Health Policy of the American Energy Party (AEP)

[bobevenson]

There is nothing wrong with companies spending as much as they want on lobbying, promoting their argument to legislators who can help them. What is improper is companies making contributions of any size to political parties or candidates. These expenditures do not have a direct effect on corporate profitablility and represent money stolen from the shareholders.

Perfect timing.

This is a good example of personhood in action under the Constitution.

Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.

I guess I don't understand what the hell you're talking about. Please explain whatever point you're trying to make.

[Ginkgo]

There is nothing wrong with companies spending as much as they want on lobbying, promoting their argument to legislators who can help them. What is improper is companies making contributions of any size to political parties or candidates. These expenditures do not have a direct effect on corporate profitablility and represent money stolen from the shareholders.

Perfect timing.

This is a good example of personhood in action under the Constitution.

Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.

I guess it started when I pointed out how legal and moral arguments can differ. Governments are artificial people in law. Just as corporations are also artificial people in law. Rights retained, or not retained by such entities is set out in various decisions handed down by SCOTUS.

What can be regarded as "stealing" can be subject to different legal standards depending on the entity involved.

[bobevenson]

There is nothing wrong with companies spending as much as they want on lobbying, promoting their argument to legislators who can help them. What is improper is companies making contributions of any size to political parties or candidates. These expenditures do not have a direct effect on corporate profitablility and represent money stolen from the shareholders.

Perfect timing.

This is a good example of personhood in action under the Constitution.

Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.

I guess it started when I pointed out how legal and moral arguments can differ. Governments are artificial people in law. Just as corporations are also artificial people in law. Rights retained, or not retained by such entities is set out in various decisions handed down by SCOTUS.

What can be regarded as "stealing" can be subject to different legal standards depending on the entity involved.

I don't care what the Supreme Court says, stealing is stealing, and camouflaging or obfuscation does not alter that fact.

[Ginkgo]

I don't care what the Supreme Court says, stealing is stealing, and camouflaging or obfuscation does not alter that fact.

I'll let you be the judge of that Bob.

What I am doing is telling you the way things work at the moment.

[bobevenson]

I don't care what the Supreme Court says, stealing is stealing, and camouflaging or obfuscation does not alter that fact.

I'll let you be the judge of that Bob.

I guess you don't feel qualified to be judgmental about anything, huh?

[Ginkgo]

I don't care what the Supreme Court says, stealing is stealing, and camouflaging or obfuscation does not alter that fact.

I'll let you be the judge of that Bob.

I guess you don't feel qualified to be judgmental about anything, huh?

I see a difference between descriptive arguments and normative arguments. I try to keep them separated as much as possible in this forum. I do so for obvious reasons.

[bobevenson]

I see a difference between descriptive arguments and normative arguments.

Please elaborate on what you mean.

[Ginkgo]

I see a difference between descriptive arguments and normative arguments.

Please elaborate on what you mean.

Basically it means that value judgements reveal more about beliefs of the person making the claim rather than the facts of the matter.
I try not to go there because it only ever ends up in a slanging match.

[bobevenson]

I stand by my statement that stealing is stealing, taking another person's property without his permission. I don't think that argument is up for discussion among rational people.

[Ginkgo]

I stand by my statement that stealing is stealing, taking another person's property without his permission. I don't think that argument is up for discussion among rational people.

A few places in the world have a system whereby the government takes money from the weekly wages of most taxpayers to fund a universal health scheme. Most rational people in these countries don't regard this as stealing. In fact most would regard it as fair and equitable. Other places have a different system of values when it comes to the governments "stealing" money for health care.

Comparing the values of different countries in relation to this issue is a exercise in futility. To continue along this line will only lead to a slanging match. Do you see what I am getting at?

[bobevenson]

I stand by my statement that stealing is stealing, taking another person's property without his permission. I don't think that argument is up for discussion among rational people.

A few places in the world have a system whereby the government takes money from the weekly wages of most taxpayers to fund a universal health scheme. Most rational people in these countries don't regard this as stealing. In fact most would regard it as fair and equitable. Other places have a different system of values when it comes to the governments "stealing" money for health care.

Comparing the values of different countries in relation to this issue is a exercise in futility. To continue along this line will only lead to a slanging match. Do you see what I am getting at?

No, I don't see what you're getting at. If any government forcibly takes a dollar from somebody to give to another person, an action that would put a citizen behind bars, that is stealing, pure and simple, no ifs, ands or buts.

[Ginkgo]

No, I don't see what you're getting at. If any government forcibly takes a dollar from somebody to give to another person, an action that would put a citizen behind bars, that is stealing, pure and simple, no ifs, ands or buts.

Apparently so. Bob we have already been through that. You cannot put an artificial person behind bars.

[bobevenson]

No, I don't see what you're getting at. If any government forcibly takes a dollar from somebody to give to another person, an action that would put a citizen behind bars, that is stealing, pure and simple, no ifs, ands or buts.

Apparently so. Bob we have already been through that. You cannot put an artificial person behind bars.

No, but you can put an actual person representing the artificial person behind bars.

[Ginkgo]

No, I don't see what you're getting at. If any government forcibly takes a dollar from somebody to give to another person, an action that would put a citizen behind bars, that is stealing, pure and simple, no ifs, ands or buts.

Apparently so. Bob we have already been through that. You cannot put an artificial person behind bars.

No, but you can put an actual person representing the artificial person behind bars.

That's correct. A taxation bureaucrat can be put behind bars for any number of criminal activities, including theft. However,you cannot put a bureaucrat behind bars for implementing the taxation legislation. You might see this as a form of theft, but the legal system doesn't. As I said before, I am not getting into a debate about value judgements in relation to a normative interpretation of the legal system.

[bobevenson]

You cannot put a bureaucrat behind bars for implementing the taxation legislation.

You might want to review the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi defendants said, "I was just following orders," before they hanged their fucking ass.