Once again you're going off topic.
Xier0 said:
No. I am talking about entirely distinct things, which I continue to prove to you, and you continue to move the goal posts. First, you claimed taxes were fair because it's based on your income. Then you claimed it was fair because you vote for them. Then you claimed it was fair because, well, you don't vote for them, but you vote for people who tax you. Now you claim it's fair because renting property is a thing, and losing access to rented property that you don't pay for is somehow "extortion".
Income taxes are assessed based on your level of income. This is fair to me, and saying it isn't fair is an opinion, as is my own. Trying to "objectively" counter this isn't possible. As all arguments are purely subjective.
We vote for those who manage our taxes. Meaning we choose our level of taxes.
I think you need to look up the definition of extortion.
Saying your home is suspended doesn't make it not extortion. You're still being threatened to pay regardless.
Xier0 said:
If you are renting a place, it isn't YOUR home, it is THEIR home, that they OWN you are RENTING. If you don't hold up your end of the deal, they are free to no longer offer the use of their property to you. The reason that the government is different than voluntary trade is because you have the money taken from you no matter which way you vote, no matter how much you make, no matter how many government services you use. You have swallowed the propaganda that taxes are somehow justified by completely these arbitrary and unrelated reasons. When I ask you to defend any of these reasons, you skip to the next one.
Definition of home:
the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.
If I'm living in a house I pay rent for, the level of the house in which I'm living in is my home. You don't have to own the property to claim it's your home.
If you don't pay rent, you will be kicked out of said home.
Definition of threat:
a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course
When you sign a contract to live in someones home, you agree to the condition of paying rent, or else you will be kicked out.
Definition of extortion:
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
As I've said before, within the contracts are conditions that need to be met which threaten your environment if you're unable to meet them. This is done by force.
I really don't understand why I'm explaining something so simple to you.
Here's another example:
I'm the state, and the land within the state is owned by me. If you want to live in the vicinity of my land, you will need to pay taxes that goes to services in exchange for you living on my property. You will receive those taxes back.
By choosing to live on my property, yes choosing, you agree to these terms.
If you break the law, saying "I didn't know it was against the law to do x", or "I didn't choose to live here" isn't an argument.
Xier0 said:
It's like you didn't even read everyone correcting you. Did you not happen to see the huge list of examples we provided of the government breaking the Constitution? By the way, the amendment doesn't read "taking legal guns away from Americans is unconstitutional". It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not been infringed. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a "illegal gun", because Congress is not allowed to pass laws that infringe keeping or bearing arms, no matter how fast it shoots or how many bullets it holds. Yet, the right for people to own automatic weapons, large capacity magazines & other arms is infringed by congress passing laws banning them.
If you read my reply, you can challenge the government to a judicial review. If incompatible with a higher authority, such as the written constitution, decisions can be overturned.
I already explained why removing privatized ownership as a whole is impractical.
Xier0 said:
It's like you didn't even read everyone correcting you. Did you not happen to see the huge list of examples we provided of the government breaking the Constitution? By the way, the amendment doesn't read "taking legal guns away from Americans is unconstitutional". It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not been infringed. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as a "illegal gun", because Congress is not allowed to pass laws that infringe keeping or bearing arms, no matter how fast it shoots or how many bullets it holds. Yet, the right for people to own automatic weapons, large capacity magazines & other arms is infringed by congress passing laws banning them.
Here we go again.
Definition of infringe:
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
I obtain a gun legally, them trying to take it away would INFRINGE on my
rights to bear arms, which is not constitutional.
Restricting how you obtain the gun isn't against the constitution.
