• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?


  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.
It means that, for the most part, what's their is theirs. However, because the government is the sole defensive agency allowed and provides protection equally to all citizens, it seems reasonable that it can exact a mandatory fee for the defensive services it provides.


From being taken or destroyed by others.

Your premise is false upon its face. Government provides all sorts of services for the American people. There is nothing sacred or special about defense. For you to elevate it to some special status is ludicrous.
 
Your premise is false upon its face. Government provides all sorts of services for the American people. There is nothing sacred or special about defense. For you to elevate it to some special status is ludicrous.


well I disagree to some extent.

national defense is the sine qua non of a national government. It is also specifically delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.
 
Your premise is false upon its face. Government provides all sorts of services for the American people. There is nothing sacred or special about defense. For you to elevate it to some special status is ludicrous.

Actually there is something special about defense. It's purpose is to protect the life, liberty, and property of ALL citizens. There is no other government function such as this. All other functions actually infringe on the life, liberty, or property of SOME citizens in order to benefit OTHER citizens. This is why these functions are illegitimate for the government, since they violate the very purpose of government in the first place.
 
well I disagree to some extent.

national defense is the sine qua non of a national government. It is also specifically delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.

So are lots of other things. To elevate defense above any of the rest is silly.
 
Actually there is something special about defense. It's purpose is to protect the life, liberty, and property of ALL citizens. There is no other government function such as this. All other functions actually infringe on the life, liberty, or property of SOME citizens in order to benefit OTHER citizens. This is why these functions are illegitimate for the government, since they violate the very purpose of government in the first place.


Fortunately, we have a Constitution which differs with you.
 
So are lots of other things. To elevate defense above any of the rest is silly.


Its actually the most important government function and the function that the federal government is best able to handle above all other functions or issues
 
Fortunately, we have a Constitution which differs with you.

which Constitution-the correctly interpreted one based on the founders' intent or the one that FDR's lapdog Justices made up and cemented into the jurisprudential fabric of this nation
 
But you sidestepped the after effects of some actions, which is why I threw in the buried drum problem. This is the same situation we're facing today and what the Superfund is used for. It's what happens when business is allowed free reign with no controls or over-sight. It doesn't matter what judge hears this case. A dozen children are mentally retarded for life from mercury poisoning. No one can "pay" for that kind of injury and no court can set that wrong to right.

The protection idea was a simple, easy case to present with obvious and direct dangers. There are many more dangers than that to life and property but you fail to see them or will only act on them after the fact. What you'll end up with will be very much like the world of 1970 with de-forestation caused by acid rain and river water that's no longer drinkable without spending millions to treat it. Consider this. The tobacco companies won hundreds of cases in court, using falsified studies and "experts" that claimed there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Eventually that was proved to be the big lie that it was and the tobacco companies made some minor restitution, but I can guarantee for every dollar in settlement money they earned $100. Sure people were stupid to smoke in the first place but, hey, dozens of scientists had testified in hundreds of court cases that smoking was 100% safe! :shrug:
All violations of other's property have effects than cannot be reversed. That's why it is beneficial to reduce violations of others' property to the greatest extent possible. Nor can one stop a crime before it happens. All that can be done is to ensure that when a crime is committed, the perpetrator is punished. Catching an punishing a single murderer will not bring the victim back to life. But we do it anyway, because others who might do the same thing need to understand that they will also be punished. Likewise, yes you are right. I could pull up to your yard and dump a barrel of used motor oil on your front yard. Maybe I don't get caught, but if I do, I will be hauled before a judge and punished. This hopefully stops others from doing the same thing.

I admit you are right that no crime can actually be punished until after it is committed, but we still have to at least attempt to establish laws of justice in which judges can adjudicate the case and mete out the appropriate punishment. It is only the disincentive provided by the fear of punishment that keeps people from infringing on the property of others.
 
So you have no problem violating the life, liberty, and property of some in order to grant benefits to others?

