Idea for constitutional amendment...

28th amendment: No Government tax dollar funded institution shall promote any religion or theology, or lack of thereof using public tax dollars.

basically, complete seperation of church and state so the religious right can stop whining about "well, there isn't actually a seperation of church and state in the constitution"

Amendment 28: Religion thread making age shall be raised to 254.jim_shorts

He'd never make another thread.

i think this one is good enough:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I've got a better idea, keep it to yourself, nobody cares. I'm an atheist, but i readily acknowledge that organised religion gives society a goodset of moral standards to live by. I have friends of all different faiths, and typically, the more devout they are, the better a person they are.Without religion people have no way of judging whether their actions are right or wrong, perfect example; the U.S legal system is based on christian values and beliefs. Saying that religious groups should not be allowed to interfere with anything in society is ridiculous.evil_dutchman90

Now that is a good philosophy...and respectful people deserve respect. You could learn something from him mig.

I've got a better idea, keep it to yourself, nobody cares. I'm an atheist, but i readily acknowledge that organised religion gives society a goodset of moral standards to live by. I have friends of all different faiths, and typically, the more devout they are, the better a person they are.Without religion people have no way of judging whether their actions are right or wrong, perfect example; the U.S legal system is based on christian values and beliefs. Saying that religious groups should not be allowed to interfere with anything in society is ridiculous.evil_dutchman90

i think you misunderstood. he did not say that religious groups should not be allowed to interfere with society, although depending on what you mean by "interfere" that might be a good thing IMO. what he proposed, essentially, is that religion not be supported or promoted by tax dollars. we already have the first amendment that precludes that, so there is no real need for another amendment to say the same thing.

you say you are atheist. do you want your taxes to be used to spread religious belief?

you say you are atheist. do you want your taxes to be used to spread religious belief?

giton

Taxes are NOT used to spread religious belief...:roll:

[QUOTE="giton"]

you say you are atheist. do you want your taxes to be used to spread religious belief?

LJS9502_basic

Taxes are NOT used to spread religious belief...:roll:

go back and read the TC's proposition. evidently you missed that, but it's what the thread is about.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="giton"]

you say you are atheist. do you want your taxes to be used to spread religious belief?

giton

Taxes are NOT used to spread religious belief...:roll:

go back and read the TC's proposition. evidently you missed that, but it's what the thread is about.

I read it...and my answer is the same....tax dollars are not used to support religion.

I've got a better idea...Saying that religious groups should not be allowed to interfere with anything in society is ridiculous.evil_dutchman90

I love your sig.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="giton"]

you say you are atheist. do you want your taxes to be used to spread religious belief?

LJS9502_basic

Taxes are NOT used to spread religious belief...:roll:

go back and read the TC's proposition. evidently you missed that, but it's what the thread is about.

I read it...and my answer is the same....tax dollars are not used to support religion.

[QUOTE="evil_dutchman90"]I've got a better idea...Saying that religious groups should not be allowed to interfere with anything in society is ridiculous.bebopoutlaw3gun

I love your sig.

As do i.

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. ROLFCHANK

What are you talking about?

[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. LJS9502_basic

What are you talking about?

i think this one is good enough:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

giton

But they don't, and it's already unconstitutional...Media_geek20

Stop making religious threads. I think you just want to start another 20 page thread.GettingTired

isn't it obvious? people like religious threads. that's the only explanation for their frequency of creation and popularity once created (number of posts).

[QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. LJS9502_basic

What are you talking about?

You can find much discussion of this, pro and con, by googling, but here it is from the asses mouth. I hope you will consider these to be credible references since they are from the US Government web site.

White House Press Release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.html

The Executive Order (see sec. 2 part (f) in particular):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. giton

What are you talking about?

You can find much discussion of this, pro and con, by googling, but here it is from the asses mouth. I hope you will consider these to be credible references since they are from the US Government web site.

White House Press Release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.html

The Executive Order (see sec. 2 part (f) in particular):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

That doesn't state what you believe it states.

