Sure your definitions are now at least internally consistent, and here you've explicitly stated that some restriction on freedom is necessary. So why did you come at me with "that restricts Freedom" as a line of attack against my ideas?

---

You could really do without the armchair psychology. 
You have no idea how I choose to defend myself or how often I have fear.
When I consider these questions about how society should work, I really try to consider people other than myself. Society will always have physically weaker individuals who rely on others for protection. 
However we answer these questions about how to provide that necessary protection, there are questions about taking care of others, and how we take care of ourselves and our families is irrelevant to answering it.

Because, again, your "no government equals no freedom" is a false statement. Basing your greater ideas on that faulty premise leads to wrong conclusions.  I'm glad that you're beginning to understand where you're mistaken, I'll try to help you along this path of learning.

As far as your next response to TP, the questions about caring for others depend on you telling me how much I'm obligated to care for other people. You take my taxes to provide for weaker people whether I want to or not. Really sounds like you're ok with restricting my freedom to use my earned money as I choose to so that you can use my money how you choose, do you agree?

Both of our statements are correct within each of our definitions of freedom. If you judge my statement on your definition of freedom it is incorrect. If I read your statement based on my definition of freedom your statement is also incorrect.
I don't take your taxes you can you should stop making this personal. Even if I was the president of the United States I would not be the one taking your taxes. Even if I was the County Tax Collector, I might be taking that money, but I would have no control over how it got spent. The taxes go to an abstract entity called the government that we all get to vote for.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Because, again, your "no government equals no freedom" is a false statement. Basing your greater ideas on that faulty premise leads to wrong conclusions.  I'm glad that you're beginning to understand where you're mistaken, I'll try to help you along this path of learning.

As far as your next response to TP, the questions about caring for others depend on you telling me how much I'm obligated to care for other people. You take my taxes to provide for weaker people whether I want to or not. Really sounds like you're ok with restricting my freedom to use my earned money as I choose to so that you can use my money how you choose, do you agree?

Both of our statements are correct within each of our definitions of freedom. If you judge my statement on your definition of freedom it is incorrect. If I read your statement based on my definition of freedom your statement is also incorrect.
I don't take your taxes you can you should stop making this personal. Even if I was the president of the United States I would not be the one taking your taxes. Even if I was the County Tax Collector, I might be taking that money, but I would have no control over how it got spent. The taxes go to an abstract entity called the government that we all get to vote for.

And we were doing so well then you have a regression. No, it's not relative, you don't get to use "your" definition of the word to make your position work. And taxes are extremely personal, they are the confiscation of the personal labor you expend to create wealth; ie parts of your life that other people feel entitled to take for their own use.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Funny that no government in history has ever been effective enough to do what you say is absolutely necessary.  Maybe you are really an anarchist.

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

Nah, he's a despot who says you're free do what he says you may do.

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

Jeez!  Stop already.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle and you appear to be reply in nothing but absolutes.  At some point common sense comes in to play.  Please act accordingly and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Both of our statements are correct within each of our definitions of freedom. If you judge my statement on your definition of freedom it is incorrect. If I read your statement based on my definition of freedom your statement is also incorrect.
I don't take your taxes you can you should stop making this personal. Even if I was the president of the United States I would not be the one taking your taxes. Even if I was the County Tax Collector, I might be taking that money, but I would have no control over how it got spent. The taxes go to an abstract entity called the government that we all get to vote for.

And we were doing so well then you have a regression. No, it's not relative, you don't get to use "your" definition of the word to make your position work. And taxes are extremely personal, they are the confiscation of the personal labor you expend to create wealth; ie parts of your life that other people feel entitled to take for their own use.

Being clear on definitions is not moral relativism. It's just logic. Cold, amoral logic.
Moral relativism is when people dither and hedge on what is good or right, not on what words mean. Moral relativism is when someone says that revenge rape is not okay and their country but might be okay in other countries or societies. I'm not a moral relativist.
Let me try to restate your position for you.
A tax on heads of cattle would be bad because it reduces "freedom".
However "Freedom" does indeed include the ability to do Very Bad Things so it does need to be reduced in some ways by a government.
But this government can not be funded with taxes.  A tax on heads of cattle would be a "confiscation of personal labor." Presumably anyaother tax would be as well.  So whatever work anyone does for government, they have to do out of the goodness of their hearts, or it has to be funded by people voluntarily giving money, which of course wouldn't become corrupt at all.
Am I missing anything?