Apparently not if it gains the DNC more votes
 
Its actually the most important government function and the function that the federal government is best able to handle above all other functions or issues

Also, because it is the responsibility of the government to protect and defend our life, liberty, and property, it is logically impossible to perform this function while at the same time infringing upon the life, liberty, or property of some citizens in order to benefit others.

A good analogy might be a doctor. The first rule of doctors is "do no harm". Whatever other goals they have, they must uphold this primary ethic. So what would you think of a doctor who held you down and cut out a kidney, because some other guy is in need of one. The doctor would be doing harm, and violating his primary mission.

So it is with government. It is the responsibility of government to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. It cannot both fulfill this duty, and also rob peter to pay paul. They are mutually inconsistent acts.
 
Its actually the most important government function and the function that the federal government is best able to handle above all other functions or issues

And you know this bit of undebatable wisdom because.............??????????????
 
Also, because it is the responsibility of the government to protect and defend our life, liberty, and property, it is logically impossible to perform this function while at the same time infringing upon the life, liberty, or property of some citizens in order to benefit others.

A good analogy might be a doctor. The first rule of doctors is "do no harm". Whatever other goals they have, they must uphold this primary ethic. So what would you think of a doctor who held you down and cut out a kidney, because some other guy is in need of one. The doctor would be doing harm, and violating his primary mission.

So it is with government. It is the responsibility of government to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. It cannot both fulfill this duty, and also rob peter to pay paul. They are mutually inconsistent acts.

that is silly. You operate from the false premise that such rights are absolute.
 
And you know this bit of undebatable wisdom because.............??????????????

I was the ranking political science student in my college class. I studied government under one of the true masters-Robert Dahl.
 
So you have no problem violating the life, liberty, and property of some in order to grant benefits to others?

Government must carefully balance all rights. There are no absolutes.
 
I was the ranking political science student in my college class. I studied government under one of the true masters-Robert Dahl.

You confuse me with one who cares to have read what you claim is your history. Sadly, your posting history reflects no such excellence. But one can always hope to soar with the eagles. HOPE - there is always HOPE.
 
Government must carefully balance all rights. There are no absolutes.

No it doesn't. The rights of non-citizens are not given the same weight as citizens for example

nor the rights of convicted felons vs honest people

and some rights are completely ignored. Some posters think slugs or snails might be entitled to rights. If not those creatures, dolphins or monkeys.
 
No it doesn't. The rights of non-citizens are not given the same weight as citizens for example

nor the rights of convicted felons vs honest people

and some rights are completely ignored. Some posters think slugs or snails might be entitled to rights. If not those creatures, dolphins or monkeys.

And we are not talking about non citizens or felons..... nor slugs nor snails nor - since flights of fantasy seem to have overtaken you - flying monkeys nor orcs for that matter.
 
And we are not talking about non citizens or felons..... nor slugs nor snails nor - since flights of fantasy seem to have overtaken you - flying monkeys nor orcs for that matter.

You said all rights-when you make such a black or white statement a little shade of gray defeats your comment
 
Actually there is something special about defense. It's purpose is to protect the life, liberty, and property of ALL citizens. There is no other government function such as this. All other functions actually infringe on the life, liberty, or property of SOME citizens in order to benefit OTHER citizens. This is why these functions are illegitimate for the government, since they violate the very purpose of government in the first place.
I don't know of a more blatant statement than this about protecting life:
For over 60 years, CDC has been dedicated to protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. We are committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.
CDC - About CDC Home Page

or this:
EPA's purpose is to ensure that:
- all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
Our Mission and What We Do | About EPA | US EPA
 
You said all rights-when you make such a black or white statement a little shade of gray defeats your comment

No to those with common sense who understand what is being discussed. Slugs and monkeys are not part of common sense in the context we were discussing.
 
Nothing. And if you had actually said that two plus two is four nobody would have required you to elaborate.

I spoke an equal truth.

If you have your own island nation - then you have absolute rights. If you do not - then you do not have absolute rights. This is not a new or revolutionary concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom