For any true leftists/statists/democrats/socialists/collectivists or whatever you wanna call yourselves that are here right now that aren't busy trolling the rightwing zealots I have a query for you:
Suppose there was a society in which it was decided that a few prime female members were optimal for breeding. Suppose that this society all got together and democratically voted on the issue, and had it written into law that this was the desire of the people.
Now suppose that the women in question were against these proceedings and had no desire whatsoever to have sex with any of these men. The thought of it terrifies them.
It is the law that they must, it was democratically decided on. They made this decision out of their own self preservation, in the end it will make their species better.
Is it still rape?
So you're saying the thought of paying taxes scares you as much as rape? You fucking kike.
>miley will never turn you into 100% degenerate by forcing you to eat her ass
Then we will just add optimal breeding material to the list of human rights. Just like they added stuff that requires taxation even though there is that right to private property on the list, too.
>A (moderate) leftist would say that human rights trump democratically decided laws.
So, no American leftists would had a problem with it then? They really couldn't give a shit about rights.
>Implying I could see or get bugs just from checkin dat ass.
Personal property is still at stake. A person traded a portion of their life in order to obtain what would be taken by taxation. What is your moral conclusion if not that it was simply democratically written into law?
clearly this is your position, we've established that
what we're asking is for you to explain yourself as to why it's ok to use violence to enforce your point of view vs what I've described
>I've never had to pay bills before: the post
you are idiots. taxes are made so that they don't impact your life in a big way but help the whole society. That rape scenario impacts the life of females and benefits only a part of society.
grow up u fuking retarded kids.
well there is the difference between something which is natural (the human body) and man made (money) but i think its secondary.
the money you get is as a result of the society you are in, its a complex system of transactions, some governmental some private. you are given acess to resources made possible by that society (healthy educated workers, communication networks, transport networks etc) and as such you pay back into the system you benefit from, you are basically paying back because you have already been paid out.
a vagina is none of those things, it is merely part of an enclosed system, it isn't part of a society, it isn't part of a social contract and it has an owner who will be violated personally by any invasion of it.
i am 37, work a good job and pull in a six figure society. sorry to burst your bubble but not all rich folks are greedy cunts.
Oh, I get it. This is an analogy for taxation.
Well, from legal positivist view: If a democratic law states that certain women will be forced to have sex, this act cannot be prosecuted for being rape, as the law sanctions these actions.
The same can be applied to taxation by analogy.
However, from a natural law point of view, one would say that this violates God given rights.
So it boils down to legal postivism vs natural law.
Rape is rape. That is obviously still rape. The situation is retarded but I will go along with it.
Making the species "better" is not worth raping women. I can't even believe people would think it is.
This reminds me of some book about a highly advanced, utopian society. But the only way that this society is utopian is because a child is left in a dark room, alone and scared and with minimal food and water. This child has to live there for the rest of its life so that the utopian society can thrive. If the child is removed, it goes back to regular society plagued by a bunch of shit. Everyone knows the child is there and why it is there. The point is, utilitarianism isn't always correct if you have a strong enough sense of morality and yada yada. The child must be set free even if it undoes society and plagues it with crime.
Liken this to acceptinf refugees. Just deport the bad ones and control them so no allahu akhbars or whatever can get in and take care of them. In these cases doing the right thing is more important than protecting the fabric of american society even though it won't do shit to it but you retards think it will. Crimes will happen, but it is worth it to take care of those suffering and starving and who would otherwise be dead.
For those liberals like me that aren't slaves to the media's blasting and corn pone opinions, liberalism is based on a well-developed moral code.
I still oppose most abortion and gay marriage though lol, gotta stay true to God
But I am still more liberal than most, while still being more reasonable than most
Its absolutely not. Youre doing a job that "earns" you money. Money that is provided by the government. You use "free" services provided by the government. So you have two choices, look at it like the government is a corporation that has a yearly subscription fee or go be a substance farmer you fuck,
>well there is the difference between something which is natural (the human body) and man made (money) but i think its secondary.
Money is representative of the time and labour you invested and value you produced. How is taking that from you against your will not tantamount of a form of slavery?
>the money you get is as a result of the society you are in, its a complex system of transactions, some governmental some private. you are given acess to resources made possible by that society (healthy educated workers, communication networks, transport networks etc) and as such you pay back into the system you benefit from, you are basically paying back because you have already been paid out.
You could make the same argument about a woman's body, Her parents could only afford to have a daughter because society provided all these thing and her body is only sustained by the constant provision from society, so she owes it for the greater good.
These things do not exist because of the government and taxation. Maybe it would be different without those things, but that is not a moral justification for extortion.
>a vagina is none of those things, it is merely part of an enclosed system, it isn't part of a society, it isn't part of a social contract and it has an owner who will be violated personally by any invasion of it.
She won't be violated if she complies, then it's just sex. Prostitution in exchange for the the benefits of civil society. Just like paying taxes isn't violating you, only resisting the procedure results in violation.
>i am 37, work a good job and pull in a six figure society. sorry to burst your bubble but not all rich folks are greedy cunts.
Lots of rich people benefit from taxation directly or indirectly and then claim that they are just benevolent and selfless.
That is only because the government forcefully took over the business of money (and slowly transformed it into this fiat currency bullshit).
Taxation is not theft because your dollars don't belong to you to begin with; they belong to the government.
Now if the government started helping itself to your gold and precious gems, THAT would be theft.
>take away 40-60% of what a person earns
>it doesn't impact your life in a big away
>just earn more so we can tax more :))
U some idiot? Maybe in your shithole country.
in uk, up to £30k tax is 20%
the highest tax possible is 45% which only aplies to people who earn over £150K/year
I'll let you do the exchange into millions of your 3rd world currency