---

The necessity of the government is absolute.
The prevention it offers is real and significant but admittedly not absolute.
If we had no government, individuals would hurt each other with impunity and regularity.
Because we have an Effective Government this happens much more rarely and is punished when it happens.

---

What do you think Freedom means? Should you and I be free to murder and rape and Rob others if we want to?

Jeez!  Stop already.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle and you appear to be reply in nothing but absolutes.  At some point common sense comes in to play.  Please act accordingly and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

No one's making you read this, sugar plum.
I know the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think the people that I'm debating with know this. I am trying to tease out their views to expose their absurdity and extreme nature.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And we were doing so well then you have a regression. No, it's not relative, you don't get to use "your" definition of the word to make your position work. And taxes are extremely personal, they are the confiscation of the personal labor you expend to create wealth; ie parts of your life that other people feel entitled to take for their own use.

Being clear on definitions is not moral relativism. It's just logic. Cold, amoral logic.
Moral relativism is when people dither and hedge on what is good or right, not on what words mean. Moral relativism is when someone says that revenge rape is not okay and their country but might be okay in other countries or societies. I'm not a moral relativist.
Let me try to restate your position for you.
A tax on heads of cattle would be bad because it reduces "freedom".
However "Freedom" does indeed include the ability to do Very Bad Things so it does need to be reduced in some ways by a government.
But this government can not be funded with taxes.  A tax on heads of cattle would be a "confiscation of personal labor." Presumably anyaother tax would be as well.  So whatever work anyone does for government, they have to do out of the goodness of their hearts, or it has to be funded by people voluntarily giving money, which of course wouldn't become corrupt at all.
Am I missing anything?

---

Jeez!  Stop already.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle and you appear to be reply in nothing but absolutes.  At some point common sense comes in to play.  Please act accordingly and stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

No one's making you read this, sugar plum.
I know the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think the people that I'm debating with know this. I am trying to tease out their views to expose their absurdity and extreme nature.

Sugar plum?  LMAO.  

If you know the truth is in the middle you are failing to expose any ones absurdity and extreme view but your own.  I mean come on, instead of debating an issue you want to bait people.  For what reason?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Being clear on definitions is not moral relativism. It's just logic. Cold, amoral logic.
Moral relativism is when people dither and hedge on what is good or right, not on what words mean. Moral relativism is when someone says that revenge rape is not okay and their country but might be okay in other countries or societies. I'm not a moral relativist.
Let me try to restate your position for you.
A tax on heads of cattle would be bad because it reduces "freedom".
However "Freedom" does indeed include the ability to do Very Bad Things so it does need to be reduced in some ways by a government.
But this government can not be funded with taxes.  A tax on heads of cattle would be a "confiscation of personal labor." Presumably anyaother tax would be as well.  So whatever work anyone does for government, they have to do out of the goodness of their hearts, or it has to be funded by people voluntarily giving money, which of course wouldn't become corrupt at all.
Am I missing anything?

---

No one's making you read this, sugar plum.
I know the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't think the people that I'm debating with know this. I am trying to tease out their views to expose their absurdity and extreme nature.

Sugar plum?  LMAO.  

If you know the truth is in the middle you are failing to expose any ones absurdity and extreme view but your own.  I mean come on, instead of debating an issue you want to bait people.  For what reason?

What extreme view do you think I have? I think some government is necessary but there is such a thing as too much. I think some taxes are necessary but again there such a thing as too much.  These are the middle views.  
Meanwhile, Byronlefttown seems to be saying that the only good government is no government, and FLSportsGod seems to be saying that no taxes are ever justifiable, on cows or otherwise.  I'm trying to get them to admit that's some taxes and some government are good. I'm even trying to leave open the possibility that I misunderstood them. But when FLSportsGod considered that possibility, rather than be congenial, he saw it as an opportunity to lecture me about not being a relativist. Help me here.  What have I said that's actually wrong?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Sugar plum?  LMAO.  

