Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:All I know is that we kicked King George's ass clear across the ocean.

There is a real corrupted view of history, but I forget the winners write the history books to suit themselves.

Not to mention, King George was never in the Americas, personally.

Bob, are you aware that George Washington, amongst a number of presidents, are descended, as King George was, from the earlier Plantagenet kings of England? You've just traded one branch for another.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:A prospective silencer buyer must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200.[/quote}
Expanding upon former Chief Justice John Marshall, the power to tax is the power to destroy, cripple, hurt, dissuade and otherwise interfere with free choice.

NO. It is NOT ONLY "the power to destroy, cripple, hurt, dissuade and otherwise interfere with free choice." Taxes also bring us many benefits as a society. Of course there are drawbacks to taxation and we must constantly fight to prevent abuse. But having no tax at all to fund communal projects would probably be even worse. Hence the reason taxation came into being at all.

Gary, I hate to keep repeating what I have said over and over again. Taxation is absolutely essential to the proper operation of a society. However, discriminatory taxation is evil since it does have the power to destroy, cripple, hurt, dissuade and otherwise interfere with free choice. That's why a high tax on liquor and cigarettes is wrong compared to a low tax or no tax at all on milk. And that is why the AEP program of the same tax on everything, with no exceptions or deductions, based on inherent market value is the only way to fly in a free society!

bobevenson wrote:Gary, I hate to keep repeating what I have said over and over again. ...

Of course you do, that's why you've been doing it for the last 7 odd years here and for a few decades elsewhere from the looks of it .

... And that is why the AEP program of the same tax on everything, with no exceptions or deductions, based on inherent market value is the only way to fly in a free society!

But with your other proposals the only flying will be into a hyper-inflated ground?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Gary, I hate to keep repeating what I have said over and over again. ...

Of course you do, that's why you've been doing it for the last 7 odd years here and for a few decades elsewhere from the looks of it .

... And that is why the AEP program of the same tax on everything, with no exceptions or deductions, based on inherent market value is the only way to fly in a free society!

But with your other proposals the only flying will be into a hyper-inflated ground?

Please explain your abject stupidity in correlating taxes with inflation.

Arising_uk wrote:But with your other proposals the only flying will be into a hyper-inflated ground?

bobevenson wrote:Please explain your abject stupidity in correlating taxes with inflation.

I know you have the memory of a goldfish boob, so refresh yourself.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18929

Arising_uk wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:But with your other proposals the only flying will be into a hyper-inflated ground?

bobevenson wrote:Please explain your abject stupidity in correlating taxes with inflation.

I know you have the memory of a goldfish boob, so refresh yourself.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18929

Correction. Bob has the memory of a goldfish cracker.

bobevenson wrote:Gary, I hate to keep repeating what I have said over and over again. Taxation is absolutely essential to the proper operation of a society. However, discriminatory taxation is evil since it does have the power to destroy, cripple, hurt, dissuade and otherwise interfere with free choice. That's why a high tax on liquor and cigarettes is wrong compared to a low tax or no tax at all on milk. And that is why the AEP program of the same tax on everything, with no exceptions or deductions, based on inherent market value is the only way to fly in a free society!

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bob. I haven't been following all your threads or posts.

I don't see how ALL discriminatory taxation is necessarily "evil". Sometimes taxation is used to dissuade people from making otherwise bad decisions and/or to offset additional social costs associated with particular choices. For example additional tax on cigarettes can both dissuade people from making the poor choice to smoke and also can be used to offset additional costs on community health care resources created by those that choose to smoke. The additional tax can be used toward social programs to help people curb smoking. Neither of those seem to me to involve any sort of nefarious intent on the part of government. If a government placed an additional tax on healthy foods and behaviors, then I might say there was something nefarious in it.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Gary, I hate to keep repeating what I have said over and over again. Taxation is absolutely essential to the proper operation of a society. However, discriminatory taxation is evil since it does have the power to destroy, cripple, hurt, dissuade and otherwise interfere with free choice. That's why a high tax on liquor and cigarettes is wrong compared to a low tax or no tax at all on milk. And that is why the AEP program of the same tax on everything, with no exceptions or deductions, based on inherent market value is the only way to fly in a free society!

