Lurker > Mike_Stanton

Rika_Furude posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?

Theres plenty of deserted islands you can go live on

Which limits the space people have available to practice their rights. Seriously, if all you have is "the government says it can, and if you don't like it you can get out" then you might as well say that any government policy is ethical.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Dragonblade01 posted...

Ultimately, we as a people choose what we do and do not tolerate.

lol collectivism...different people are different people.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Zero_Destroyer posted...

You having a fringe viewpoint that you're oppressed by it doesn't validate your victim complex. If most people don't see it as theft and are actively affected by it, you have zero ground to stand on, because it absolutely means society has more or less collectively consented to the concept.

So you don't have a problem with anything your government does then?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

If you take issue, go build a society without taxation or see if one exists that you could live in. You are free to release yourself from the benefits of Western society at no threat of gunpoint

Except, there's limited space on earth, so telling someone to go some place else is still reducing their rights by reducing the amount of space they have available to practice their rights. You don't think anybody justified segregation by saying that blacks can always go back to Africa if they want to be treated equally?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I'm sure there are some candidates in some obscure party that actively oppose taxation. Put your money/effort towards supporting them, or run for office yourself. There's nothing stopping you.

This is all good advice. If I could give you similar advice, if you like giving up your earnings to help people so much then donate to charities instead of voting for demagogues who will put a gun to everybody's head forcing them to do the same.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Which is also why one that's popular doesn't exist, for what it's worth: Most people seem to be okay with the concept since they actively benefit from public resources resulting from that funding.

More like, the general public has been practically brainwashed into thinking that the government is somehow a more honorable business than any other, when it's one of the few, if any businesses that will charge you according to how much money you have.

Zero_Destroyer posted...

your penchant for triggering Godwin's Law is truly incredible"taxation = millions murdered, haha i am genius take that STATISTS"a true intellectual

You're justifying what the government does based on the fact that they were elected. If anything that the government does is justified so long as they were elected then Nazi Germany was just doing what The People gave them permission to do.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

nicklebro posted...

They don't all vote for the same person, obviously no one said they did. And if the wolves and sheep all agree ahead of time to have a vote and whoever gets voted out gets eaten, then yes, the sheep agreed to be eaten. Its not rocket science man...

lol so you ARE saying that people who are victims of things they didn't vote for deserve what they got? I wonder why you ignored my Hitler analogy...Germany elected Hitler, and a good portion of their population was Jewish. By living in Germany they agreed to the democratic process that eventually elected the man who had them sent to Auschwitz. So according to your logic, even though most of Hitler's voters probably had no idea what he was planning on doing, the fact that the German people (Jews included) agreed to the process that elected him means that the Jews agreed to be sent to Auschwitz. lol keep defending Nazi Germany.

nicklebro posted...

You said that the government is the one making all of the decisions because were not a pure democracy. You're obviously wrong about that but it does prove you think a pure democracy would be better than a republic.

No, it doesn't prove that because you were the one who said that voting for government officials means that we collectively agreed to every decision that the government makes, which somehow justifies anything that the government does. The procedure for determining who is in charge of the government doesn't justify what the government does. Unless of course, you think the Holocaust was justified...
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

LordRazziel posted...

Can TC come up with a better way to fund the needs of society?

Besides stealing? How does any business fund its operations?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

iClockwork posted...

Terrible argument. You're not obligated to stay, you're free to reject the social contract and move anytime you would like.

So someone doesn't have the right to walk on, or breath the air from a certain portion of the earth, unless they surrender certain freedoms? The government did not create the land that it governs, so saying that people can just move to another country doesn't cut it, because there's limited space available on this planet. By limiting the available space people have to exercise certain rights, you're still restricting people of their freedoms because you're telling them that certain rights will only be protected if they limit which parts of the earth they can live on.

iClockwork posted...

There's little value in responding to a straw manning of the premise.

Why don't you just explain what you meant if there was any misunderstanding?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

iClockwork posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...
iClockwork posted...

