Flawed Logic

[SteveSy]

Steve,

I don't know what caused the loss of feeling in my right foot two months ago, or the subsequent joint pain in my hip and knee and random muscle spasms throughout, but whatever it is, it's probably not good. I can't afford to get it looked at, much less corrected. And I can't expect the hospital to cover the costs since that would be taking advantage of a "socialist" system.

Freedom dictates that my life is worth nothing. That my value as a human being is so low that I'm not worth saving. I hope you feel better knowing that a worthless human being is probably going to die young from a medical condition that could be treatable or curable - all in the name of freedom.

I'm putting you on ignore now. You make me feel like I don't deserve to exist.

I didn't say your life is worth nothing. However as tough as it may be why is your life any more valuable than say a life in Africa? How do you deserve to be cured anymore than some poor person there? If we should all pay for you then why not them also? Of course taking care of the world would probably require slavery, 100% of your earnings for life, but they deserve it as much as you do, don't they? Is your life any more valuable than theirs?

It's not about being heartless, its about reality. I'm sorry for your condition, I truly am. It's unfortunate that such things happen but they do and will continue to. Civilization as we know it in this day and age can not prevent it from happening to the world at large. You are no more important than the person living 7000 miles away.

Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ and get a dose of reality, it's pretty close to being on point, at least the premise of why saving everyone or even a small percentage is impossible.

[webhick]

Steve, you're absolutely right and absolutely wrong. I don't think I'm worth more than little kids in Africa. I'm a terrible person for wanting help and being unable to help them and that makes my life worth nothing.

And don't be "sorry" for me, Steve. I'm just another worthless drain on your pocketbook.

[Duke2Earl]

The most ironic part is that if Sybil got the Hobbsian type of system he advocates he almost certainly would not last a week. Sybil wants a world where life is nasty, brutal, and short.... where the strong prey on the weak without any minimal protections or safety nets. He thinks this result is both desirable and inevitable. He thinks this result is "freedom". And his best "argument' is that if you can't save everyone in the world you shouldn't try to help anyone.

[Famspear]

Earlier, SteveSy wrote:

Anyone researching the matter and seeing how things were back during the ratification of the constitution would know, by common sense, there's no way the citizens would have fought so hard for the direct tax clause and taxes in general. They did this just so that they could be protected against a trivial one time flat capitation tax but let the federal government have the ability to seize an unlimited percentage of their earnings on a perpetual basis without apportionment via representation. Its just plain delusional to think such a thing.

Read the anti-federalist papers sometime....there's no way in hell they would have accepted such a power in the hands of the federal government. They tared [sic], feathered and burned down the houses of tax collectors for a trivial tax 1% tax on printed materials just prior to revolution.

Two problems: First, I think, Steve, that you're overstating your case to use the word "delusional" to describe the theory you described.

Second, uur descriptions of what the law is -- the descriptions provided to you by Quatloos regulars over and over and over -- are not really based on any belief or theory that you describe. So, we Quatloos regulars cannot be "delusional" about a belief that we do not even hold.

You seem to labor under the misconception that in order to hold the views we hold, we must somehow necessarily believe that the Americans of the late 1700s would have approved of the current federal income tax system. I for one don't have an opinion about that. I don't care whether they would or would not have approved of the system, because our ancestors' approval or disapproval (even assuming we could determine that with certainty) does not, in and of itself, determine the result of a formal legal analysis of the system we have today. Studying or looking for evidence of "original intent" (or whatever term you want to use) is just part of the process.

Even assuming that you are 100% correct about "how things were back during the ratification" -- even if you are 100% correct that there's no way the Americans of the late 1700s would have accepted the power now in the hands of the government, etc., etc. -- your points are, well, beside the point.

The point is that under the U.S. legal system, there is a formal, "legal" way to go about analyzing constitutional and statutory provisions. The process of making law and the process of studying law are formal, predetermined processes. And then there is the SteveSy way, the SteveSy process. What I am saying is that the "legal" way is the correct way, and that the SteveSy way is incorrect.

Maybe our current legal system of judicial interpretation of the Constitution and statutes is not a good system. Or maybe it is a good system. Maybe the system should be changed. Maybe the legal system should recognize what you, SteveSy, have said (quoted above) about the original intent of the people who framed our Constitution, and should take that into account and simply invalidate all the tax laws or other laws you believe should be invalidated. But the fact remains that the U.S. legal system is the way we Quatloos regulars have described it. The legal system is not "magically" or "metaphysically" or "really" what you, Steve, believe it is, regardless of how illogical or unfair you find it to be. The legal system is actually the system that we have described to you, warts and all.

[grixit]

The truth is that all societies have some socialist aspects. It's not a dirty word and it's not evil. There are only people who disagree on the amount of socialism to have and people who run dictatorships that misuse the term.

Even Ronald Reagan was a big socialist. After all he wanted a big military, and yet he could never articulate which of my tax dollars went to pay which american soldier to keep which soviet tank off my lawn. Now would he consider allowing me to opt out and use the money instead to mine my own yard. Heck, Johm McCain just made a big speech where he called for stronger environmental standards. That's not just socialism, it also brings in that other bugaboo, regulation.

Now sure, as a liberal democrat, i'm for a little more socialism than some, SteveSy wants less, but i don't think he wants to give his next door neighbor the right to build a lead smelter in the back yard and i don't think he wants to abolish the fire department in favor of people who only get paid when there actually is a fire.

What Steve fails to understand is that the strength of a modern economy, such as ours, comes from a mix of economic practices, not an ideological commitment to just one. Yeah we've got socialism here, and that's great. It's also great that we have capitalism, entrepeneurship, and yes even communism.