It is considered *immoral *to steal from another. Do you believe that the government should not create laws against stealing?
But that involves unconsenting people. The government is intervening because the target of the theft doesn’t want to be stolen from. The laws against theft are about the unconsenting transfer of property, not the transfer of property itself.
It’s the difference between forbidding prostitution, and between forbidding rape.
So we can agree that there are times when the government should legislate morality?
If so, then can I go further and see that you think those times involve doing things that impact others?
Sigh. You, and I, and Der Trihs all know perfectly well that “legislating morality” in this context does not refer to the basic peacekeeping and dispute resolution functions of government.
*This *is why GD is so amazingly boring to me. The people who think that intelligent discussion is “sigh.”
Fair enough. As we are past my threshold for dull, I concede all the points and will not return.
I am suggesting exactly that government has no business legislating a certain view of ‘morality’.
Yet I am also suggesting that We do what we do with all other pursuits of happiness:
regulate and tax as necessary.
IntheSpirit
of Peace
r~
Then I would ask why it is that vices need to be specifically addressed? What makes them worthy of addional taxation whereas virtues are not?
Stealing is also a crime. That is not the same as simply ‘immoral’.
It is only by image and name that we know god differently.
Consider that liberty and jihad are one and the same:
The well regulated pursuit of peace.
Crime is the denial of liberty jihad.
It is not only crime, but greater immoral to deny or prohibit peaceful pursuits; even if those pursuits may seem ‘immoral’ to you.
Let Allah judge sins against him; let us protect right of jihad for all.
ItS
Peace through Liberty
r~
Many may recite the Words, yet few will serve In the Spirit.
I do not believe that the government should create laws against stealing because it is morally bad, yes.
I do believe that the government should create laws against stealing because without such a right civilisation would likely break down quite quickly.
I have no problem with legislating on things that people have certain moral views on. The question is whether or not the reason for that legisation is moral-based or not. I believe that laws against stealing, murder, rape, and all that kind of thing have perfectly legitimate reasons for existence other than simply “they are bad”.
Why is “civilization” (or “civilisation” ;p) something to strive for? Maybe I am strong and love oppressing the weak? Is it possibly your own moral judgements that makes civilization a good thing?
What are you trying to say ? This is incoherent.
And I never thought that Der Trihs and I would agree on anything. We won’t next time, so I will relish this moment… 
Not at all. Income is taxable whether legal or illegal. Al Capone was jailed for not paying taxes on his illegal income. Cite (OK, so it’s Wikipedia, but I am sure you can follow the links to more definitive cites.)
no. how would we tax drug dealers when what they do is illegal? And why is Huckabee still in the race?
as far as prostitution, it’s legal in Rhode Island, so I’m sure the R.I. tax department gets a “piece” too. hahahaha!
Not so. “Civilisation” is something to strive for, not because it is in and of itself a good thing, but because it is required for understanding and making a move on what is good and bad. Now, certainly you could say that I think “being able to have different possibilities open to you” is something to strive for. But I don’t want the government to legislate what people select, what moral system they use. Only that they have the ability to chose for themselves.
Can’t we bypass the issue of morality by simply taxing recreational activities at a higher rate than necessities? I think all “vices” fall under recreational spending.
(Well, except maybe gluttony - and even there, maybe you can make a distinction between prepackaged snack foods vs. basic sustinence food.)
:dubious: Tax vices?!
Get a grip!
::d&r::
No, but whenever they decided to buy something in a store (condoms, cellphones, etc) they’d have to pay the (greatly increased) sales tax with their ill gotten gains. And presumably if they’re caught by the police in addition to being charged in state court for selling narcotics/sex they could also be charged in federal court for not collecting the federal sales tax.
I think you misunderstood the clip you saw. Mike Huckabee is a FairTax advocate. Under the Fair Tax, everyone is taxed, even drug dealers and prostitutes. While these people’s income may not be legally earned, it is still taxed at the cash register. Every time a prostitute goes to buy clothes or a pack of cigarettes, she’s being taxed. She can’t duck the IRS, or claim no taxable wages, etc. because it’s not the same system.
What you might’ve heard was the tail-end of Huckabee’s argument for his fair tax. Something like, ‘When taxing income, the black market economy (i.e. prostitution, drug dealers, illegal immigrants paid off the books) all get a huge tax exemption. By charging sales tax at the point of sale, Candi Apples, Pablo Escobar & Iza the Fillipino house maid all end up paying their fair share.’ </conjecture>
New York’s non-socially conservative governor, Elliot Spitzer has proposed “looking the other way” when dealers claim illegal drug proceeds on their NYS Income Tax Form. A $200-a-Gram Tax on Cocaine?
And today in Mississippi, a few MS legislators proposed fining and eventually closing restaurants that serve obese customers.