Nice cherry picking when you feel like addressing the overarching concepts of my post and taxation itself we can have a discussion. As of now it seems you only want to argue in bad faith instead of understanding.

I responded to portions of your post because lots of your sentences seemed to just be reiterations of things you had already mentioned. So I chose to respond in the way that I did because it seemed that your post had about 4 basic points. If I missed any salient points you were trying to make then just say so. Also, is it safe to say that you have no responses to the parts of your post that I did respond to?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

iClockwork posted...

Taxation is only theft if its imposition is explicitly illegal.

Execution is only murder if its imposition is explicitly illegal.

iClockwork posted...

Otherwise, by use of social conveniences, like roads, running water, sewage, and other infrastructure, along with a very explicit agreement about how much you will pay for such services, and to whom, you are obligated to pay taxes.

Too bad taxes aren't calculated as a fee for service, but rather as a portion of the income that you earned...

iClockwork posted...

If you rent property, you are obligated to make payment on it as said in your rental contract. If you buy a home, you are obligated to pay the sales and property taxes as stated by the government

And yet, the prices on those things don't cost a percentage of your income, but charge a single price to whomever can afford it. What if a realtor said that the rent of your apartment is 50% of your income? Wouldn't you be skeptical as to whether or not they really need all of the money they're trying to get out of you?

iClockwork posted...

All property, and even the money you use to pay your taxes, is ultimately property of the government who issued it.

Wrong. The government borrows money in order to add to its currency, and we're free to convert US dollars into some other currency and spend it in some other country if we choose to, so the money that the US government borrows most certainly doesn't belong to them. But even if you do think that the government owns all the money, does that mean that if some elected officials managed to pass a law giving themselves the right to take any amount of money out of anybody's bank account without explanation, would that still not be theft? I mean, it's their money and they can take what's theirs whenever they want, right?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

nicklebro posted...

So what? We still elected the representatives that make up the government.

I didn't realize everybody voted for the same person. If two wolves and one sheep vote on which one of them is to be eaten for dinner and the two wolves vote for the sheep, does that mean the sheep agreed to be eaten?

nicklebro posted...

And why do you think a pure democracy is a good thing?

I...didn't say that it was. wtf?

Zero_Destroyer posted...

We elect the government that establish the laws. We give consent to let the government tax us because we vote in people who support the concept of taxation. Ergo, it's not theft, and if you personally have that much of an issue with it, go find a society that doesn't tax people and live there instead.

Except, there's just one problem...what if every candidate available supports taxation, thus giving you no choice but to vote against your ideals? In fact, very few, if any, people agree with the candidate they vote for on everything 100%. Not to mention, we have no control over whether a candidate actually follows through on their promises. Germany elected Hitler. Does that mean the Jews agreed to be exterminated?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Notti posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?

Did the government give itself that right, or did we the people?

The government. We're far from being a 100% pure democracy.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

@QueenCarly
@luigi13579
@Antifar
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

QueenCarly posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Your employer pays based on your contributions to the company (i.e. the fruits that you contribute to the company).

lmao no they do not

You are never payed based on what you contribute to the company. You are paid fucking fractions of fractions of the value you create.

They literally do. Deciding to hire someone to work X amount of hours, and how much to pay them depends on how much of an asset they'll be to the company compared to how much it will cost to hire them. They know that they have to aim for the best balance between those two things while still creating worker incentives in order to prevent you from working for some other company.

luigi13579 posted...

That's a good way of looking at it actually. The currency only exists because the government says it does and only has value because it is backed by the government.

You're...not serious are you?

luigi13579 posted...

That reminds me of this:

Yes...the surplus value extracted from your labor IS entrepreneurship because why else would a company hire people if they have nothing to gain from it themselves? The risky investments made by entrepreneurs are the only reason why ANYBODY within a company has a job.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Aren't most mobile games just rip-offs of more popular games anyway?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Balrog0 posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

It's "economic rent." The only reason it's called a "tax" is because the government happens to be the recipient. If we go by what's actually happening with a land value tax, it's just an entity who owns some space making it available to whomever is willing to pay. Essentially the government is just another realtor in that whole process.

