|
On June 28 2013 06:22 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:17 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote:On June 27 2013 12:57 Kimaker wrote:
"It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."- Aristotle
Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler +p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling. I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say. I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine. But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is. TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering. Right. So if it was civil unions and we all had the same rights, you wouldn't care. It seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Once again, no one was harmed. Marriage is still marriage. Unless you are using the argument that "gay people getting married means my wife and I can't get it on". At that point I can't help you really. Well I DID say that the ruling was largely irrelevant in my first post...so, I'm not exactly sure what we've having a conversation about then. O_o? I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. So...we agree-ish?
No not really, you seem to be talking about vapor and either, rather than substance and reality. The foundation of marriage is fine and the ruling obfuscates nothing. It only confirmed what we already knew, that all relationships between two adults are equal.
On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language!
I completely agree sir. Gobstoppers are candy and always have been. Snickers are a melding of several candies, creating impurities in its basic parts. Also it has nuget in it, which is not even a candy, but some sort of filthy filler.
|
all of the moral and personal arguments aside, this ruling seems common sense to me? the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently, banning certain types of people from marriage fails in this. whether you agree with gay marriage or not, the supreme court has to strike down the law based purely on their ability to read.
the bit that most infuriates me about this kind of thing in the US though is that at least 8 of those 9 people were purely playing politics with their votes, and were completely failing to even attempt to do their job. so maybe assuming they are able to actually read the sentences in the constitution is too much.
|
On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language!
This made me laugh. Such a perfect analogy. Why can't I ever come up with these comebacks? Are you by any chance a programmer? Because that analogy has resemblance to OOP.
|
On June 28 2013 07:21 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! This made me laugh. Such a perfect analogy. Why can't I ever come up with these comebacks? Are you by any chance a programmer? Because that analogy has resemblance to OOP.
A lot of things have that resemblance since its sort of how things in the real world work 
Seriously though, I could not get the idea of OOP for the longest time, and then once it clicked I suddenly saw the connection everywhere.
Also, I don't know why this has the be the States Rights and/or Activist Judges thread. I was sort of hoping this could just be a celebration and a bit of reasonable discussion, but it seems like its gotten way off track.
|
On June 28 2013 07:21 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! This made me laugh. Such a perfect analogy. Why can't I ever come up with these comebacks? Are you by any chance a programmer? Because that analogy has resemblance to OOP.
Done very little programming, though I do have a math background. Currently: philosophy.
|
the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently
LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently.
|
On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently.
Yeah, that is incorrect. It can treat people differently, but can't take away basic rights. What those rights are and how they work is a question for the courts. Treating everyone the same generally is not an effective way to deal with most issues.
|
On June 28 2013 09:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. Yeah, that is incorrect. It can treat people differently, but can't take away basic rights. What those rights are and how they work is a question for the courts. Treating everyone the same generally is not an effective way to deal with most issues.
I disagree with your last point. Equality under the law is one of the hallmarks of a just and efficient society, and is appropriate in 99% of cases.
|
On June 28 2013 10:06 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. Yeah, that is incorrect. It can treat people differently, but can't take away basic rights. What those rights are and how they work is a question for the courts. Treating everyone the same generally is not an effective way to deal with most issues. I disagree with your last point. Equality under the law is one of the hallmarks of a just and efficient society, and is appropriate in 99% of cases.
That works in principle. And then after creating the idealist sentiment, you must make those laws function in the real world. At the end of the day, the lights must turn on. How we get that done is up to debate, but its has to get done.
|
I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. Marriage is simply the legal bonding of two consenting human beings. There is no language being degraded or obfuscated here.
|
United Kingdom452 Posts
On June 28 2013 10:06 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. Yeah, that is incorrect. It can treat people differently, but can't take away basic rights. What those rights are and how they work is a question for the courts. Treating everyone the same generally is not an effective way to deal with most issues. I disagree with your last point. Equality under the law is one of the hallmarks of a just and efficient society, and is appropriate in 99% of cases.
I tend to agree with you, but how is this a point against allowing same rights to gay marriage as this is clearly enforcing equality under law?
EDIT: Brain fart, didn't read your first 6 words apologies.
|
On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently.
Affirmative action is actually a pretty clear case of discrimination. Its more or less only allowed as a counterweight to all the other statistically proven discrimination already occurring.
On another note I have really never understood how progressive taxes has anything do to with discrimination. You are not paying more taxes because of your skin colour or sex, or anything else for that matter which can in any way be related to you as a person.
