You can either deal with the FACT that a fair portion of your tax dollars pay for things that you don't approve of or not. If you refuse to acknowledge this fact, then you're engaging in willful ignorance. If you accept this fact, then your argument about not wanting pay for things of which you don't approve is moot. The choice is between recognizing reality, and the thus, the weakness of that argument, or willful ignorance. I won't presume to make your choice for you. Enjoy.
1. You didn't answer my question.
2. This is a straw man. No where have I denied the reality of American tax policy. The very fact that I'm arguing against such policy means I fully acknowledge its existence.
Again, we come to the crux of what you find logical based on your ideology versus what i find logical based on my ideology. Certain issues that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT finds deserving (say the space program) are funded by your tax dollars when you may not approve of those expenditures. If you don't like it, you can leave the country, and try to find a home country that doesn't do this. It doesn't matter to me, other than that it shows the flaw in your reasoning concerning your beef over what your tax dollars are spent on. If abortion is the one issue out of thousands and thousands that you don't want your tax dollars spent on, then fine, say that this is the tipping point for you, personally, but don't act like it's wrong that your tax dollars are spent on things you don't like, but you've not once brought that up in a thread where you're shouting and hollering about THAT EXACT ISSUE. If you don't like the fact that your tax dollars are paying for things you don't like, then i'd have expected you to talk about that at some point in this thread AS you were talking about abortion being ADDED to that list.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you ALWAYS try to avoid the issue by mucking up the conversation with incoherent tangents? It's a very simple proposition, let's try it again...
WHY must people in Michigan pay for roads in Hawaii? WHY is it a "good" thing that they are forced to do such things? YOU made the assertion, NOW I am asking you to validate it with some kind of argument.
It's not just one aspect, it's a combination. Governments throughout history have recognized the value in taxation and then making decisions about what to do with that money. The most powerful civilizations have been those that taxed their citizens, and it's bleeding obvious that not every citizen always approves of every tax dollar spent. That's the nature of governments that use taxation, as any student of history and current socio-economic engines is aware.
Right, so you cannot point to any specific aspect of "civilization" that is maintained by the tax policy initiatives you support, nor can you reference any sort of legal or philosophical viewpoints unique to American history which would suggest you are correct. It seems the only argument you are capable of espousing is this:
"This is the way things have been and this is the way things are! So accept it or leave the country!"
I disagree, and lots of people think that the government has treated them unjustly. If you want to make an argument out of this unproven premise, then you'll have to demonstrate how "doing unjust never serves the common good," and then prove that "abortion funded by taxation is unjust" not just in your opinion, but in reality, in a way that is nearly obvious to anyone. That's a tall order, but i'd like to see your attempt.
You made the initial assertion that doing what is unjust can serve the common good, therefore the onus falls upon you to "prove" the argument.
Maybe to you, but intelligent people who are decent students of civic policy understand the necessity and the reality of normal taxation policy. Everybody who pays taxes pays for things that they'd not choose to pay for were they the ones deciding. That's why there's committees and such in congress, and you and me don't vote on 75 different decisions during our lunch break every day.
Oh, right, those "intelligent" people - forgot about them! Never mind the fact that the Founding Fathers did not engage in the kind of tax policy you are currently advocating. Let's just ignore American history and pretend like our country's laws and moral philosophy is actually somehow in line with nationalized tax policy used to pay for whatever pet projects the ignorant masses (see: you) deem fit.
"I like abortions! They're swell! People should be made to pay for them, and if they don't like it I'm going to send the government to their house with guns! Don't like it? Get out of the country then!"
Yea, The Founders would have totally been with you on that one...:roll:
Okay, that's good. Go with that and build a case instead of all your whiny little self-centered arguments about how it pisses you off so bad that you're slamming down your coffee cup between sips. You may have something. My initial response is that the gov't currently uses your tax dollars to pay for all sorts of things and the fact that the constitution doesn't address these expenditures hasn't stopped them. (For example, public schools are paid for with tax dollars, and the gov't doles out the cash, but you have zero say so in the process and it's not a constitutional procedure).
AND!? You keep regurgitating the same nonsense over and over again as if it justified your position.
"THAT'S THE WAY IT IS! STOP BEING SO SELF-CENTERED AND JUST ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO! YOU ARE WHINEY!"
You were, but you were acting like your opinion was AUTOMATICALLY more logically sound and obvious. Even when you think it is, you shouldn't act like that. I reminded you what was the proper sort of thing for you to do, and where it's limit was to be found. Just listing a premise, and qualifying it as obvious, does not an argument make. It's sloppy, and beneath you, i hope.
I've tried heartily to accommodate you but for some reason you insist on remaining pompous and condescending towards me. I never assumed an argument was won by mere virtue of my opinion's existence. I understand the quandary posed by arguing from a divergent set of ethical standards, which is why I've been trying very hard to establish a common basis from which to discuss this issue. Whenever you want to stop lecturing me on things I've never said then perhaps this dialogue will progress in a logical and civil fashion.
As long as you act this way, and as though your opinions are automatically right, you can learn nothing from anyone anywhere. Do you really want to claim that kind of godhood and in that process admit that you have learned all you will ever learn? To be teachable is to know that you do not have all the facts or divine opinions. Forums such as this one are a great place to learn more about life and yourself, but if your opinion of yourself is so high, that you automatically think that you are right, then you are useless to the forum, and the forum is useless to you. No one can ever learn from a person with that ego, and a person with that ego can never learn from anything or anyone. I don't care if you want to behave that way, but it might make a difference to you.
Dude, I was being totally sarcastic. It was nothing more than a playful jab.
Good. I like it a lot. Now tell me why you think we should
1. Look at the "spirit" of the law.
Because the letter of the law can be ambiguous at times, thus necessitating an analysis of the "spirit of the law" in order to better clarify the meaning of the letter. This is basic legal analysis.
2. Explain carefully what is meant by the phrase "spirit-of-the-law" (versus the letter of the law-- which i would probably prefer, but i'm not sure).
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_the_law]Letter and spirit of the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
3. Explain why we must understand the minds of the men who wrote it.
In understanding the minds of those who wrote the law we are better able to understand their intent, which helps us to better implement the law. This SHOULD be self-evident to anyone that isn't pathologically obtuse...
4. Explain what method we can use (falsifiable/verifiable and not just opinion) to determine FOR SURE that we actually "understand the minds of the men who wrote it".
By reading what they wrote and applying it in a modern context.
5. Show, with careful reasoning and syllogism how it might be that this policy goes against what they would have supported.
Because it's unconstitutional and undermines the concept of negative liberties.
The reason that you've got to take these steps, is because on the face of it, you've just provided a nice little slot of rhetoric, as easily used by either side of the debate. For example, an opponent of yours could use the same sentences, and then you've both got the same rhetoric, but neither of you has any demonstrable evidence to support your claim. Here, i'll show you what i mean:
We should also look to the spirit of the law, which is to say we must understand the minds of men who wrote it. Based upon what they have written and said I am inclined to believe they would support such a thing as abortions paid for with general tax dollars.
Do you see?
No, they couldn't use the same rhetoric because I've already outlined two logical reasons why the Founders would have NEVER supported such an idiotic tax policy.
1. It's blatantly unconstitutional.
2. It undermines the basis for American legal theory, i.e. the concept of negative liberty.
Just because the government sh
its on these two concepts with considerable regularity does not make it right.
Suit yourself. I've forgotten it and hadn't thought about it since, and had to go back and look up what the heck you were talking about. Hell, dwell on it as much as you want. I was just giving you sound advice, but i should have know that you wouldn't take it.
Once again, I was being sarcastic.