ITAP of Times Square (Panoramic)

Pretiacruento · 1 month

22 desde marzo

ap7x942 · 2 months

When you said: "if you are opposed to taxation, how do you expect stem cell research to receive its funding?", I interpreted that to mean that you thought stem cell research would only be funded if it was funded through taxation. If that is not what you meant, sorry.

*Concerning the statement:: "im pretty sure im arguing in favor of life, not against it. nor am i suggesting that a tax that supports stem cell research should be mandatory for everyone." How do you decide who it should be mandatory for?

Concerning the statement: "there are taxes for tobacco smokers. should i feel as though my rights are being violated? should i feel as though my computer is being stolen?"
- I cannot tell you how to feel, nor can I tell you how to feel. There are taxes for smokers, I am arguing that in forcing people to pay taxes, you are implicitly threatening them with violence if they decide not to comply.
Suppose that 1) the government decides to start funding stem cell research through tax payer dollars. Also suppose 2) that I then object to my money being taken from me and being used for this purpose. And 3) that I decide not to pay my taxes. The only question I am really concerned with is, in this situation, would you support the men who come to my house with guns because I choose not to pay them?

Concerning: "how would it be a violation of property rights if money for stem cell research derived in this fashion?" - Suppose I own the convenient store that sells tobacco, and as such the government mandates that I must charge a tax to my customers. In this situation, I might have to accede that no ones property rights are being violated - but it is the case that the person who owns the store is implicitly being threaten with violence if they also decide to impose the government implemented tax on customers.

*"no. there was no federal reserve until 1913. an income tax was enacted in 1861 to help pay for the civil war effort." Thanks for correcting me.

ap7x942 · 3 months

Are you suggesting that the only way things can be funded is to threaten people with violence?

Assume no government existed - do you think people would still value things such as education, roads, and research? Prior to 1913 there was no income tax.

I support stem cell research - and its something I would voluntarily donate too. What I do not support is threatening people with violence to accomplish things which I believe may be worth-while (e.g., stem cell research).

On a side note: I believe that stem cell research would advance further and faster in a free market.

ap7x942 · 3 months

I think stem cell research would be good, in and of itself. I am not opposed to stem cell research. I am opposed to taxation because it violates property rights. Would you accept the claim that if I stole your computer, I would have violated your property rights?

ap7x942 · 3 months

I do believe that tax for highways is morally abhorrent because it violates your property rights. I have defined morally abhorrent as anything in which one's rights are violated.

It doesn't matter what the government decides to spend my money on after they steal it. What makes it morally abhorrent is that they threaten individuals with violence if they choose not pay.

Edit: If you want to understand my position better you can watch this short, couple minute, video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

All in all, I am not asking you to respect my beliefs. Respect is just a psychological state of mind. What I am asking you to do is not to violate my rights - and I ask that others don't violate your rights.

ap7x942 · 3 months

One of my earlier comments:

I do not believe you, or the people who call themselves the government, are entitled to the money that I earn. Consequently, no one is entitled to the money that I earn to enforce what ever law you are speaking about in regards to stem cell research, etc.

Edit: However, I can try to be clearer. I wouldn't support a law for stem cell research because it violates the rights of others. It violates their rights via taxation. It seems clearly wrong, to me, to force someone to fund something they find morally abhorrent.

ap7x942 · 3 months

I am not making claims about stem cell research.

DrimRak · 3 months

Oh dear god

ap7x942 · 3 months

I think the method in which they collect taxes is inherently wrong - because they are not entitled to my money, and if I resist I am threaten with incarceration or worst.

If I steal your computer, would you accept the claim that I violated your property rights?

ap7x942 · 3 months

I do not understand at all how you deduced from my statement that I would be inclined to vote for (or against) any law.

I do not believe the government, or you, has the right to decide how to spend my money. Nor do I believe any one has the right to tell you how to spend your money.

I am not for, or against, any laws. What I am for is the advancement of liberty and decrease of violence and oppression - in any form. I do not vote as I believe that governments are inherently coercive, and thus inherently immoral.

As for religious views, I have none.

I am not asking you to respect my views or beliefs. I do not believe you should, or must, respect other peoples belief. What I do believe is that you shouldn't violate their rights, directly or indirectly, in anyway.

ap7x942 · 3 months

I do not believe you, or the people who call themselves the government, are entitled to the money that I earn. Consequently, no one is entitled to the money that I earn to enforce what ever law you are speaking about in regards to stem cell research, etc.

ap7x942 · 3 months

You don't have to respect anything I believe - just don't violate my rights or force any of your beliefs on me via the coercion of the state.

Turbostrider

TROPHY CASE

Turbostrider

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login