I don't get why property taxes or sales taxes wouldn't also be justified by similar criteria, though I prefer the LVT to both personally

Since property taxes also apply to improvements that someone makes to their land, it still amounts to some degree of theft. I'm okay with sales taxes that are meant as "sin taxes" for preventing things like pollution, etc but for the most part they're too regressive,since consumers are the main ones being hit with it.

PhilKenSebben posted...

Yes, that is the literal definition if I'm not mistaken. What happens is people tend to hoard money they don't need and power they shouldn't have.

That's mostly just when "trickle down economics" is applied. When low taxes are combined with high spending like what the Republicans have been doing ever since Ronald Reagan, yeah...that does tend to lead to lots of wealth accruing at the top while adding too much to the debt. If, on the other hand, the government can afford low taxes by making some spending cuts, like during Bill Clinton's presidency, it can make a pretty drastic difference in the distribution of wealth.

PhilKenSebben posted...

In theory what taxes do is take money from the wealthy
and give it to the poor in form of free public services.

They also involve taking from the middle class as well. And while I like the idea of taking from the rich to give to the poor in theory, in practice it can lead to some people becoming too dependent on public services, while also making the value of wealth seem less appealing, which can significantly reduce people's incentives to work.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Darmik posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

I already admitted that I haven't done the calculations myself, but economists seem to agree that a land value tax would be a viable replacement to all other taxes, so...

What does that actually mean though?

You can't just say 'land tax' and not bother to clarify. Who decides how much land tax is? Does everyone pay the same? Does the Government charge land tax by size or area? What if you live in an apartment? What if you rent? What if you live in a caravan?

Oh ok, now I get what you're asking. Since the government is just acting as a realtor selling property to people, it's competing with the bordering local governments to provide the best prices on land. So the amount that the government charges would be based on the laws of supply and demand. And it's a "tax" on the land that people own, so the only one who would be levied is the actual owner of the land (the landlord). People renting the land would be free of this tax because chances are, their landlord is already including their tax own burdens in the rent.

Antifar posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Intro2Logic posted...
People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties

Yes, unfortunately.

Why do you think this is unfortunate?

Because property taxes take away incentives to improve land. Also, keeping with the philosophy that only natural resources (things that no one made themselves) are commonly owned, what someone does with the land they rent is their own original work, and therefore belongs to them.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

wackyteen posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

The fruit of ones labor belongs to no one else but the individual.

Uh no

The fruits of labor should go to the collective for the betterment of the whole group

If you're a collectivist/socialist then that's certainly consistent with your philosophy. My problem with that is that there will always be moochers who take advantage of those who actually do the work.

wackyteen posted...

Also the fruits of your labor go to the company you work for

They just cut you a check so you'll keep coming and working for them.

That's what I'm referring to. Your employer pays based on your contributions to the company (i.e. the fruits that you contribute to the company).

wackyteen posted...

But for real it's not theft because you're a citizen of whatever country you live in

By virtue of that agreement, you agree to pay taxes out of your paycheck and when you buy stuff

That goes back to my point about how the government could theoretically give itself the right to kill its citizens (as has been done many times throughout history). It doesn't cease to be murder just because the government gave itself that right.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Darmik posted...

So you replace income tax with land tax. How much do you think land tax should be? How would that work?

I already admitted that I haven't done the calculations myself, but economists seem to agree that a land value tax would be a viable replacement to all other taxes, so...

Intro2Logic posted...

People decided that a tax on properties was preferable to a free-for-all on their properties

Yes, unfortunately.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

tote_all posted...

"Government spending would be lower if they only do this, this and this."

No, government spending would be lower if they spent less money on lots of things.

tote_all posted...

"And how is it stealing to tax people, but it's not stealing to "rent" them the land?"

It's not stealing to charge rent on the land, because nobody truly owns the land. Natural resources are commonly owned, hence the government can claim ownership over natural resources like land. Taxing someones income is theft because it's money that THEY earned from THEIR job. The fruit of ones labor belongs to no one else but the individual.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Balrog0 posted...

A land tax is not a rent, though.

It's "economic rent." The only reason it's called a "tax" is because the government happens to be the recipient. If we go by what's actually happening with a land value tax, it's just an entity who owns some space making it available to whomever is willing to pay. Essentially the government is just another realtor in that whole process.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

Theft implies that you get nothing in return.
Taxes keep the government running, ergo you get something in return.

I'll pretend that all of our tax money is being used in ways that help taxpayers.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

tote_all posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

so I don't think I need examples of actual numbers to make my point.

Too lazy to do easy work to mathematically prove your point?

I've lost interest.

Too lazy to read the articles I posted that prove my point?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

tote_all posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

If the government would simply charge rent on land, and cutback on the many public services that it provides then they'll have the revenue to pay government workers, implement emergency services, and public courts

Citation needed.

You want to convince us, you can, with actual numbers.

Edit: wouldn't you be making topics about what gives the government the right to charge rent on land if that was the case?

All they'd have to do is make sure the rent that they charge on the land is high enough to cover the costs of those things. And I think it goes without saying that the less the government does, the less revenue it will need, so I don't think I need examples of actual numbers to make my point. For what it's worth though, economists do consider this type of rent to be the perfect "tax"...

https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-value-tax
https://www.ft.com/content/392c33a6-211f-11e3-8aff-00144feab7de

Damn_Underscore posted...

Because it's the fee you pay to live in a first world country

I already pay rent to my landlord, who presumably includes her tax burden in my rent. I don't deserve to be double taxed!
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

DoomSwell posted...

Think of it as paying rent (utilities [roads, schools, etc] included) on government land (ie; the whole country)

I do. Problem is, the government charges people more based on their income, whether they own a business, what kind of capital gains they've had, etc.

Joelypoely posted...

That's obviously not the main takeaway from my point but sure I'll bite. Well, when we tacitly agree to be a member of a democratic society we grant the legislative branch of the government power to create new statutes etc. (but with checks on power of course). Part of this process involves siphoning out unethical practices (although I see why you might question the legitimacy of different parts of the government deciding which practices are ethical), hence we have public opinion as another check on power. Theoretically when the public opinion on something like a certain taxation policy becomes too severe riots etc. may occur, provoking the government to change the policy as it is no longer in their best interest. Attempting to frame taxation as ethical/unethical and therefore not worthwhile is too simplistic (keep in mind the is/ought distinction), we need to account for practicability too.

That's a fair point, I guess. You could say that it's not unethical if people agree to it, but there's always going to be people who don't vote for a certain policy.

CommunismFTW posted...

Because contribution to society shouldn't be relied on by good samaritans alone, or else the entire world would be dug into the stone age with facebook style thoughts and prayers. There needs to be a collection of money to contribute to society, as most people won't get up to vote let alone chip in to the coffers for a fix-the-road budget when there's new toys to buy. People say that taxation is a representation of greed; I view it as humanity's subtle realization that if left to our own devices, we'd treat ourselves dry.

The only thing that will cause what you're describing is a system where everyone is entitled to things and therefore has no incentive to work.

the_rowan posted...

It's not theft because it's payment for services rendered. Like, this should be obvious? I mean, you are argue about specific details like whether the cost of the things taxes are used for are inflated, but unless you're going to say you literally don't need roads (both the roads themselves and services like plowing), police, public education, or national defense altogether, and you also don't believe that you benefit from other people having access to any of these and other government-funded benefits while living in the same society as you, then you're just whining.

See my earlier post about the government charging rent solely on the land that people own. Technically, this would still be called a "tax" but it's the one kind of "tax" that doesn't involve any kind of theft, since nobody truly owns the land that we live on. Also, there's a case to be made for privatized roads, as well as completely private education.