If you know the truth is in the middle you are failing to expose any ones absurdity and extreme view but your own.  I mean come on, instead of debating an issue you want to bait people.  For what reason?

What extreme view do you think I have? I think some government is necessary but there is such a thing as too much. I think some taxes are necessary but again there such a thing as too much.  These are the middle views.  
Meanwhile, Byronlefttown seems to be saying that the only good government is no government, and FLSportsGod seems to be saying that no taxes are ever justifiable, on cows or otherwise.  I'm trying to get them to admit that's some taxes and some government are good. I'm even trying to leave open the possibility that I misunderstood them. But when FLSportsGod considered that possibility, rather than be congenial, he saw it as an opportunity to lecture me about not being a relativist. Help me here.  What have I said that's actually wrong?

"No taxes = no government = no freedom", so wrong you have to change the definition of the word to justify your entrenchment.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

What extreme view do you think I have? I think some government is necessary but there is such a thing as too much. I think some taxes are necessary but again there such a thing as too much.  These are the middle views.  
Meanwhile, Byronlefttown seems to be saying that the only good government is no government, and FLSportsGod seems to be saying that no taxes are ever justifiable, on cows or otherwise.  I'm trying to get them to admit that's some taxes and some government are good. I'm even trying to leave open the possibility that I misunderstood them. But when FLSportsGod considered that possibility, rather than be congenial, he saw it as an opportunity to lecture me about not being a relativist. Help me here.  What have I said that's actually wrong?

"No taxes = no government = no freedom", so wrong you have to change the definition of the word to justify your entrenchm

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope John Paul II

"I seek to conserve the principle at the core of the American project: freedom. It is the freedom to live a virtuous and meaningful life supported by family, community, faith, and the dignity of work." -Marco Rubio

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"No taxes = no government = no freedom", so wrong you have to change the definition of the word to justify your entrenchm

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope John Paul II

"I seek to conserve the principle at the core of the American project: freedom. It is the freedom to live a virtuous and meaningful life supported by family, community, faith, and the dignity of work." -Marco Rubio

A pope and a politician???

No wonder you're so confused.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Minimal government is the ideal. If you have too much, people start believing government should do things for them or give things to them. They start using government as a club against others. Then it just devolves into a battle to see who holds the club.

---

Minimal government is the ideal.  If you have too much, people start believing government should do things for them or give things to them.  They start using government as a club against others.  Then it just devolves into a battle to see who holds the club.

Yep, necessary evil that we must remain vigilant to restrain.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Minimal government is the ideal.  If you have too much, people start believing government should do things for them or give things to them.  They start using government as a club against others.  Then it just devolves into a battle to see who holds the club.

Now there is, at least, a view that is internally consistent. I suppose that prosecuting rapists and murderers is one of the very "minimum" functions of government, right? I mean I already asked you this once you gave me a lecture about protecting my own family rather than answering my question.
Obviously this minimum amount of government would need a minimum amount of funding. Why would a tax on head of cattle be any worse than any other tax, assuming that the total of all taxes was minimal as you seem to want?

---

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope John Paul II

"I seek to conserve the principle at the core of the American project: freedom. It is the freedom to live a virtuous and meaningful life supported by family, community, faith, and the dignity of work." -Marco Rubio

A pope and a politician???

No wonder you're so confused.

Just as long as you recognize that I didn't make up my ideas out of thin air and that your disagreement is with people who are smarter and much more influential than both of us.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Minimal government is the ideal.  If you have too much, people start believing government should do things for them or give things to them.  They start using government as a club against others.  Then it just devolves into a battle to see who holds the club.

Now there is, at least, a view that is internally consistent. I suppose that prosecuting rapists and murderers is one of the very "minimum" functions of government, right? I mean I already asked you this once you gave me a lecture about protecting my own family rather than answering my question.
Obviously this minimum amount of government would need a minimum amount of funding. Why would a tax on head of cattle be any worse than any other tax, assuming that the total of all taxes was minimal as you seem to want?

---

A pope and a politician???

No wonder you're so confused.

Just as long as you recognize that I didn't make up my ideas out of thin air and that your disagreement is with people who are smarter and much more influential than both of us.

