Bulgaroctonus

So are my two pictures exceeding the right bandwith?


No. Hitler and Pol Pot killed people. I'm talking about giving people money if they lose weight. I don't see the similarity. Also, I didn't say anything about passing legislation against fat people. This is all in the terms of non-coercive tax measures. It's all very friendly.

Bulgaroctonus

No, my pictures are there one minute, and then they go away. Are you playing games? Someone is editing my post.

clegane

The government provides its people with many more services (firefighters, police, roads, etc.) than the right to vote or run for office. If you want we could get into a discussion of whether these services are better off privately run, but the fact is that they are currently run by the government and we need those services

Also, I don't think a surcharge on twinkies counts as government coercion or discrimination.

__________________
"Its true, we add insult to injury, but... you add the injury"
-Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly

Praxus

He didn't just say tax incentives, he said taxes, as well.

Praxus

Since when did "need", whatever that means in this context, justify theft?

Confed999

Save the pics to your hard drive, then using the manage attachments option, add them to your post. Linking to someone else's site is bandwidth theft.
Government descrimination. Hitler and Pol Pot started small too...
Besides tax legislation, right?
Really? So what do you do when the fat person only pays the equal ammount of the skinny person?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Confed999

Hello McFly? No hot linking, remember?
Unfair taxation...

Bulgaroctonus

Fine. So you were editing the post?

Yeah. I confess, I have grand plans for fat people. I will make forced labor camps! They will run on treadmills! The fired chicken will be refused! Oh, the refusal will ring from the mountaintops.

Actually, the calories burned at my labor camps will power all of the Eastern U.S. The calories burned will be as innumerable as the stars of the heavens.

I'll make the fat people wear stickers: "Endangered in cannabalistic societies"

Yes, only tax legislation.

I take their money and call it a day. What's your point?

Confed999

Pol Pot...

Bulgaroctonus

That is the second time you've called my McFly. This sir requires a duel. Draw thy sword.

Fine, I won't hot link. I wasn't aware that I was committing an offense.

The government has high taxes on cigarettes. Twinkies are also dangerous to one's health. Probably right up there with cigarettes. Taxes that force people to make better decisions are not unfair, its just good policy.

Bulgaroctonus

Legalize Pot...

clegane

I'll rephrase that. We don't pay taxes just to gain the right to vote, we pay taxes for the priviledge of living in a relatively secure society with all the services, priviledges and benefits that that entails.

Since we pay for the benefit of living here, there are two things the government can do, one is not allow people who don't want to pay taxes to live here. In other words kick them out. Since the government can't do that, it has to force people who do live here to pay taxes.

How much you pay has several philosophical factors determining it. One is how much how can afford to pay and an other is how much you benefit from society.

For a (crude) example from Rome, the Patricians and other nobles payed to give the plebeians a grain dole, and in return the plebs refrained from lynching the rich and stealing their money. The Patrician pays more because he has more to gain(not being lynched and robbed) than the plebeian (not being allowed lynching the rich guy and being allowed a subsistence diet) from society.

Confed999

That's wrong too. What gives them the right?
It is terribly unfair, and sad you don't see it. Anyway, if you're willing to give government the right to decide what's good for you, we're right back to Pol Pot again.

Praxus

I suggested those things as a way of funding Government without the use of physical force.

Yes, it's crude, and innacurate.

I have a right to my property, period. The Government does not have the right to take it away from me. It is not an "honor" to live on my property, it is a right.

Bulgaroctonus

One of the basic roles of our government is to protect the health of its citizens. That's why we have high taxes on cigarettes (the only reason they're not illegal is because of the tobacco lobby. Corruption, oh well). That's also why many substances are illegal for human consumption or possession.

No, this whole conversation is terribly funny, and it's alright if you don't see it.

The government decides what is right for us all the time! If you want to live in a completely libertarian society, you're right back to the Articles of Confederation.

Why are we discussing extremes anyway? The government passed high taxes on cigarettes. A decade later, those cigarette smokers aren't in camps. In fact, more people are healthy because they're not smoking or they never started. This whole slippery slope to Pol Pot argument is weak.