(05-26-2018, 09:15 PM)copycat Wrote:

(05-26-2018, 08:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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?

---