Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry, this was in part II, which I didn't post:
Several letters of disagreement interpreted my argument as being against taxation. They used the sleight-of-hand approach saying that we need taxation for national defense, the courts and other constitutionally authorized purposes as if that observation meant that taxation for any other purpose was just as legitimate. Let me be explicit. Taxes to finance certain federal activities are indeed legitimate as well as constitutional.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w...20040817.shtml
|
Problem is, I don't think you can present this as a moral question while acknowledging that you find some point along the continuum away from the zero-point to be acceptable. He's left with an "it's immoral if you want to spend more than I want to spend" position. If he wants to declaim that taxation with the explicit goal of taking from one to simply give to another in order to equalize resources is immoral, that's fine, but that's not the argument that I saw. He's still then left with the "we choose to spend on a common-good basis" argument, and all he can argue is that he has a better idea of what constitutes "common good".