[QUOTE="giton"]

i think this one is good enough:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

mig_killer2

But they don't, and it's already unconstitutional...Media_geek20

do you think that is why Bush decided he could get away with the faith-based charity executive order? because the amendment applies only to congress and not to the judicial or executive branches of government?

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. LJS9502_basic

What are you talking about?

You can find much discussion of this, pro and con, by googling, but here it is from the asses mouth. I hope you will consider these to be credible references since they are from the US Government web site.

White House Press Release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.html

The Executive Order (see sec. 2 part (f) in particular):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

That doesn't state what you believe it states.

I'm not the TC, and I haven't said what I think it means.

what do you believe i think it means, and what do YOU think it means?

But since you bring it up, i do believe it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment because it permits government funds (which come from taxation) to be given to faith-based charities, stipulating that the money may not be used for the advancement of religion, yet it creates no oversight to ensure that doesn't occur. It is evident that the advancement of religious beliefs is a core part of the mission of any faith-based charitable organization, and any funding they get from the government will further their core mission in some way. Even if they only use the money to buy food and clothing to give to the poor, the distribution of these goods to the poor includes proselytizing.

Here is a court case that AU won against Prison Fellowship Ministries:

Americans United v Prison Fellowship Ministries

I don't think it matters. Honestly I think religion helps people. Compare the world back when we used to have religion in schools to today. It's gotten alot worse. Atheism has no morales meaning murder, robbery, rape and other crimes are nothing.

EDIT: I'm not saying all atheists are murders and rapists I'm just saying that certain people that are Atheist won't care.

I don't think it matters. Honestly I think religion helps people. Compare the world back when we used to have religion in schools to today. It's gotten alot worse. Atheism has no morales meaning murder, robbery, rape and other crimes are nothing. o_sausage

where did you get the idea that atheists have no morals or that they condone violence and aggression any more than religious people do? that simply isn't true. morality is not simply or primarily a function of religious belief. mores derive from social concepts of approval, disapproval, toleration or sanction, within particular contexts. taboos against incest and murder, for example have existed in almost all societies ever studied whether they had a religious component or not.

EDIT: I'm not saying all atheists are murders and rapists I'm just saying that certain people that are Atheist won't care.

o_sausage

certain people who are religious won't care either. that';s got nothing to do with whether someone professes to be religious or not. it has to do with their own personal ethical position.

[QUOTE="o_sausage"]

EDIT: I'm not saying all atheists are murders and rapists I'm just saying that certain people that are Atheist won't care.

giton

certain people who are religious won't care either. that';s got nothing to do with whether someone professes to be religious or not. it has to do with their own personal ethical position.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="o_sausage"]

EDIT: I'm not saying all atheists are murders and rapists I'm just saying that certain people that are Atheist won't care.

o_sausage

certain people who are religious won't care either. that';s got nothing to do with whether someone professes to be religious or not. it has to do with their own personal ethical position.

it depends on what you consider "good morals". i'll just select one area of society to use as an example - sexual behavior: many people think regulating other people's pre-marital, extra-marital, or same-gender sexual activities is supportable by reason of "morals". yet many others do not agree and credible scientific inquiry has not found any evidence that pre-marital, extra-marital, or same-gender sexual activity is inherently harmful individually or socially.

as an aside, i am opposed to religion because it is based on irrational beliefs, and because it is harmful to individuals and to society inasmuch as it seeks to regulate behavior it disapproves of, not becaue of any particular moral positions espoused by different religions, per se.

I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.OregonTrailing

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.giton

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

If taxation of all kinds is theft, then every time you use something the government has payed for (streets, schools etc.) it's trespassing....

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.giton

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

[QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.jointed

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

If taxation of all kinds is theft, then every time you use something the government has payed for (streets, schools etc.) it's trespassing....

i've heard that theory before, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny for a number of reasons:

a) not when you don't have a choice (e.g., there is no significant network of private roads, there are no private armies, there are no private alternatives to government judicial system, all because these things are government-controlled monopolies and private enterprise is not allowed to compete except in the case of limited government-granted exceptions)

b) not when you have paid for it all your life (as I have) since it was partly my tax money that paid for it

c) not when you pay specific fees for applicable infrastructure (e.g., the gasoline tax pays for road-building and maintenance, and as such is more of a usage fee than a tax)

the idea you promulgate is based on the concept that government produces things using its own resources. it doesn't. it uses your resources and mine (money, primarily, which it takes coercively).

[QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.OregonTrailing

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.giton

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.Mumbles527

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

your analogy is bad (apples and oranges), but i can work with it.

Disney World is private, so you can't choose to live there. we'll substitute "visit". you can choose to visit Disney World and see the sights and ride the rides, but you can't do so without paying Disney. it's private property and they charge a fee. to sneak in without paying is theft, wouldn't you agree?

The United States is where you live, not some place you want to visit (that is, assuming we are talking about tax-paying citizens). You didn't get a choice because you were born here. no one asked you if you wanted to be a citizen, it was automatic. In effect, natural citizenship by birth is a form of slavery. the government demands (under color of law) that you pay taxes merely because you were born here.

the difference is volition. in the first case, you have it, in the second, you don't.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.giton

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

your analogy is bad (apples and oranges), but i can work with it.

Disney World is private, so you can't choose to live there. we'll substitute "visit". you can choose to visit Disney World and see the sights and ride the rides, but you can't do so without paying Disney. it's private property and they charge a fee. to sneak in without paying is theft, wouldn't you agree?

The United States is where you live, not some place you want to visit (that is, assuming we are talking about tax-paying citizens). You didn't get a choice because you were born here. no one asked you if you wanted to be a citizen, it was automatic. In effect, natural citizenship by birth is a form of slavery. the government demands (under color of law) that you pay taxes merely because you were born here.

the difference is volition. in the first case, you have it, in the second, you don't.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.Mumbles527

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

your analogy is bad (apples and oranges), but i can work with it.

Disney World is private, so you can't choose to live there. we'll substitute "visit". you can choose to visit Disney World and see the sights and ride the rides, but you can't do so without paying Disney. it's private property and they charge a fee. to sneak in without paying is theft, wouldn't you agree?

The United States is where you live, not some place you want to visit (that is, assuming we are talking about tax-paying citizens). You didn't get a choice because you were born here. no one asked you if you wanted to be a citizen, it was automatic. In effect, natural citizenship by birth is a form of slavery. the government demands (under color of law) that you pay taxes merely because you were born here.

the difference is volition. in the first case, you have it, in the second, you don't.

actually, i already address that idea that you are free to leave. your freedom to leave doesn't exist if you aren't free to go someplace else. in other words, you are free to leave only if some other nation is willing to grant you admittance.

if you are a US citizen (which doesn't change when you leave unless you seek to revoke it, and note that your request must be approved so it isn't automatic) you are still required to file an income tax return in the US and pay taxes no matter where in the world you live.

i don't take advantage of government services, except when I'm compelled to do so. i already addressed this too. since i have paid all my life, even though not voluntarily, i have some claim on those services. i actually favor usage fees. i don't mind the so-called gasoline tax because it is really a usage fee that goes to build and maintain roads. park service fees are another one that i don't consider theft, although i'd prefer to see parks maintained by private enterprises rather than by government. but that doesn't eliminate the distinction between a usage fee and a tax. one is based on my use, the other is compulsory whether i use the service or not.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="OregonTrailing"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="OregonTrailing"]I say take away tax breaks for churches. We would have billions in extra revenue.giton

taxation of all kinds is theft. theives choose who to steal from, and i guess the gang in power doesn't like to steal from churches. if they did, then they'd be even bigger criminals than they are now.

You choose to live in a country that taxes you. Hence, it's not theft.

i was born here, why shouldn't i choose to live here? you ignore the fact that governments claim all useful parts of the earth, thus while i may petition some government to allow me to immigrate, i am not free to live wherever i want. you aren't either. try it.

taxation is theft because it is taken by force. stop paying your taxes, any kind you like, and see what i mean. you will not be permitted to buy taxable goods (as defined by govenrment) without paying sales taxes. if you try, the seller will call the poilce. you cannot decide not to pay income taxes or property taxes. you will be arrested, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, killed.

best described by Edward Abbey:

"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated.
If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you
resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule
of Law." -- Edward Abbey

your analogy is bad (apples and oranges), but i can work with it.