PhilKenSebben posted...

I feel like you're not quite getting my point. Which is, if there weren't taxes you would probably still be spending this money on the same things.

Okay, but my only thing is...people can pay for those things voluntarily based on how much they actually use them. Redistributing wealth is literally just taking from one person to give to another.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

PhilKenSebben posted...

In the case of a democratic republic like the U.S. It's okay for the government to collect taxes because they use the money to, among other things; build and repair infrastructure, pay the salary of government workers ( including but not limited to the military, forest service, the president, etc ), and fund public schools. Not to mention the institution and enforcement of law and the people's representation in their own governance. This doesn't mean that all governments carry these out perfectly, but that's the basic idea of it.

What someone does with stolen money doesn't make it not stolen though. If the government would simply charge rent on land, and cutback on the many public services that it provides then they'll have the revenue to pay government workers, implement emergency services, and public courts (which is what I think the government's role should be limited to).

Joelypoely posted...

No matter how 'hard you've worked for it' nothing inherently 'belongs' to anyone, money is a human illusion to keep us civil (among other things). Thus when when we as a collective (or at least the majority of us or the government representing the commonweal) decide that we should implement a taxation system to do the things PhilKenSebben is talking about, and to have it hierarchical so as to indirectly reduce the wealth disparity, the government is not 'stealing' from anyone; they are simply redistributing our collective wealth.

So in other words, if the government gives itself the right to do something, it no longer becomes unethical?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Taking money that someone else earned from their own labor is considered theft if anyone other than the government does it. Why is it okay when the government does it? Because the government said they could? You know, there was at least one government that gave itself permission to kill over 6 million of its own people. I guess it wasn't mass murder simply because the government gave itself that right, huh? Just because the government gives itself the right to take someone's money doesn't magically make it morally permissible.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

ledbowman posted...

Remember how these tax cuts for middle class expire in a year but corporate ones don't?

Yes, but this isn't about the GOP tax bill that recently passed. Just taxes in general.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

MrOnionHead posted...

If everybody is paid a fair wage, everybody can afford to pay taxes.

People don't need a "fair wage" if the government doesn't take money out of their check.

MrOnionHead posted...

When money from taxation is spent appropriately, the poor are the ones who benefit.

True. It's better than investing in the military or on tax cuts for the rich, but the poor could benefit from not having to pay taxes.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

In his daydream about shooting the burglars, the burglars were ALREADY running away at the sight of his BB gun, but he shot them anyway. Good luck pleading self-defense with that one, you sick fuck!!!!!
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

MrOnionHead posted...

So you think that living in a society with no taxation whatsoever is viable in the long term?

There's some people who can actually afford to pay taxes you know. And the government wouldn't need to collect so much tax money if they wouldn't pull so much money out of thin air.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

MrOnionHead posted...

You think it's wrong that people want to be paid a fair wage and that they also want to be a functioning member of society?

Imagine believing that the government needs YOUR money.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

"I'll gladly let the government take money out of my paycheck, so long as the government makes my employer carry the burden of paying me more."
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

P4wn4g3 posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Okay guys...for the sake of this topic "right" could maybe be used interchangeably with "entitlement." If you think that anybody should be entitled to medical services upon request then you're basically saying that if someone invents something new, another person can insist that they're entitled to that person's original invention.

Nobody is entitled to anything.

So you don't believe in Single-payer then?

Did I say that? I don't think I did.

You said that nobody is entitled to anything...
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

P4wn4g3 posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

Okay guys...for the sake of this topic "right" could maybe be used interchangeably with "entitlement." If you think that anybody should be entitled to medical services upon request then you're basically saying that if someone invents something new, another person can insist that they're entitled to that person's original invention.

Nobody is entitled to anything.

So you don't believe in Single-payer then?
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Okay guys...for the sake of this topic "right" could maybe be used interchangeably with "entitlement." If you think that anybody should be entitled to medical services upon request then you're basically saying that if someone invents something new, another person can insist that they're entitled to that person's original invention.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

CableZL posted...

