From: Corey <corey_s@...>
Date: 2004-11-03T08:29:21+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] US Presidential Election

On Tuesday 02 November 2004 02:48 pm, Bill Kelly wrote:
> From: "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>
>
> > So, I get taxed even when I refuse to pay taxes.... all those services
> > you listed above as examples of my hypocracy and selfishness -
> > I've already in fact payed for them.
>
> Have a garage sale and list a bicycle for $25.  I'll plunk
> $0.75 on your table and if you complain as I ride off on
> my new bike, I'll happily remind you I've already paid for
> it.
>

That's a horribly inaccurate analogy, almost not worth responding to -
especially in light of the fact that you seemingly ignored the whole context
of the rest of my post.

Let me adjust the parameters of your analogy to more closely approximate
the topic which you're disputing.

First, you _must_ by law have a bicycle, whether you actualy even
want it or not is of no matter, neither does it matter if you ever actualy
end up riding it. Secondly, that bicycle isn't simply displayed at a
garage sale where you are free to buy it or not buy it - instead, you are
forced by law to buy your bicycle from a single source.  In addition,
since the bike distributor has a total government-enforced monopoly on 
bike sales, it can lift the price unreasonably and it can produce bikes of
shabby quality as well. NOW, the money you use to pay for that bike is
created and  controlled by the same agency that forces you to have a 
bike in the first place. Also, this agency continually devalues the currency
it forces upon you, and the money is not even backed by anything of value;
but you _have_ to use it to pay for your bike, and all the other things the
law says you must pay for, including the actual things you need to 
survive.

SO...

I think that if I first forcibly gave the bicycle to you, then forced you to
pay for this overpriced bike, whether you wanted it or not -- with money 
that _ I_ created and then subsequently devalued, but which you had to 
work hours for to receive -- then I would hardly have a leg to stand on 
if you simply took the bike at cost, especially if you never use it and
didn't want or ask for it in the first place. You would be under no
moral obligation to pay for the bike _at_all_ under those circumstances,
and neither would anybody else. Why can't you opt out of the bike?
Why can't you only pay a fair price when you use it, if you decide to
use it? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for _your_ bike that
 you may never have even wanted or will use? What if the bike was
made from slave labor or violently taken from other people? What if
you were ethically opposed to the usage of bicycles?

Finally, taxation occurs on services, not products - so your whole bike
analogy was already flawed to begin with. 

It really comes down to simple ethics when we actualy get down to it.

Cheers,

Corey

-- 

"Ships are safe in harbor, but they were never meant to stay there."