappropriately, then no. That is just silly. We might as well be speaking in tounges. I don't do jibberish mr. galt.

Oh, just where and when have you backed up anything mr. galt? The bottom line here is that you have been using words inappropriately...making up stuff. The dictionary does not support the way you have chosen to define some very common words.

And as I have said many times before, if you want to have an honest discussion you have to use words appropriately.

Since we started this little discussion you have been all over the place. You have lodged a lot of ad hominem attacks and dispensed other errors in logic in an vain attempt to justify your misuse of the language and the words we commonly use. But in the end you cannot justify the unjustifiable. You cannot run away from the truth.

Taxation is not illegal. Taxation is not synonymous with theft. That is not how we use those words. That is not how they are defined in the dictionaries we use mr. galt. And those are the hard bottom line facts for you mr. galt.

 

Actually no billy, I have been consistent. However, I am guilty of not being clear. From the onset I was referring to direct taxation. I had presumed most would have understood that.

Obviously, when I buy goods and services and pay taxes through them it is not thievery. Again, I had presumed most understood that.

I think that by dictionary definition I am observing them, actually better than the two of you.

As you correctly make the distinction of legal versus illegal, you don't take into consideration whether or not it is ethical. Certainly many things are legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are ethical. Again, another distinction that I had presumed most would know.

I don't live my life based on what is legal or illegal, because something that is legal is not necessarily ethical. Prostitution may be legal, but to my wife it certainly wouldn't be ethical. Death penalties may be legal, but is it really ethical to take the life of another through a court system?

But then again, I am responding to someone who supposively willingly gave the US government 20,000 dollars. I seriously doubt ethics crosses your mind. I wonder if the thought had crossed your mind what would happen if I gave them 1000 or less instead?

I am also confused by what you are saying in regards to laissez faire capitalism. You ask if I am advocating a strict system, as if there is another kind. I'm sorry who is adhering to dictionary definitions and who isn't. I thought your point was that I was being inconsistent and even contradictory by dictionary definitions. Yet, my websters says that laissez faire means no government intervention. It doesn't distinguish different types.

So, I beg to differ with you. As it seems that in fact it is you and joe who continue to move the goal lines for expediency.

There is a difference between using different terms as metaphors based knowledge and understanding of basic thoughts and philosophies. And totally adding another meaning to an already defined term.

One could take the meaning of taxation and say that another term thievery could be used as a descriptor of the former term based on political theory and philosophy.

However, one cannot attribute an additional meaning to a term laissez faire that is contrary to its original intent. Without government intervention means without government intervention, where in there is there room for gray matter?

 

No your inconsistency I refer to is that you treat the dictionary like it is a restaurant menu - pick and chose which you like and ignore other definitions you don't like.

I.e. you like definition of laissez faire so Joe was in error to not strictly observe that dictionary definition, but you are free, not in error, when ignoring the dictionary definition of taxation as you don’t like that one so made up your own which concerns having or not having the money in your hands before it goes to the government. –IMHO a very silly distinction.

 

The bottom line here mr galt is that you have been consistently inconsistent. And you have used a lot of chaff to avoid being honest and rational - a lot of illogical arguement including ad hominem attacks.

The hard truth for you mr. galt is your arguements do not hold water or anything else for that matter.