Just so we're clear, you're going to stack Strawman, Red Herring, and Appeal to Authority on your portfolio of logical fallacies. Anymore you want to add? Oh, I forgot about Sugar Plum, so we can add good old Ad Hominem as well,. You are a superstar here!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Minimal government is the ideal.  If you have too much, people start believing government should do things for them or give things to them.  They start using government as a club against others.  Then it just devolves into a battle to see who holds the club.

Now there is, at least, a view that is internally consistent. I suppose that prosecuting rapists and murderers is one of the very "minimum" functions of government, right? I mean I already asked you this once you gave me a lecture about protecting my own family rather than answering my question.
Obviously this minimum amount of government would need a minimum amount of funding. Why would a tax on head of cattle be any worse than any other tax, assuming that the total of all taxes was minimal as you seem to want?

Because it's a case of the government picking and choosing who to tax. This is what breeds cronyism, where people pay politicians to favor their businesses at the expense of others. And by taxing just one item (or some items) in a spectrum of choices there's also a hit on the freedom to choose which item to purchase. If you are taxing food in general these would not be a problem. There would be another problem because any tax on food would hit the working poor the hardest, but that's a different matter.

Government does need to exist in spite of the loss of freedom it creates, but the current government has gone far beyond what's needed. Here's how you decide what power the government should have. Pass a law only if you think it's reasonable to enforce it by holding a gun to someone's head.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Now there is, at least, a view that is internally consistent. I suppose that prosecuting rapists and murderers is one of the very "minimum" functions of government, right? I mean I already asked you this once you gave me a lecture about protecting my own family rather than answering my question.
Obviously this minimum amount of government would need a minimum amount of funding. Why would a tax on head of cattle be any worse than any other tax, assuming that the total of all taxes was minimal as you seem to want?

---

Just as long as you recognize that I didn't make up my ideas out of thin air and that your disagreement is with people who are smarter and much more influential than both of us.

Just so we're clear, you're going to stack Strawman, Red Herring, and Appeal to Authority on your portfolio of logical fallacies. Anymore you want to add? Oh, I forgot about Sugar Plum, so we can add good old Ad Hominem as well,. You are a superstar here!

Any time B re-states A's argument, B is vulnerable to a charge of strawman from A.  A simply has to stay engaged and explain why the re-statement to is too different from his original argument. Eventually, you did so regarding if government is needed, but you still have not done so regarding the goodness of some taxes.

A charge of red herring is probably the most subjective of the fallacies, whether idea X is related to Y will be in the eye of the beholder. 

In both cases, the things I said that you are calling a strawman and a red herring were part of my argumentum ad absurdum, which is a valid, non-fallcious tactic.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the one appealed to is not a sufficient authority on the subject.  The definition of words is, like grammar and spelling, not really a matter of absolutes but of social consensus. So really almost anybody can be a sufficient authority on the definition of a word, and words can have multiple meanings for this reason.  This is why dictionaries often list multiple meanings, and cite passages in old literature (authorities) to show the word being used that way.

Name-calling is not as hominem.  It is abusive, and bad, but ad hominem is more specific.  "You're a softie" is not ad hominem.  When Byronlefttown and others said I was fearful and inadequate as a protector, and called me a "beta" that was also name-calling, but wasn't ad hominem. If they had said explicitly, "You're a softie, and that's why you're wrong" that would be ad hominem.  I didn't say that copycat was wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

When Byronlefttown and others said I was fearful and inadequate as a protector, and called me a "beta" that was also name-calling, but wasn't ad hominem. If they had said explicitly, "You're a softie, and that's why you're wrong" that would be ad hominem.  I didn't say that copycat was wrong.

I did no such thing. You are the one who advanced the idea that your family was robbed and murdered, then suggested the government's role is to investigate and punish the miscreants. Where does your responsibility come into play? Dialing the phone to report the crime? Your family is still dead, and your focus is on asking somebody else to avenge you. Zero effort was spent on preventing the tragedy in the first place.

---

When Byronlefttown and others said I was fearful and inadequate as a protector, and called me a "beta" that was also name-calling, but wasn't ad hominem. If they had said explicitly, "You're a softie, and that's why you're wrong" that would be ad hominem.  I didn't say that copycat was wrong.