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bob. I haven't been following all your threads or posts.

I don't see how ALL discriminatory taxation is necessarily "evil". Sometimes taxation is used to dissuade people from making otherwise bad decisions and/or to offset additional social costs associated with particular choices. For example additional tax on cigarettes can both dissuade people from making the poor choice to smoke and also can be used to offset additional costs on community health care resources created by those that choose to smoke. The additional tax can be used toward social programs to help people curb smoking. Neither of those seem to me to involve any sort of nefarious intent on the part of government. If a government placed an additional tax on healthy foods and behaviors, then I might say there was something nefarious in it.

I'm sorry, but it is improper for the government to even suggest how people should run their lives. The average person wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer!

bobevenson wrote:... The average person wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer![/size][/b]

What would you know about the 'average' person? As when would you ever get to meet such a beast.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bob. I haven't been following all your threads or posts.

I don't see how ALL discriminatory taxation is necessarily "evil". Sometimes taxation is used to dissuade people from making otherwise bad decisions and/or to offset additional social costs associated with particular choices. For example additional tax on cigarettes can both dissuade people from making the poor choice to smoke and also can be used to offset additional costs on community health care resources created by those that choose to smoke. The additional tax can be used toward social programs to help people curb smoking. Neither of those seem to me to involve any sort of nefarious intent on the part of government. If a government placed an additional tax on healthy foods and behaviors, then I might say there was something nefarious in it.

I'm sorry, but it is improper for the government to even suggest how people should run their lives. The average person wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer!

No need to be sorry, Bob. When the government gives the wrong answer we can all work through democratic means to make sure it gives the right answer. In the meantime, like I say, I don't see anything inherently "evil" in trying to dissuade people from smoking.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... The average person wouldn't ask the government for the time of day for fear of getting the wrong answer!

What would you know about the 'average' person?

Well, I do know that an English professor at Writer's Digest referred to "The Ouzo Prophecy" by saying, "I read your paper, reread it, and then read it again. The average person wouldn't know what you're talking about, what the point is, what you're trying to say." He then compared the paper to a letter that Gustave Flaubert, the author of Madame Bovary, wrote to Louise Colet on January 16, 1852, "What seems to me ideal, that which I would like to achieve, is a book about nothing, a book having no ties to that which lies outside it, but which holds itself together through the internal force of its style, like the Earth floating in space of its own accord, a book almost entirely without a subject, or at least the subject of which would be nearly invisible, if that were possible. The most beautiful works are those that make use of the least material. It is for this reason that there are neither worthy subjects nor unworthy ones, and one might establish, as a kind of axiom—seeing the matter from the point of view of pure Art—that there is in fact no subject, style being in itself the absolute manner of seeing things." He believed I may have virtually achieved Flaubert's dream by saying, "Your paper is something, but it's only something, and I reluctantly confess, I'm not at all certain what that something is."

*Yawn* Once more with your yadda, yadda about your long dead past.

But thank you for confirming that I'm right and that you have no idea about the 'average' person as you'd have to leave your house or even get a job to meet such a beast and as such your statement about government and the 'average' person is just your usual bullshit.

bobevenson wrote:Too bad you're incapable of offering a philosophical response of any kind.

LMFAO! This from you!!

Since you weren't paying attention as usual, just talking to the voices in your head, you didn't notice that your response showed quite clearly that you have no idea about the 'average' person and as such were just talking bollocks as usual. I really wish they'd follow all the other forums and ban you for the troll you are.

bobevenson wrote:Answer: Because the government encourages and supports noise pollution.

Question: Why does Bob keep coming up with stupid questions?

Answer: Because Bob is an idiot.