Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 10. (Read 28705 times)

Hint: The question mark denotes sarcasm.  [double hint: so does the word "hint"]

This a nation of laws, not men, and I showed you clearly where in the instructions it details how to properly report your state income tax refund so that you don't get "double-taxed".  That's why I asked you that if you believed I was incorrect, that you show me where in the instructions it explains why, despite the earlier indication, you *do* have to pay taxes on your refund twice.  Go read them, they're long but they're not as complicated as your tax lawyer wants you to think.  If you want to be angry for being "forced" to do something by no one, I can't stop you, but I can't take you seriously either.  Me, if I were you, I'd hire a new tax lawyer.

P.S.: It behooves you to see the light: you can file amended tax returns for previous years to correct your mistakes, and you'll get refunded for whatever extra tax you paid.

No, not my federal.  My state refund is taxed again by my state.


You statists really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?


No, I'm not.

I know of no religious order that would openly support the 'crazies' after the fact, but it's an unavoidable historical reality that crazies do gain positions of authority in any major religious structure.  When that happens, crazy crap happens.  You will not find any Catholics that support the events related to the Inquisition either.


That's not my premise.  My premise is that religious organizations have a history of attracting zealots.  I know of no exception to this rule.


There is some evidence that such orders were actually given, but not conclusive evidence.  Even so, the people who gave those orders were still people, and would be disowned by the LDS today anway.  Like I said, you will not find a Catholic in favor of the Inquisition either.


For the most part, so does the Koran.  And even the Hindu have a habit of killing each other over religious differences.


I don't need to prove otherwise.  I have not claimed that the LDS, as a religion, is violent.  All that I have claimed is that it has a history of violent conflict, which it does just like every other religion on Earth that is older than two generations.  The Utah War is only one example of this, as they moved to Utah because they lost a war in Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War) and then in Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus).  You can make the argument that the Mormons were fighting for self-defense, but not that they didn't fight.  Religious beliefs don't kill people, people kill people over religious beliefs.  The last thing that one should ever do is present evidence contrary to the belief system of a zealot with a firearm, the coganative dissonance can be murder.


Why not?  They are historical facts.  I didn't misrepresent them in any way.  If you made an assumption about the meaning, it's your own doing.

That's not really what you said. You said that your tax refund (presumably your federal) is double taxed by Kentucky. Now you're saying that your state refund is added into your (federal?) return. If the latter, this is normal, as we have been saying, if you itemized your deductions, and thus did not pay tax on the amount withheld by Kentucky.

Whatever the case, you're switching your story now.

Classy. Didn't take long for that belly-button gem to show itself.

Whatever you say, buddy.  I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice.  The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.  Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system!  Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund.  I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS.

Those events were, as far as I know, unguided and leaderless murderers. There are no specific instances that the mormon church ever advocated the taking of lives, or property in that conflict. That is not their belief system. Never has, never will be.

I consider your example that of a bunch of rogue crazies. Now, not having been there, I can't say who started what when, or how much of this "war" or fight was in self defense.

Notwithstanding, it has never been the position of the LDS church to advocate violence against non-members which appears to be your premise. If you can provide evidence that the leaders of the church at that time (meadows massacre) specifically handed down orders to murder and plunder then I'd like to see it.

Additionally, I'm certain that had it been avoidable, the church leaders would have made it so. Everything I've ever read about them indicates to me that they advocate openness, freedom, peace, tranquility and free will. Prove otherwise. Don't pick scurrilous unrelated events that are disconnected from the basic belief system they teach.

I again ask you to provide documentation that verifies that the LDS church specifically advocates violence and coercion against non-members, not remote groups of purported members in good standing committing heinous acts of violence. A huge stretch at best.

The scriptures and the laws of man can help guide people to do the right thing, it doesn't make them do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen. They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Native Americans. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre and the motives behind the incident remain a mystery.

The "Aiken Massacre" took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the US Army. They were released, but later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Granted, a bit lopsided as far as the examples go, but if the Mormons had the history, population and worldwide influences that the RCC did, they likely would have done the same crap.

LOL!  You both made an assumption that I didn't assert, and then based your own smug assertion on the one that I didn't make!

The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors.

No, it's not.


No, it doesn't.  Your example is so far away from what I just stated it the reality that it's not even in the same tax code.  I never said that Kentucky taxes the federal return.

As far as I can tell, the only forceful act anybody could "lawfully" exert against his fellow man and his property would be in the situation in which he is defending himself and his property against invasion. That is the only "involuntary" force one could apply, all other acts would be voluntary and/or mutual.

Conflict tends to change the landscape of the laws and their application in adverse ways. Laws should only consider those cases when one man and his property are in conflict with another. If there is no conflict, no aggression, no force, no fraud, nor breach of contract, then no law should arise to mitigate it.

My being able to defend myself is obvious, likewise, if I choose -of my own free will- to delegate that activity to another man or organization, this is also quite obvious. If on the other hand you say that I cannot choose how I wish to be defended, then you have used force and coercion against me, thereby breaking the basic rules of choice, agency, liberty and freedom. You have placed yourself in the God/parent/nanny/greater-than-thou class of persons. There is nothing obscure, crazy, fringe, or nonsensical about that fact. It just is what it is.

The only curious question or discussion that could come about from all of this scuttlebutt, would be what exactly is the law? What standard do we use? How do we use equity in application of this law or laws and not commit/initiate acts of aggression? The law can not destroy it's own purpose that it serves.

Competition for the definition of laws is not like competition for definition of the laws of nature. Nature, viz. physics just is what it is. If we can't explain it, it doesn't change the effect of natural laws. They remain what they are. Human laws are theoretical concepts (based upon what is right and wrong) that can give us varying degrees of freedom. I'm of the belief that there can be a lot more freedom than that which we're experiencing right now.

So back to the beginning, why don't we answer the real question. What is Law? Once you figure that one out, then you can focus on what type or form of governing that best protects our lives, liberties, and properties. Conversely, and more importantly to me, what law best prevents injury/murder, enslavement, and plunder?

Whattya say we fix it? Do your best.

You're welcome! I'm glad there are at least some people here interested in the material.

By the way, thanks for pointing these links out, ascent.  I've started reading some of them, and they're really quite interesting.

I donno about the Mormons, but... remember these guys?

I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.?

I didn't see the above posts. Darn! I was hoping to be the first to point out his overly smug assertion.

I've got some news for you. You're not double taxed by the state of Kentucky on the amount of your federal tax refund. However, if you itemized your deductions, then when you receive your state income tax return, you will have to pay federal taxes on it because you did not pay taxes on it the year before.

I think you're confused. Research it.