ahahaha.

i see now, the gov't can do w/e it wants (regardless of morality) because it's "authorized" to do so. who provides the gov't w/ this "authority?" oh, uh, the gov't!

my bad, dude. i'll do my best to respect their authoritah in the future!

Your point was about definitions. Then when the definition doesn't suit you, you go on a childish rant about authority.

pretty incredible. suzzer.

you never answered my other question, do you want to buy my $40 shirts? i think they would look good on you. here, i'm charging you for them. if you don't pay me, i'm sending armed men to your home who will force you to pay me.

is that theft?

(suzzer: yes)

ok, now my name is "barack obama" instead of "tannenj." is it still theft?

(suzzer: no)

Everything you have said about me since I mentioned decentralization has been false, and I don't believe for a second that you're not 100% aware of this.

I have studied the subject somewhat since I asked. From what I can tell, the answer is yes. I would probably spend more than it would be worth though.

I agree, but also many laws arealso way more accurate than many theories, so stop cherry picking. Theories often include laws as part of them, but never the other way around. This makes laws the winner IMO.

Though it's also true that due to their complexity, theories are also a step up from explaining the universe than laws are in many ways.

It's not cherry picking, which is again a phrase people seem to use without understanding the meaning of. I said that the most accurate description of nature that we have are called theories. This is true, as in quantum field theory. Whether there exist some things called laws that are more accurate than some things called theories is completely irrelevant, and much closer to cherry picking. Quantum field theory does not cease to become a theory and becomes a law just because it is super accurate as your post claimed.

The point is, if you want to talk about how accurate a theory is, you have to learn about it...the mere fact that it is called a theory tells you nothing about it's accuracy. Paul and others don't get this.

Laws more "accurate" than theories? What does that even mean?

A scientific law is a description of what happens if all requisite conditions are met. By definition, that is no understanding or explanation of the universe in them. None. There is no understanding in laws, just observable facts. Once you want an understanding of "why did that happen under those requisite conditions", you get to a theory.

Thank god we are now arguing the difference between scientific theories and scientific laws. This is extremely relevant to the presidential race and to Ron Paul.

This is just ignorant. It's difficult to have argument with someone who refuses any amount of will to understand a point and require written explanation to every nitpick point they can find. While this is one of the oldest trick in the book it's just make people ignore you in the long run.

I will reluctantly made the point you require though.
If you try to make moral assessment of something you use various moral standards and see how they apply to it. There are two ethical theories which support taxation. Those are:
a)Utilitarian approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) which in this situation claim that if taxation leads to greater overall good/happiness/well being in society it's justified. Of course it doesn't justify every tax for every purpose but it makes whole idea of taxation valid in certain cases.

b)Social contract approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) which claims that if the rule in society is just it's justified. Of course you need definition of what constitutes "just". Many attempt at this have been made but they all come down to (in context of this theory) "If the rule could be agreed upon by reasonable people in society if they didn't know their role in this society before making the judgement then it's just".

Those are two mainstream ethical standards. One of them arguably being a base for the Constitution.
By comparison no respectable ethical system justify theft (like in your example of robbery on the street)
To deny they are completely different things is showing ignorance and arrogance.

I can also offer you argument suitable for the level of discussion you are proposing:

Yeah, I didn't sign up to respect your property or to not kill people I don't like either. Those rules were just forced on me.

Cool story. Feel free to explain why a poker would be biased towards bad "political opinions" (if by chance you have any point here).

[1] It was my post that you were replying to. Seriously, I don't make this stuff up.

[2] The most important issues facing the country, in my opinion, and the things I want the federal government to be doing are, it turns out, not the same list, so answering this would take us pretty far afield. It's not that it's a bad question, but this thread isn't about me.

It's about Ron Paul supporters and their unshakable devotion to him, and their shared belief that they are never wrong about anything.

Zygote, you came in here with the idea that people were misrepresenting Paul's thoughts. You seemed pretty bold about this. You were wrong. Do you consider that a fair assessment, or do you still think that claiming WWII is the best evidence against evolution is a defensible statement?

The most you post, the less confidence I have that you understand this.

But maybe he's just pretending to be an idiot in his book to appeal to people who hate science. I don't find that any better, but you can take your pick.

"Just a conjecture."

Ron Paul on Lou Dobbs Radio - 10/28/11

Ron Paul on KTRH Houston: Talks About Student Loans, Budget Cuts and Libya 10/27/11

Article: The Political Revolution Will Not Be Televised
"The Occupy Wall Street movement may not know it yet, but Ron Paul is their candidate. ..."

I'm just quoting this in the hopw that someone sees it and gets a chuckle.

I said from what I can tell. It's not like I have a law degree or have spent hours researching it. That's the point of ASKING instead of assuming. Is it really that amusing for someone to be ignorant of legal nuances? I can't imagine why. Lawyers spend quite a lot of time learning the answers to these questions.

Two things I have learnt ITT -

1) Taxation is theft, and immoral
2) Poor and uninsured people dying in the streets is absolutely fine.

meh, I tend to agree with zikzac that political opinions are not really developed rationally in a vacuum. psychology plays a larger role than people want to admit. most people (people I call "normal") don't give much thought to politics at all.

Don't forget flagship Ron Paul supporters argument:
"You don't like it, go somewhere else" when discrimination in local communities is mentioned.

see.

I thought #2 was going to be "RP required his medical practice to not accept medicare/medicaid and treated those patients free of charge" but apparently its the opposite. WEIRD.

I agree with that too. And accordingly would put "poker player" at least above "military officer" on the list of people likely to make a good decision. Curious what I'm missing or what his point is.

Easier to move to a different city or state than a new country.

not that much easier.

lol libel. Are you ****ing kidding me? That it some stupid **** right there, and is definitely an example of taking this forum too seriously.

How about this: if you don't like to be accused of supporting specific instances of local tyranny, then don't say you support local tyranny in the abstract without thinking through that position.

right:

you believe taxation leads to greater overall good and that it's therefore justified (obviously, others disagree), which is fine. however, all that means is that taxes are theft that you believe lead to greater overall good and are justified. they're still theft.

it's kind of like if i have a 700-pound friend who can't seem to stop eating snickers bars. he invites me to his house and i find a huge stash of 5,000 bars in his basement or something. i decide to take them away thinking that if someone doesn't stop him, he's going to get a heart attack. this is is arguably "justified" and "for his own good," but it's still theft. any time one party takes something from another party w/o getting permission first, that's theft. period. this is a definitional issue, not something that can be argued.

not killing people and not damaging/stealing other people's property is inherently moral. we don't need an overbearing government to make this is the case. it's very obviously the case no matter what.

the income tax is NOT inherently moral. it didn't even exist until 1913. if you think it's moral, then you must also think the pre-1913 us government was negligent.

finally, you never answered this: