Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Of course. City parks are public lands...or lands owned by the collective 'public' and held in trust by the city government.
-------
And as for your holiday, if you are a business owner, you will likely have laws pertaining to your employees' pay that you will need to follow.
If this is a private business owned by a private person and not a 'public' one.... why?
That statement destroys the right to private property, the free market system AND the equity of law.
It's a Trifecta!
Well, the Fair Tax bills in Congress would require that. I'm not sure why you think one cannot answer a hypothetical question about another form of taxation.
Besides a consumption tax is nothing new. Every tax known to man has been levied by the government, so why would a filing requirement be such a mystery?
Me too :P
Where you been?
It apparently is to you. I deal with posters as they deal with me.
With other, fundamentally honest posters on this thread I have discussed the issue of inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness. For example, post 99 which sates:
I think you mean to say "states", not sates. I guess none of us are perfect....
When you act as you have, you've done anything but earn respect that is deserving of debate. I will not gloss over your error and compounding of it and just move on along to debate you on the issue of this thread. You simply have not earned the respect. Actually, just the opposite -- you have earned disrespect.
That you disrespect me is a badge of honor, sir. That you had no problem with the poster calling me a communist sympathizer and an IRS employee, but did have a problem with my comeback questioning the intellectual capacity of anyone who would make such comments is hardly evidence that you understand the term "respect" or that you really can identify a fundamentally honest poster, as you think you can.
I'm not a kid. I'm doing just fine holding your feet to the fire by not letting you get away with implying -- in what appears to be an insults -- how much more intellectually adept you are compared to many Freepers, when in fact, in the span of just a few posts you've proven the opposite.
Yes, I see your point. I should just accept the insults coming from those whose side you are (honest posters), and not disagree with anything they say because that would make me a....dishonest poster! So you keep holding my feet to the fire, but you might try lighting it first. And watch out for those errors yourself.
I see you don't think having your credibility at stake is important. I see you don't think earning the respect to be deemed worthy of debate is important to you. You think I should just gloss over your errors? Why should I care about you when you clearly don't care about your own integrity?
Credibility? You have the gall to use that word with your specious arguments about the importance of my not knowing who the author was? Talk about a hoot!
Integrity is another word I am surprised to see you write here. Again, calling someone a communist sympathizer and other insults is ok, but my return argument being akin to the killing of Archduke Ferdinand is hardly a measurement of the integrity of the poster. But I don't know your value system, and that's probably a good thing.
Posters such as you are a dime a dozen. I see them on threads where their response to a well thought out post was to criticize the failure to use spell check, or some other meaningless error having nothing at all to do with the thread.
That's an obfuscating, non sequitur straw man.
Wow! Three logic fallacies in one sentence. I'm impressed. But the point remains, and so far, you seem to be true to form.
I'll try again. Do you have anything of substance on the issues we have been discussing?
Again, why should I respect you when you don't have the integrity to respect yourself?
The integrity to respect yourself? I don't think you mean to use the term "integrity" in this context. How about "capacity" or "ability" or some other more relevant term? But then, we all make mistakes....
So I won't ask again. You have confirmed you have nothing of substance here.
I'm not sure you followed the context of the argument. It went back a couple of posts.
If this is a private business owned by a private person and not a 'public' one.... why?
Because many laws both state and federal may apply, including minimum wage laws, laws pertaining to holiday pay, and a whole host of laws regulating the business itself.
That statement destroys the right to private property, the free market system AND the equity of law.
Huh?
I'm not sure what we are arguing anymore. I thought the issue was your dislike of laws that "require such and such or else". I think I said all laws in one way or another do that. Even your examples would have laws attached that require such and such or else. That's essentially what a social structure is, for better or worse. I'm still not sure I follow your point as it pertains to this thread.
....ENOUGH taxation and you have SOCIALISM, plain and simple...
TOO much and you get a REVOLUTION....[or so I’ve heard]
Well, you said that compulsion or coercion was wrong (do such and such or else), and so I said that even if the current tax system was done away with, business owners would still have that same requirement. I then went on to say that essentially all laws are coercive in one way or another. Perhaps there are a few exceptions, but not many. Hope that helps.
Mr. Hamilton was right then and is STILL right today!
I then went on to say that essentially all laws are coercive in one way or another.
No, you made a declatory statement with no conditions.
Which I proved by example to be an inaccurate statement to which you've yet completely disproven. No comments forthcoming about "after the fact" laws.
Perhaps there are a few exceptions, but not many.
And here you disprove you own assetion that ALL laws are coercive. No changing the goalposts now, that isn't cricket!
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
......just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
Ayn said is SO much better than I ever could have!
Oh, goody. The 'You're too slow to follow the argument'...argument.
-----
Because many laws both state and federal may apply, including minimum wage laws, laws pertaining to holiday pay, and a whole host of laws regulating the business itself.
And why do they apply? Could it be because the business owner did what he thought was his civil duty and procured a business license...i.e. legal permission of the state thereby 'voluntarily' placing himself under their jurisdiction?
-----
That statement destroys the right to private property, the free market system AND the equity of law.
Huh?
Something wrong with your hearing? Private property, you know:
[A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it."
Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798)
The free market system? Do I really have to explain that a business owner either pays a fair wage or goes out of business because no one will work for the miserly SOB?
The law of Equity. You know 'All Men are created equal'. Can I, as an individual DEMAND that a businessman pay a certain wage and legally punish him if he does not?
No, of course not. If that authority isn't possessed by an individual, it CANNOT be possessed by the collective and could not possibly have been given to the collective civil 'state'.
Without Equity, the law itself ceases to exist.
A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering...and the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
Good rant, but it won’t happen. Both parties love the tax because it finances the biggest welfare system in the world, a huge war machine, unbelievable perks for the politicians, obscene amounts of “foreign aid” and immense waste.
It won’t change.
The current system extracts money from the industrious, hard-working people and gives it to slackers. No surprise that the income tax is one of the goals of world communism.
Both parties have a vested interest in keeping the current system.
A toast, to the repeal of both the 16th and 17th Amendments, destructors of America.
Isn't it, though?
-----
How many months do we have to work before we pay our taxes.
Way too many. What's the total tax rate now? 50%?
-----
Many have no time, nor the inclination, to think because of the rigors of their labor much less on "calling the mismanagers to account".
Don't get me started on how the People have become SO disinterested that they worry more about American Idol than the financial rape of the American taxpayers!
ACK!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.