Forums → WEPR → The Perfect President

the English settled America

==========

let me correct that:
europeans settled america.

befor the english came in power the land was bought from the indians by the dutch.
who then sold it to the english. but by that time. people from all over europe were already settling in america. (mostly the scum and hopeless in search for a new/better life.)

Well if they were a PERFECT president then they would make the PERFECT country.

dats right mods, show him that he cant have an opinion contrary to the popular belief without it being attempted to be utterly proven as incorrect.

Regardless as to the fact that I misconstrued this law, the over all proposal of this sin tax is just. The means are just and the ends are good. Whether or not a criminal law requires us to aid these people I shall still attempt to.

Did you become a mod by insulting people and saying silly little comments like "Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest", or did you just descend into sarcasm and condescension when you became a mod?

If any player says comments such as yours that would earn them a three day ban would it not?

I'll rephrase what I meant for you like I did for NoName: seeing as how Canada and America was built on Christianity, the fact that gluttony is one of the seven sins makes it a good reason for Christians to back up this tax law.

I completely disagree with this.

haha three or four mods + Mage and that other guy against von who has 100 posts to his credit, the rest of y'all have thousands
dats right mods, show him that he cant have an opinion contrary to the popular belief without it being attempted to be utterly proven as incorrect.

I see the perfect president as an enabler and taxation as the price a citizen pays in order for the president to provide the conditions in in which the citizen can live in freedom. An individual citizen can decide what's best for him or her, right or wrong. The perfect president has the mjssion impossible od deciding what is best for all citizens.

Not going to try and list what would make a president perfect in my mind...but one thing I would very much admire in a president is him going to war as well if there was one. Not go to war before hand...no no...go to war while President. Like Kings/leaders of nations used to do before...fight side by side with their country-men.

I'm not saying he should be on the front lines...but at least on the battlefield rather than sitting comfortably in an office

Like Kings/leaders of nations used to do before...fight side by side with their country-men.
====
they never did.
and if you mend the part befor battle to support the troops...
presidents still visit their troops in war areas while in office to support them.

You need to learn a few things about analogies.
1.You accuse me of making redicilous analogies, because the way taxation works is very different from armed robbery. This is expected with analogies - there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. There will always be differences between the two things being compared. The only way you can have a perfect analogy is if you compare the same thing with itself - but, then you no longer have an analogy.
2. You have strong analogies and weak analogies. You're essentially accusing my analogy of being weak - you believe the two situations I compare are too vastly different. However, I wasn't comparing the situations as a whole - thus why I said A is as to B as C is as to D. The reason your school has you answer those "A is as to B" questions is because you're supposed to learn how to isolate and compare similarities between two different situations or objects.
So how is taxation like armed robbery? You explained that taxation is a form of communication and persuasion, but not a form of coercion.
When you point a gun at someone's head and you demand them to pay you money for buying sugary drinks or cigarettes, then you're using coercion to communicate a message to said person and to persuade them to either pay the extra costs, be shot, or to avoid buying things that make you take money from them.
When you apply a tax, the tax MUST be applied to an object. A person MUST pay that tax or they will be fined or arrested (and if the fine isn't payed, arrested). The government is using this coercive thread as a way to communicate a message to the buyer that they shouldn't buy a product, and the government is persuading them with threats of arrest to either not buy a product, or to pay more for it.
You then explain that taxation is NOT coercion because you have a choice not to buy the good. You're using coercion to force people not to buy a product. Of course, there is one difference, the person CAN buy the product if they want, but they would then be forced to pay more money for said product - but your logic assumes that because they made a choice to buy said product, they weren't forced to do anything. WRONG. Those people were FORCED to pay taxes on said product.
You can argue that some means of coercion are acceptable, but you can't argue that taxation isn't a form of coercion. It is.
Let's say you want to cross a bridge, but bandits have it locked down. They won't let anyone pass unless they pay $200. Even though you do have the option of not crossing the bridge, their actions ARE STILL coercive.
To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.

To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.

This is an example of a weak analogy, because the reason you gave is too vague.
Yes, both systems are similar in that one regard, but one doesn't justify the other because there are other VERY important factors between the two you failed to address (and these factors are important because they serve as the core of this debate).
Insurance is required because it protects people and their property from each other. If one person crashes into another, his insurance will cover the person he ran into. In fact, you don't need to cover yourself when you drive, only other people.
Sin tax is put in place to protect people from themselves. Completely different.