I did no such thing.  You are the one who advanced the idea that your family was robbed and murdered, then suggested the government's role is to investigate and punish the miscreants.  Where does your responsibility come into play?  Dialing the phone to report the crime?  Your family is still dead, and your focus is on asking somebody else to avenge you.  Zero effort was spent on preventing the tragedy in the first place.

Right I introduced a hypothetical scenario where someone's family was robbed and murdered. I did not mention if this family had done anything to prevent that outcome. The scenario focused on what to do next. You are jumping and and assuming that nothing was done to prevent the outcome. You are adding to the scenario things that I did not say. So let's be more explicit and say that the family had taken many precautions to prevent the tragedy. They had guns and other weapons in the house. They kept their doors locked and they kept their exterior well-lit and they had some sort of alarm system. None-the-less the bad guys broke their windows while they were sleeping. 
So do we need some sort of government to figure out who did it and punish them or is it just up to the surviving relatives of these victims to find the perpetrators on their own and exact revenge without having to prove to any third party that they were the guilty ones?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I did no such thing.  You are the one who advanced the idea that your family was robbed and murdered, then suggested the government's role is to investigate and punish the miscreants.  Where does your responsibility come into play?  Dialing the phone to report the crime?  Your family is still dead, and your focus is on asking somebody else to avenge you.  Zero effort was spent on preventing the tragedy in the first place.

Right I introduced a hypothetical scenario where someone's family was robbed and murdered. I did not mention if this family had done anything to prevent that outcome. The scenario focused on what to do next. You are jumping and and assuming that nothing was done to prevent the outcome. You are adding to the scenario things that I did not say. So let's be more explicit and say that the family had taken many precautions to prevent the tragedy. They had guns and other weapons in the house. They kept their doors locked and they kept their exterior well-lit and they had some sort of alarm system. None-the-less the bad guys broke their windows while they were sleeping. 
So do we need some sort of government to figure out who did it and punish them or is it just up to the surviving relatives of these victims to find the perpetrators on their own and exact revenge without having to prove to any third party that they were the guilty ones?

See Paul Harrell's excellent video on the best handgun to use when shooting from under a blanket. Maybe that would have exacted revenge at the ideal time and place which is during the commission of the crime, by the victim of the crime. Any other form of justice is sub-optimal, whether performed by government or motivated relatives. Prevention is always better than trying to find the least horrible way to deal with the aftermath.

So the answer to your question is - who cares? They're still dead.

---

Right I introduced a hypothetical scenario where someone's family was robbed and murdered. I did not mention if this family had done anything to prevent that outcome. The scenario focused on what to do next. You are jumping and and assuming that nothing was done to prevent the outcome. You are adding to the scenario things that I did not say. So let's be more explicit and say that the family had taken many precautions to prevent the tragedy. They had guns and other weapons in the house. They kept their doors locked and they kept their exterior well-lit and they had some sort of alarm system. None-the-less the bad guys broke their windows while they were sleeping. 
So do we need some sort of government to figure out who did it and punish them or is it just up to the surviving relatives of these victims to find the perpetrators on their own and exact revenge without having to prove to any third party that they were the guilty ones?

See Paul Harrell's excellent video on the best handgun to use when shooting from under a blanket.  Maybe that would have exacted revenge at the ideal time and place which is during the commission of the crime, by the victim of the crime.  Any other form of justice is sub-optimal, whether performed by government or motivated relatives.  Prevention is always better than trying to find the least horrible way to deal with the aftermath.

So the answer to your question is - who cares?  They're still dead.

Who cares? Neighbors who want the murders dealt with so they don't have to cuddle up with a loaded handgun every night.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Individuals have basic inalienable rights. They are free to pursue those rights as they see fit. The state was created to manage the interactions when those rights potentially conflict to protect the rights of the citizens. For instance, my right to the pursuit of happiness doesn't Trump a Woman's right to sovereignty over her own body or my neighbors right to private property.

Under a constitutional system of government, The state doesn't inherently have rights, it has limited enumerated subordinate to the collective will of the people. The government has the enumerated authority to protect the life liberty and property of its citizens. You show me where it has the enumerated power to arbitrarily tax my food choices.

---