What rights do you believe the minority has? Do they include the right to keep the fruit of their labor?

Are you saying that it's a matter of scale — two people voting to mug one is immoral, but two hundred million voting to mug one hundred million is moral? Why does this change the situation? If you have a right not to be robbed, why would that right disappear simply because you have a large number of attackers?

Comment by Paul

November 25, 2009 @ 4:20 am ….(…*SOME*of us still R!…)

KOK, which taxes would you say are not theft, and why?

November 30, 2009 @ 12:29 am

Ok TKOK

(1a). Do you believe certain laws can be unjust or immoral?

(1b). If the answer to 1a is yes, do you believe these unjust or immoral laws should still be obeyed?

(1c). If the answer to 1b is yes, would you have obeyed laws forcing escaped slaves to be sent back to plantations, in 1840, for example?

(2). Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?

(3) Do you believe taxes….etc…/////…….

OK, here's my answers: 1.(a): I believe that many existing NH RSA's, and all other laws, *ARE* unjust and immoral, and moreso in the implementing and "enforcement" of them. Selective enforcement, (*NOT*: "exercise of officers' discretion" which is a very different, although similar-seeming thing)selective enforcement, which is the S.O.P./M.O. for KPD, is worse than the laws themselves. Hopefully, that will change after Art Walker is gone…The problem, as I see it, isn't so much the majority rule, it's *TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY*, in the absence of *RESPECT FOR MINORITY RIGHTS*. Again, lack of respect for minority rights is S.O.P./M.O. for KPD. Yes, theKINGofKEENE is a Native NH NIGGER.//////……………. 1.(b): Should these laws be obeyed? Generally, no. In some cases, yes. Again, given the current realities we often are faced with a "lesser of 2 evils" situation…I honestly don't know which is worse, having young teenagers smoking cigarettes, or arresting them for the "crime" of it…Actually, I'm glad that's not my call… 1(c.):Most likely, not. I would probably have been an active conductor on the "Underground Railroad". But then again, if I'd been born & raised in a slave-owning Southern state in the 1840's, vs. a Northern "Free"(Hah!) State, I might answer differently……………………………………*NOTE: Dude, the premise in Q? 2 is *SO*FAULTY*, that the Q? is essentially unanswerable….Of course, what the 2 "neighbors" did/do to the 1 "neighbor" is wrong. "Stealing", by definition, is wrong, so any course of action that flows from a decision to steal is, a priori, & de facto, *WRONG*…That's a very similar scenario to the whole Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel creation myth in the Bible. Where did Cain's *WIFE* come from???…According to what the Bible *SAYS*, *LITERALLY*, can YOU come up with any other possibility than these 2:?: Either Cain impregnates his Mother, Eve, and marries his sister ~15 years later, or Cain marries and impregnates his sister. What other possible options exist? None, that I can see!…………Your Q? #3 suffers from much the same flawed rationalization/reasoning as the first ones….I'd say that there are both fair & unfair taxes. Just and unjust taxes. Taxes that both are, and aren't theft. What you're doing here, Paul, probably has a name in some advanced logic/philosophy course! You're taking a cool slogan, "Taxes are theft.", and conflating it with a question, by twisting it around into "Are taxes theft"???…Paul, if you want better answers, you're gonna have to come up with better questions. That's just all there is to it. I will wait patiently! I'm looking forward to answering better questions.! ~tKoK~

(1a). Do you believe certain laws can be unjust or immoral?
(1b). If the answer to 1a is yes, do you believe these unjust or immoral laws should still be obeyed?
(1c). If the answer to 1b is yes, would you have obeyed laws forcing escaped slaves to be sent back to plantations, in 1840, for example?

(2). Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you believe this scenario is any different, or more moral, than common theft?

(3) Do you believe taxes are theft? If not, why not?

I don't expect you to care about my opinion of you. But, I would expect that you would be capable of answering questions honestly, and taking care that you do not have self-contradictory positions. For example, many state that they believe even immoral laws should always be obeyed, but then honor the actions of MLK, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks. You can't have it both ways. Either we must all be brainless plebs who do whatever the government tells us to, or we must have moral principles, and be capable of standing against laws we consider to be immoral.

I would think that any intellectually honest person would require of themselves that they be capable of answering such questions, and would welcome the opportunity to examine their own beliefs more closely. I know I'd be happy to answer such questions.

But then, I suppose a great many are more interested in maintaining their own delusions than they are in honest thought. Probably, and sadly, there are more of these people than there ever have been in this country. At the least, we Americans used to be capable of a decent intellectual debate.

LOL, you totally win…

Who can beat that "logic"?