• 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.
Ah yes, the old "all the cool kids are doing it" argument.

Sorry but I don't base my ethical behavior on what all the cool kids are doing. My position is that it is unethical for one person to initiate aggression against another. Obviously you disagree. I'm still not going to initiate force against people, just because you think I should.

LOL! All the cool kids? There is not a State on the planet that has chosen to govern itself in the way you suggest.
 
LOL! All the cool kids? There is not a State on the planet that has chosen to govern itself in the way you suggest.
You are correct. However, at one point there was not a country on the planet that was not ruled by a king, and at one point there was not a country on the planet that did not have the institution of slavery. Conservatives always point to the impossibility of progressive social change. That's nothing new.
 
I'm curious as to why. What about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?

What I find offensive is people who do not appreciate the land we live in and its people and their duly elected government. But they still remain put while moaning, whining and bitching about free choice.

But what about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?
 
But what about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?
You've obviously been convinced that our government does not do this already. Well, it IS America and you have the freedom to believe what you want and voice that opinion - though, somehow, it seems you do not believe have that kind of freedom. You have LEOs that protect your life and your property but apparently have no belief in them, either. Others feel differently.

Many of us believe the system we have is good but the people who can vote have let the system run a little crazy of late. All mechanisms, whether they be mechanical, biological, cultural, or social have to be maintained. When the engineers, that's the people who can vote (and note this is different from the voting public, being those who actually exercise that right), quit maintaining the machine then, eventually, it sputters. That doesn't mean you junk the machine and buy another, that means you fix what's wrong and tune it up so it's running right, again.
 
You've obviously been convinced that our government does not do this already. Well, it IS America and you have the freedom to believe what you want and voice that opinion - though, somehow, it seems you do not believe have that kind of freedom.
I have no idea why you would come to that conclusion. I agree with you 100% that everyone has the freedom to believe what they want and to voice their opinion. I sincerely hope that I made no statements that would lead anyone to think otherwise.

You have LEOs that protect your life and your property but apparently have no belief in them, either. Others feel differently.
As I have said earlier, I regard the protection of life and property to be the sole legitimate function of government, and I have agreed that the government should operate a police force and charge everyone for this service. So, I have to disagree with your assertion that I don't believe in them.

Many of us believe the system we have is good but the people who can vote have let the system run a little crazy of late. All mechanisms, whether they be mechanical, biological, cultural, or social have to be maintained. When the engineers, that's the people who can vote (and note this is different from the voting public, being those who actually exercise that right), quit maintaining the machine then, eventually, it sputters. That doesn't mean you junk the machine and buy another, that means you fix what's wrong and tune it up so it's running right, again.
Okay, I'll buy that, but I also add that it is important to understand what function the machine is supposed to be performing. It's my contention that the machine of government should perform the job of protecting the life and property of the citizens. When it either 1) fails to do so, or 2) itself violates the life and property of the citizens, then it needs to be fixed so that it functions properly.

A government that changes from being a protector of life and property to being an attacker of life and property is very broken, in my opinion.
 
But what about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?

Why would you think I find that offensive?
 
But it's a matter of priorities. The money is there, it's just the question how to spend it. Without burning 1.3 billion in the sands of Iraq, there would have been no American debt or budget crisis.

To the bolded: not true at all. Our debt is in the Trillions. 1.3 Billion doesn't even touch the minimum interest weekly debt on what we borrow.

BIt's an irritating double standard I often noticed: Many people are against big government. But when they face big government in its purest form -- a bloated army and military spending -- they suddenly don't care. Apparently, only money spent by the government to help people is "big government", but the same money spent for killing people is not.

You won't find many libertarians who support our foreign actions and/or presence around the world. In fact, I'd venture to say that most current American liberals who do not support the Iraq and Afghan actions, do support our other foreign presence and nation-building efforts.
 
Okay, I'll buy that, but I also add that it is important to understand what function the machine is supposed to be performing. It's my contention that the machine of government should perform the job of protecting the life and property of the citizens. When it either 1) fails to do so, or 2) itself violates the life and property of the citizens, then it needs to be fixed so that it functions properly.

A government that changes from being a protector of life and property to being an attacker of life and property is very broken, in my opinion.
Outside of the Patriot Act and it's progeny, I have no idea what you mean by "attacker of life". I agree the Patriot Act et al, which was originally an obvious knee-jerk reaction to a violent event, should not be allowed to persist. Many had the sense to be against it in the first place but fear and anger prevailed.

If by "attacker of property" we're back to talking about taxes again then that's strictly a matter of opinion, isn't it? You, yourself, have even admitted that tax law, whatever it might be, must be enforced. As far as I know no laws are being broken in the collection of taxes.
 
Hmm, obviously someone who has never been around real fleas.

its a figure of speech-I prefer to grab them with tweezers and burn them in a flame
 
its a figure of speech-I prefer to grab them with tweezers and burn them in a flame
LOL! Now we're talking! I do the same with ticks, they make such a nice pop! when they go.
 
You are correct. However, at one point there was not a country on the planet that was not ruled by a king, and at one point there was not a country on the planet that did not have the institution of slavery. Conservatives always point to the impossibility of progressive social change. That's nothing new.

how_libertarians_vote.png
 
But what about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?

