Again, it is a vague term. And unless you are an anarchist you are probably for taxing people ("confiscating wealth" if you want to put it in such politically charged, arguably unrealistic terms), regulating bad behavior (are you pro-murder?), and regulating guns (unless you are for people being able to own tank guns, etc.) too.
Not sure what a "tank gun" is, but I have no issue with people owning tanks, they are just trucks, and you can own those. Not really against taxing just the current abuse of tax revenue.
I would completely support a pigouvian tax on murder, but that isn't what we discussed in the past.
a .22 rifle isn't a tank.
So by your own definition you are pretty much a big government centrist? Let's take a look back:
You just said you are okay with taxation. You are okay with regulating behavior you disapprove of. Only thing you don't support is gun regulation. To you I guess owning nukes and tanks is fine- well you are the strong outlier amongst the American people there. You are 2/3 on your definition of a big government centrist either way.
A nuke, isn't an individual arm so that is just sensationalist rhetoric. A tank is a truck those are legal to own. A .22 rifle is hardly a nuke, your sensationalist rhetoric stops here sorry.
You have to tax people to afford defense, not to fuel pet projects of megalomania. The feed can do with less.
Furthermore you don't think there is a difference between limited government and no government? I assure you there is.
I an not for using taxes to micro manage every single aspect of peoples lives, laws against violating others rights, that to me is what law is for, nothing more.
As per your definition you are 2/3 of the way to being a big government centrist. That is all I was saying. Perhaps your definition was too simple?
If so, that was my point all along... it is a vague term.
I know I am for limited government, I don't have to prove it to you. You can see me as the big government enemy, but I don't really care if you do because I know what I stand for and that is what matters.
If so, that was my point all along... it is a vague term.
I know I am for limited government, I don't have to prove it to you. You can see me as the big government enemy, but I don't really care if you do because I know what I stand for and that is what matters.
How can you have an improper fraction in this circumstance? If there are 3 criteria, how can one meet 4?
In mathematics 4/3=1 and 1/3. You are twice the big centric government supporter I am, you just said how much of a big government supporter i am but i nerve talk about government stealing money in the form of pigouvian taxes, i am not for government oppression in the form of partial disarmament, I am for smaller central government than you are, and you just talked about how much for central government i am, so I imaging you are about double the big centrist i am.
See if you had stayed on topic instead of going out on this hyperbole tangent you would have caught that.
If there are 3 criteria, you can't meet 4. It is mathematically impossible if each criteria can only be counted once.
As for the government "stealing" money with pigouvian tax, you support tax too- so I guess you support that theft too. At least mine goes by the data and taxes something bad whereas I guess for you it is all just intuitive randomness.
As for the government "stealing" money with pigouvian tax, you support tax too- so I guess you support that theft too. At least mine goes by the data and taxes something bad whereas I guess for you it is all just intuitive randomness.
flat sales tax, not extra tax on "bad" things.
It only seems like intuitive randomness to you, most folks would call it common sense.
A for the mathematics the forth is the supreme court which you believe to be the emperor of the nation, they can just interpret rights away and the people just have to lay down and like it even though the people are the rulers
Well now you changed the criteria to be out of 4. You still can't have 4/3 it would be 4/4
But even then it'd be 3/4 because I don't think the court is the emperor. I am just saying what the Constitution says- unlike you I don't pick and choose what parts of the law to go by As for a sales tax, you might still be taxing good things- positive externalities more than my system would and you would allow the violation of the harm principle (depending on how you interpret it) by allowing negative externalities to pass without any fix. So much for protecting individual rights, huh?
Well now you changed the criteria to be out of 4. You still can't have 4/3 it would be 4/4
As for a sales tax, you might still be taxing good things- positive externalities more than my system would and you would allow the violation of the harm principle (depending on how you interpret it) by allowing negative externalities to pass without any fix. So much for protecting individual rights, huh?
All of the so called "negative externalities" you presented were subject to your interpretation, meaning they don't exist so pigouvian tax is meaningless.
You can to have for thirds, if I has 133.33 dollars that would be four thirds of 100 dollars its really very simple math
Oh brother. Do you not understand that there were 3 criteria and each could only be picked once? So the max you can have is 3. Basic logic/math.
And you don't think a situation like a big factory polluting a town and then increasing the cancer rate 5x over exists? Ha. Okay.
Good, I hope she fails, in the mean time we ought to be looking to find ways to keep nut job congressmen from usurping the people.
Someone increasing cancer rates 5x is propaganda? Is a person poisoning another person with an oncogenic substance also propaganda that should not have any consequences?
Similar threads
- Locked