Mike_Stanton posted...

A right refers to an action that an individual is free to take. Healthcare is a product/service provided by ANOTHER human being. People have a right to pursue healthcare (and ideally it should be affordable), but that doesn't mean they can demand that they benefit from someone else's skills for free.

The notion that it would be "free" is misleading. It most likely would be paid for through increased taxes.

I'm aware, plus the opportunity cost of longer waiting times. But then the government is still seizing ownership over the all the innovations made in the medical field, and still not allowing a person's contributions to be highly profitable. While it may seem shallow to talk about the profitability of medicine, money is still THE thing that motivates people to create innovations in the first place.

dave_is_slick posted...

r4X0r posted...

Health care can't possibly be a "right" because you cannot have a right to somebody else's labor unless you have slavery.

So much for firefighters!

Those are emergency services, which the medical profession already provides by law as well. Doesn't explain why every new medical breakthrough suddenly becomes an entitlement to all.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

MrNintendo1213 posted...

By that logic nothing is a right. The only thing you have a right to is to try to get as much stuff from others as you can so you don't die.

A right refers to an action that an individual is free to take. Healthcare is a product/service provided by ANOTHER human being. People have a right to pursue healthcare (and ideally it should be affordable), but that doesn't mean they can demand that they benefit from someone else's skills for free.

green butter posted...

Although clean water may be more of a necessity than other products that can be sold, it's still a manmade invention that is the original work of someone else. Also like other kinds of products, clean water is a novelty, meaning no one prior to its creation was pre-disposed to having access to drinkable and disease-free water. More importantly, new & more efficient methods of water treatment are something that only exists because a limited group of people got together and took the initiative to discover which chemicals can do what. Explain to me how someone can create an original product, only for another person to claim it as a right that must be given to them.

Luckily, clean water IS sold for profit, and no one is free to demand it from someone else.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Although medicine may be more of a necessity than other products that can be sold, it's still a manmade invention that is the original work of someone else. Also like other kinds of products, medicine is a novelty, meaning no one prior to its creation was pre-disposed to having access to every new development that extends someone's life beyond its natural capacity. More importantly, a new medication is something that only exists because a limited group of people got together and took the initiative to discover which chemicals can do what. Explain to me how someone can create an original product, only for another person to claim it as a right that must be given to them.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Just like how in socialism progress isn't good unless everyone benefits from it.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

I (Butters) admire Mal_Feasant's dedication to his trolling.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Thurman Munson
Corey Lidle
Roy Halladay
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

JoeyBowey posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

It's the same question he's addressing. "Why have a law if people will break it anyway?" is not an argument, it's a way to avoid a discussion.

That's not what it does at all.

It raises a legitimate question: Why hurt the rights of responsible individuals if these controls aren't shown to be effective?

So are you saying that laws against rape and murder are ineffective as well? As in do you think that legalizing murder would have no effect on the murder rate? Or how about this argument?

1) Having laws against murder doesn't prevent murder from happening
2) Sometimes laws against murder result in innocent people being wrongfully punished for crimes they didn't commit
3) Therefore, laws against murder only harm innocent people without deterring actual murderers

So yeah...according to you, the entire justice system doesn't deter crime but only hurts law abiding citizens.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

If somebody already has a gun let them keep it. But limit the further sale of firearms to things like hunting, etc.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

He was a worthy AL East opponent for the Yanks when he played for the Blue Jays. RIP one of the all time greats of my lifetime srs
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

I (Butters) was going to answer the question in the topic title, but I seem to have shut down.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

So it's a cat in a dog costume? i dun get it
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Harpie posted...

Are you arguing against a vagina??

I'm arguing for a cleavage that doesn't spread your tits out real wide.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Harpie posted...

butt y

cuz it doesn't go there
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

I wouldn't want anything to do with a woman that has a pussy where her cleavage should be.
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong

Including this one. Yet it's the only one worth posting in. Come on, CE...
---

RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009
Prove me wrong