(05-26-2018, 07:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(05-26-2018, 04:11 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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?

---

(05-26-2018, 08:00 PM)copycat Wrote:

(05-26-2018, 09:35 AM)mikesez Wrote: 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.

---