Although there is such thing as bad parenting, you have to let parents do their thing and intervene only when ABSOLUTELY necessarily.

Wrong, you still don't understand that having another option doesn't negate the existence of coercion

Giving someone a choice doesn't negate the existence of coercion.

Essentially, other people's lives are your business because you want to make it your business. The problem is that merely wanting to do something doesn't (shouldn't) grant you the authority to magically intervene.

Westboro Baptist Church wants to help people by banning all gay activities and put an end to any religion that isn't their own. These people might actually want what's best for everyone. Why do we hate them? Because they're forcing their views on everyone else.

These are ALL strawmen and a false dichotomies.
In short, you can be against sin tax and still care enough for other people to try and help them. Not everyone who's against sin tax has the mentality that people should be left to kill themselves.

No, I didn't agree to these laws. No, I do not give my consent merely by living in an area.

is would justify **** if it were legalized. In many parts of the middle east, it is acceptable to hit your wife and have sex with her whenever you want, it doesn't make it any more right.

You're not making them stop, you're making them pay more if they choose to buy something you don't agree with. Still coercion.

You should respond to Strop's post, I'm most curious as to your response to him.

Taxation is a form of coercion insofar as your liberties will be restricted if you fail to comply.

I'm not sure how relevant this line of argumentation is to the broader point of contention

however, which seems to focus on whether it is right or not to consider whether or not a person is entitled to act in ways other than their best interests, and what limitations to impose upon them.

It's important to consider the relationship and distinction from laws preventing people from behaviours that restrict or infringe other peoples' freedoms. In short, is all coercion necessarily bad, and if not, what kinds are acceptable, and how can one then reach a consensus on restriction of self-liberties?

Besides, "in one's best interests" is nebulous and difficult to define, and what I consider in my best interests may not be what law defines as in my best interests, despite the fact that I consider myself more educated than those who would decide how I should behave if I were behaving in my best interests, and frankly that doesn't make sense.

Restrictive laws may dictate but they also engender resistive culture, and that's what really needs addressing: education, dissemination, proliferation and assimilation are the steps needed to adopt lasting change. Not some law that unreasonable people will ignore and reasonable people think they're being unfairly targeted because of alleged unreasonable people.

If he provided any actual hard evidence to his fantastical claims other than making wild, sweeping assumptions we would not have to. I'm all for different views on several topics, so long as there is evidence and reason behind it.

Just? Do you define just as 'it targets a select group of people'? The more logical approach would be to make healthier foods cheaper, perhaps provide a certain incentive for buying such foods. They already do it for hybrid/electric cars and such. Why not what we ingest?

In a single word to answer all above statements? No.
To elaborate, I have always been the same sort of person before or after becoming a moderator. I vehemently oppose any ideas based solely off of ill-conceived opinons and notions, even more so when backed up with faulty or no evidence. I still stand behind what I said, such being "...the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins."

Why? Because people nowadays make baseless accusations and wild assumptions with nothing more than their opinion or other such meaningless ideology to hide behind. No hard facts, no proof and no published works to support their claims.

As far as the entire 'Christian nation' balderdash is concerned, why not make more laws based around other fairy tale stories and antiquated ideals? We should still be able to sell our daughters into slavery! As well as stone perceived sinners to death! Also outlaw clothes of mixed fibers!

Sp you just decide to disagree with anything you dislike. Based off of one alleged real-life case. Or, as proven several times by yourself, you will be rebutted by one who knows of what they speak and admit that you were more or less speaking about topics oh which you have no grasp of. Congrats, you just won 9,001 Internets.

Furthermore if a person has an opinion contrary to popular belief then it's simply more likely that more people may feel compelled to point out why they disagree. In this case the argument revolves more around inappropriate interpretation of clearly defined institutions, so that's not so much an opinion as being misinformed, unless the premises of the discussion were both acknowledged and altered accordingly.

In this case you ought to ignore the fact that Devoidless and Nemo are mods as they are engaging in this argument as interlocutors, they are not moderating this thread.

Like Kings/leaders of nations used to do before...fight side by side with their country-men.
====
they never did.

Evidence and Reason to suggest this sin tax would be wise:

1. To cut down on obesity, as a mod (I forget who, it was either you or NoName said) even agreed it would be helpful to this obesity issue to a small degree. The degree of which shall remain unknown unless this sin tax is implemented.
2. None of the current strategies to help rectify this issue has even been slightly effective. Therefore we need to try a different approach. This would be a good example of a different approach.
3. All tax money goes straight back into your streets, cops salaries, hospitals etc... so even though the reason of this sin tax is not one of gaining money for they country and community it is still an advantage of this sin tax nonetheless.
4. This is a reasonable alternative strategy to help rectify this issue because it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional.
5. If this sin tax achieves its goal (which is to help rectify this obesity problem) the sin tax would then go away, until such a time as it is needed again if ever. So it is not like this would be a permanent solution.
6. Many people in Canada and America are Christians (over 70% of the population according to recent demographics), gluttony is also one of the seven deadly sins. Therefore it stands to reason that many people would approve of this sin tax. Even though religion is not one of the reasons for this sin tax being implemented, having many people back this law up would be a benefit.

I do not think any of these points is "sophistry" or "ill-conceived hogwash" or any of your other patronizing remarks, and by the way these are my main reasons as to why this sin tax would be smart/beneficial.

I could easily say the same about you and NoName. I have made no baseless accusations and wild assumptions with nothing more than opinion and "meaningless ideology." I've backed everything I said up with reasonable responses.

You however have not. As soon as you choose to intentionally insult and patronize others as part of your argument, your argument loses all credibility.

- Taxation would be parliament/senate approved.
- For tax laws to go into place they follow long and fairly complicated legal procedures.
- Over four different votes have to be approved before new laws can be established.
- Elected officials by the people, who serve the people will have proposed this.

- Armed robbery is illegal.
- Armed robbery is actually coercion (you force your will upon others with threats and physical force).
- Armed robbery is simply and utterly wrong, unconstitutional and unlawful (as defined by the criminal code).
- Tax laws would not be unconstitutional, or unlawful or wrong if officials from your parliament and your elected leader passes this new tax law.

Ah, so since they aren't mods in this thread and they're interlocutors that gives them the right to just insult, and condescend when they feel like it?

...makes it seem like you're overcompensating for the fact that you're arguing for nothing but your massive ego at this point.

Okay now that's over with, perhaps we can resume discussing the content of the arguments without getting so heated.

Many people in Canada and America are Christians (over 70% of the population according to recent demographics), gluttony is also one of the seven deadly sins. Therefore it stands to reason that many people would approve of this sin tax.

If this sin tax achieves its goal (which is to help rectify this obesity problem) the sin tax would then go away, until such a time as it is needed again if ever. So it is not like this would be a permanent solution.

VonHeisenbourg makes a valid point; that is, incentives, especially monetary incentives, can be much more effective than regulations. However, choices of personal lifestyle, healthy or unhealthy, are part of the roots of my country and are necessary in a capitalist economy. A 'sin' tax on consumer products such as cigarettes or alcohol, wouldn't necessarily provide incentives to quit. Instead it would provide incentives for alternative methods of purchase, in the black market or some other manner. The ridiculously high alcohol tax in Washington doesn't provide us with an incentive to quit drinking. We just go to Oregon instead. A tax on products (such as Coca-Cola) would be incredibly economically damaging for two reasons (I'll use Coca-Cola as an example):

First, the tax would increase the price of a bottle of Coke without any correlation to the cost of production. This means that Coke would now have to reduce the quality of their drinks (insofar as it can be reduced) or cut costs in production, transportation, or their work force--including laying-off workers or outsourcing more jobs--to compete with the lower-quality and cheaper drinks provided manufactured by stores themselves (ex. QFC or Safeway's 'Refreshe' drinks).
Secondly, not specifically related to Coca-Cola, this tax would hit lower-income families the hardest, who generally can't afford the cost in time or money of buying and preparing their own food from ingredients. Furthermore, it would cause a rise in shoplifting, which could potentially devastate smaller markets in low-income neighborhoods, where the costs of business are already high and profit comes from so-called 'junk-foods'.

On the other hand, a sin tax could provide incentives for companies to pursue cheaper, more efficient (and hopefully more eco-friendly) transportation and delivery methods...

Either way, my ideal government (I'm choosing to add Congress to this, purely because the President doesn't make all the choices) would apply economic incentives on a larger scale. So rather than taxing consumer products, the government could use carbon offsets or 'energy shares' (as I like to think of them) to combat global warming. The government would allocate a total amount of carbon emissions the country could use, then require households and businesses to purchase a 'share' of this energy for use, which could then be bought and sold on the market. Of course, this would require worldwide cooperation and practice for it to be truly effective, but I can still dream :P