Disney World is private, so you can't choose to live there. we'll substitute "visit". you can choose to visit Disney World and see the sights and ride the rides, but you can't do so without paying Disney. it's private property and they charge a fee. to sneak in without paying is theft, wouldn't you agree?

The United States is where you live, not some place you want to visit (that is, assuming we are talking about tax-paying citizens). You didn't get a choice because you were born here. no one asked you if you wanted to be a citizen, it was automatic. In effect, natural citizenship by birth is a form of slavery. the government demands (under color of law) that you pay taxes merely because you were born here.

the difference is volition. in the first case, you have it, in the second, you don't.

actually, i already address that idea that you are free to leave. your freedom to leave doesn't exist if you aren't free to go someplace else. in other words, you are free to leave only if some other nation is willing to grant you admittance.

if you are a US citizen (which doesn't change when you leave unless you seek to revoke it, and note that your request must be approved so it isn't automatic) you are still required to file an income tax return in the US and pay taxes no matter where in the world you live.

i don't take advantage of government services, except when I'm compelled to do so. i already addressed this too. since i have paid all my life, even though not voluntarily, i have some claim on those services. i actually favor usage fees. i don't mind the so-called gasoline tax because it is really a usage fee that goes to build and maintain roads. park service fees are another one that i don't consider theft, although i'd prefer to see parks maintained by private enterprises rather than by government. but that doesn't eliminate the distinction between a usage fee and a tax. one is based on my use, the other is compulsory whether i use the service or not.

[QUOTE="giton"]

actually, i already address that idea that you are free to leave. your freedom to leave doesn't exist if you aren't free to go someplace else. in other words, you are free to leave only if some other nation is willing to grant you admittance.

if you are a US citizen (which doesn't change when you leave unless you seek to revoke it, and note that your request must be approved so it isn't automatic) you are still required to file an income tax return in the US and pay taxes no matter where in the world you live.

i don't take advantage of government services, except when I'm compelled to do so. i already addressed this too. since i have paid all my life, even though not voluntarily, i have some claim on those services. i actually favor usage fees. i don't mind the so-called gasoline tax because it is really a usage fee that goes to build and maintain roads. park service fees are another one that i don't consider theft, although i'd prefer to see parks maintained by private enterprises rather than by government. but that doesn't eliminate the distinction between a usage fee and a tax. one is based on my use, the other is compulsory whether i use the service or not.

Mumbles527

under current structure, no, but that is no argument, just an example of a really inefficient means of achieving it.

the services you describe can be provided by alternative means. for example, by subscription to service providers. if you think about it, that is essentially what "insurance" is. you pay a fee for certain types of coverage.

the concepts are well described by economists and political scientists like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and many others. it's not conceptually new.

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"]

actually, i already address that idea that you are free to leave. your freedom to leave doesn't exist if you aren't free to go someplace else. in other words, you are free to leave only if some other nation is willing to grant you admittance.

if you are a US citizen (which doesn't change when you leave unless you seek to revoke it, and note that your request must be approved so it isn't automatic) you are still required to file an income tax return in the US and pay taxes no matter where in the world you live.

i don't take advantage of government services, except when I'm compelled to do so. i already addressed this too. since i have paid all my life, even though not voluntarily, i have some claim on those services. i actually favor usage fees. i don't mind the so-called gasoline tax because it is really a usage fee that goes to build and maintain roads. park service fees are another one that i don't consider theft, although i'd prefer to see parks maintained by private enterprises rather than by government. but that doesn't eliminate the distinction between a usage fee and a tax. one is based on my use, the other is compulsory whether i use the service or not.

giton

under current structure, no, but that is no argument, just an example of a really inefficient means of achieving it.

the services you describe can be provided by alternative means. for example, by subscription to service providers. if you think about it, that is essentially what "insurance" is. you pay a fee for certain types of coverage.

the concepts are well described by economists and political scientists like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and many others. it's not conceptually new.

And yet we've never had a modern society that went by those Libertarian ideals.

I wonder why...

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="o_sausage"]

EDIT: I'm not saying all atheists are murders and rapists I'm just saying that certain people that are Atheist won't care.

o_sausage

certain people who are religious won't care either. that';s got nothing to do with whether someone professes to be religious or not. it has to do with their own personal ethical position.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="giton"]

actually, i already address that idea that you are free to leave. your freedom to leave doesn't exist if you aren't free to go someplace else. in other words, you are free to leave only if some other nation is willing to grant you admittance.

if you are a US citizen (which doesn't change when you leave unless you seek to revoke it, and note that your request must be approved so it isn't automatic) you are still required to file an income tax return in the US and pay taxes no matter where in the world you live.

i don't take advantage of government services, except when I'm compelled to do so. i already addressed this too. since i have paid all my life, even though not voluntarily, i have some claim on those services. i actually favor usage fees. i don't mind the so-called gasoline tax because it is really a usage fee that goes to build and maintain roads. park service fees are another one that i don't consider theft, although i'd prefer to see parks maintained by private enterprises rather than by government. but that doesn't eliminate the distinction between a usage fee and a tax. one is based on my use, the other is compulsory whether i use the service or not.

OregonTrailing

under current structure, no, but that is no argument, just an example of a really inefficient means of achieving it.

the services you describe can be provided by alternative means. for example, by subscription to service providers. if you think about it, that is essentially what "insurance" is. you pay a fee for certain types of coverage.

the concepts are well described by economists and political scientists like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, and many others. it's not conceptually new.

And yet we've never had a modern society that went by those Libertarian ideals.

I wonder why...

it's not because alternatives are inconceivable or because they don't work - as you point out, they haven't been tried in modern times so you cannot conclude they don't work.

i think it is mainly because the people who are in power do not wish to give up their power. they have engineered the institutions of society to support their rule by making illegal that which is not in accord and by controlling the educational system and the media. it's called social engineering.

"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other
possibilities." -- Alan Bloom

I mean, what other explanation do you have for the practice of gerrymandering political districts? how about the reasons why alternative political concepts and political parties get little serious coverage in media? why are laws written to make candidacy in elections (getting on the ballet) so difficult to achieve for anyone outside of the two dominant political parties? why do you think there are only two dominant parties to begin with?

i'm not suggesting there is only one answer to each of these questions, but if you take them all together, there is an evident pattern and practice of activity directed in support of the status quo, and in opposition to the emergence of alternatives.

how about no tax dollar can fund a pointless war?MichaeltheCM

how about no tax dollar?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ROLFCHANK"]

i disagree to some extent. there was an executive order passed encouraging agencies to give grants to faith based charities doing "social work". if you think these groups aren't pushing religion on the beneficiaries of their services, i would have to doubt that seriously. but at any rate, this isn't a cut and dried issue. having said that, i don't care about it and i am not religious at all and am wary of any government involvement in religion, but the above seems so indirect to me that......who cares. giton

What are you talking about?

You can find much discussion of this, pro and con, by googling, but here it is from the asses mouth. I hope you will consider these to be credible references since they are from the US Government web site.

White House Press Release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.html

The Executive Order (see sec. 2 part (f) in particular):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html

That doesn't state what you believe it states.

I'm not the TC, and I haven't said what I think it means.

what do you believe i think it means, and what do YOU think it means?

But since you bring it up, i do believe it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment because it permits government funds (which come from taxation) to be given to faith-based charities, stipulating that the money may not be used for the advancement of religion, yet it creates no oversight to ensure that doesn't occur. It is evident that the advancement of religious beliefs is a core part of the mission of any faith-based charitable organization, and any funding they get from the government will further their core mission in some way. Even if they only use the money to buy food and clothing to give to the poor, the distribution of these goods to the poor includes proselytizing.

Here is a court case that AU won against Prison Fellowship Ministries:

Americans United v Prison Fellowship Ministries