Replies

I'm not sure what we are arguing anymore.
I didn't realize I was supposed to be arguing with you. I thought we were just talking. Do you wish me to commence arguing with you?
I thought the issue was your dislike of laws that "require such and such or else".
I didn't think I was that hard to understand. I guess I'm wrong.
I think I said all laws in one way or another do that.
Your implication was sufficient for cognizance. That is, until you backtracked and changed the goalposts.
Even your examples would have laws attached that require such and such or else.
Subsequent to passage of the original law, I have no doubt that things would be "attached".
That's essentially what a social structure is, for better or worse.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
I'm still not sure I follow your point as it pertains to this thread.
As I said, I didn't think I was that hard to understand. I guess I'm wrong.

If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; And the sixteen being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; But be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers; And this is the tendency of all human governments. 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

I'm still not sure I follow your point as it pertains to this thread. As I said, I didn't think I was that hard to understand. I guess I'm wrong.

My only question is why this thread seems to be bringing out so many of the "strange" types. Frankly, none of your posts made a nickel's worth of sense. A couple of you here on this thread are either just trying to learn logic, and I'm the guinea pig, or you're just trying to disrupt a reasonable discussion of something that's over your head. I'm not sure which, but either way you offer nothing of substance to the discussion. But don't feel bad. As I said, you're not the only one.