The part where we take the life and liberty of people in other countries to make the rich in this country richer.
 
Why would you think I find that offensive?

Good point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, so I guess I ought to just ask. What are your thoughts on the idea that people have a right to their property and that the proper role of government is to protect the property of the citizens?
 
To the bolded: not true at all. Our debt is in the Trillions. 1.3 Billion doesn't even touch the minimum interest weekly debt on what we borrow.

Oops, translation mistake: The Iraq war costed 1.3 trillion, not billion.

If such a war just costed 1.3 billion, I'd say do it more often. ;)
 
Last edited:
Outside of the Patriot Act and it's progeny, I have no idea what you mean by "attacker of life". I agree the Patriot Act et al, which was originally an obvious knee-jerk reaction to a violent event, should not be allowed to persist. Many had the sense to be against it in the first place but fear and anger prevailed.
The patriot act would be a perfect example, yes.

If by "attacker of property" we're back to talking about taxes again then that's strictly a matter of opinion, isn't it? You, yourself, have even admitted that tax law, whatever it might be, must be enforced. As far as I know no laws are being broken in the collection of taxes.
Yes, we agree that the government ought to function as the sole defense agency and ought to be able to collect a mandatory fee from all citizens in order to pay for that service.

However, if the government then uses its position to take money for other purposes, it is no longer acting to defend our property but to despoil us. The legitimate purpose of government is to provide protection of our life and property, and for that legitimate function we must all pay. If the government takes beyond that, it is acting contrary to its sole purpose.
 
The part where we take the life and liberty of people in other countries to make the rich in this country richer.
Yes, I find that offensive as well. I wish you would stop doing that. It's wrong.
 

A bit polemic, maybe, as I believe there are many libertarians who don't sell out their values for tax cuts.

But I'm afraid there is more than just a kernel of truth in it, considering quite a few people who call themselves "libertarian".
 
Good point. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, so I guess I ought to just ask. What are your thoughts on the idea that people have a right to their property and that the proper role of government is to protect the property of the citizens?

When you say people have a right to their property... what does that mean regarding taxation?

To protect the property of the citizen against what exactly?
 
A bit polemic, maybe, as I believe there are many libertarians who don't sell out their values for tax cuts.

But I'm afraid there is more than just a kernel of truth in it, considering quite a few people who call themselves "libertarian".

Most excellent. It shows what some folks highest priorities...... "gimme a tax cut and screw the rest of the nonsense".
 
Most excellent. It shows what some folks highest priorities...... "gimme a tax cut and screw the rest of the nonsense".

A friend of mine is libertarian and works for the CATO institute. He told me a lot about libertarian ideology and I have come to develop great respect for him and genuine libertarians, although I often disagree. He is equally critical of the Republican and Democratic party, he is consistent in his beliefs and does not suddenly forget his small government idea the moment the President has an "(R)" behind his name, as many other "libertarians" unfortunately do.
 
Yes, we agree that the government ought to function as the sole defense agency and ought to be able to collect a mandatory fee from all citizens in order to pay for that service.

However, if the government then uses its position to take money for other purposes, it is no longer acting to defend our property but to despoil us. The legitimate purpose of government is to provide protection of our life and property, and for that legitimate function we must all pay. If the government takes beyond that, it is acting contrary to its sole purpose.
But don't you realize what a can of worms you've just opened by going even this far? Is it OK for me to dump a few gallons of mercury into the stream that's running across my property? Would there be a problem if I took my 160 acres and opened up a race car track? What about a coal power plant that uses up all the water in the creek (my creek!) even if there are farms and ranches downstream that need that water? I think you get the idea but let me add one more that's a little more complex. What about a business that buries a few drums of mercury next to their creek then goes bankrupt. Later, one of the drums cracks open dumping the contents into the stream? There are many, many more issues besides the environmental ones but in simple cases they're often the easiest to see.
 
Last edited:
When you say people have a right to their property... what does that mean regarding taxation?
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.

To protect the property of the citizen against what exactly?
From being taken or destroyed by others.
 
But don't you realize what a can of worms you've just opened by going even this far? Is it OK for me to dump a few gallons of mercury into the stream that's running across my property?
No.
Would there be a problem if I took my 160 acres and opened up a race car track?
Not sure. It depends on the facts. I'd leave it for a judge to decide.

What about a coal power plant that uses up all the water in the creek (my creek!) even if there are farms and ranches downstream that need that water?
Those downstream of you may have a property in the creek as well. Sounds like a dispute that needs to be brought before a judge.

I think you get the idea but let me add one more that's a little more complex. What about a business that buries a few drums of mercury next to their creek then goes bankrupt. Later, one of the drums cracks open dumping the contents into the stream? There are many, many more issues besides the environmental ones but in simple cases they're often the easiest to see.
As I said before, the purpose of the government is to protect everyone's property. If someone damages property of another, it is up to the government to figure out what was damaged, who did the damage, what is the cost of the damage, etc. This is why we have a government - to settle property disputes.
 
As I said before, the purpose of the government is to protect everyone's property. If someone damages property of another, it is up to the government to figure out what was damaged, who did the damage, what is the cost of the damage, etc. This is why we have a government - to settle property disputes.
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:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom