What's the matter with Hawaii's tax dollars? Are they broken or something? Just so we're on the same page, this question presumes that you hold personal responsibility is some sort of esteem.
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.
Why is it "good"? Hawaii may like its new roads but some people in Michigan just got screwed out of their money. Those tax dollars could have been utilized for any number of things directly beneficial to people living in Michigan. Helping others is not a justification for taking people's money, no matter how cruel or crass it may sound. Nobody would tolerate officials from St. Jude's Children's Hospital going around and stealing other people's money under the pretense of helping others, so why is it any different when the government engages in such activity?
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.
What aspect of a civilized society necessitates such a tax policy?
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.
Doing what is unjust never serves the common good. It can only give the appearance of such.
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.
Our country's legal and philosophical foundation is steeped in the recognition of negative rights. Forcing other people to pay for things they do not want or need seems to fly in the face of such a concept.
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.
I'm glad you see my point.
Oh my gosh! You're such a whiny little baby. Good grief.
I would also argue that your position is unconstitutional. I can't find the Constitutional clause which grants the government the explicit authority to pay for medical procedures.
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).
I thought I was already doing that.
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.
The only thing I require from you is base servility. A simple bow, whilst in my divine presence, will suffice.
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.
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 disinclined to believe they would support such a thing as you have espoused.
Good. I like it a lot. Now tell me why you think we should
1. Look at the "spirit" of the law.
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).
3. Explain why we must understand the minds of the men who wrote it.
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".
5. Show, with careful reasoning and syllogism how it might be that this policy goes against what they would have supported.
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?
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.