Money as a concept is not a part of a person, more or less all currencies today has it's value directly derived from government regulation or law. Its pretty much the reason why destroying money is generally prohibited across the world, you only own the value which is ensured by the government, not the actual coins or bills in your hand.
|
On June 28 2013 20:50 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. Affirmative action is actually a pretty clear case of discrimination. Its more or less only allowed as a counterweight to all the other statistically proven discrimination already occurring. On another note I have really never understood how progressive taxes has anything do to with discrimination. You are not paying more taxes because of your skin colour or sex, or anything else for that matter which can in any way be related to you as a person. Money as a concept is not a part of a person, more or less all currencies today has it's value directly derived from government regulation or law. Its pretty much the reason why destroying money is generally prohibited across the world, you only own the value which is ensured by the government, not the actual coins or bills in your hand.
Another major reason why destroying money is illegal is that in some cases the coins or bills could actually cost more to make than their face value. This would only really happen with coins, but take the penny for example. Pennies, for example, cost 2.41 cents to make in 2012 (source). The vast majority of this cost is the cost of the metals used to make them. This means that if it were legal to destroy money, you could melt down pennies and resell the copper and zinc for a profit.
|
On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language!
Poor analogy. "Candy" is a meta-descriptive term for a broad category of an aggregated type which entails a number of specific variants.
Marriage, on the other hand, has a historical precedent of being a very specific thing in Western culture. Examples of institutional or socially accepted homosexuality which occurred were not referred to as marriage, though they could entail similar legal obligations and traditions. Still, never called marriage. To call the Civil Union of a gay couple marriage is false equivalency.
Edit: That being said, NOW it would an accurate equivocation (or potentially rather).
Not sure what you're trying to pull here. I'm not saying that both gay and straight "marriage" aren't functionally the same from a legal standpoint, I'm saying that there is a strange confabulation of language, and hence, the idea the language represents is effected as opposed to simply accepting a new idea; i.e. Civil Unions.
On June 28 2013 06:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:22 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 06:17 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote:On June 27 2013 12:57 Kimaker wrote:
"It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."- Aristotle
Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler +p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling. I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say. I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine. But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is. TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering. Right. So if it was civil unions and we all had the same rights, you wouldn't care. It seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Once again, no one was harmed. Marriage is still marriage. Unless you are using the argument that "gay people getting married means my wife and I can't get it on". At that point I can't help you really. Well I DID say that the ruling was largely irrelevant in my first post...so, I'm not exactly sure what we've having a conversation about then. O_o? I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. So...we agree-ish? No not really, you seem to be talking about vapor and either, rather than substance and reality. The foundation of marriage is fine and the ruling obfuscates nothing. It only confirmed what we already knew, that all relationships between two adults are equal. Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! I completely agree sir. Gobstoppers are candy and always have been. Snickers are a melding of several candies, creating impurities in its basic parts. Also it has nuget in it, which is not even a candy, but some sort of filthy filler.
What did you think law in this country has become? It's nothing but self justified dialectical systems anymore (for the most part).
On June 28 2013 19:29 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. Marriage is simply the legal bonding of two consenting human beings. There is no language being degraded or obfuscated here.
No, NOW it is the legal bonding of two consenting (and I would add adult) human beings (or potentially). And that's my point.
|
The government has no place deciding how and with whom a person can have a romantic/sexual relationship with as long both parties are consenting (which also implies is over the age of consent) and there is no abuse.
On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:
But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is.
I don't understand why gay marriage and straight marriage are fundamentally different in your opinion. What is different about it that isn't none of the government's business?
On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently.
It's not about treating people equally, it's about equal opportunities. Sometimes treating people equally is unfair due to natural or uncontrollable differences such as income, where they live, gender, health, etc... There's a difference between inequality and discrimination. For example, the physical requirement to join the military is different for men and women. It would be unfair to treat them both equally. In the case for gay marriage, though, it would be unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently than hetereosexual relationships because there is no practical difference that would require them to be treated differently.
|
On June 29 2013 00:17 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! Poor analogy. "Candy" is a meta-descriptive term for a broad category of an aggregated type which entails a number of specific variants. Marriage, on the other hand, has a historical precedent of being a very specific thing in Western culture. Examples of institutional or socially accepted homosexuality which occurred were not referred to as marriage, though they could entail similar legal obligations and traditions. Still, never called marriage. To call the Civil Union of a gay couple marriage is false equivalency. Edit: That being said, NOW it would an accurate equivocation (or potentially rather). Not sure what you're trying to pull here. I'm not saying that both gay and straight "marriage" aren't functionally the same from a legal standpoint, I'm saying that there is a strange confabulation of language, and hence, the idea the language represents is effected as opposed to simply accepting a new idea; i.e. Civil Unions. Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:29 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 06:22 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 06:17 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 06:08 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 05:48 Kimaker wrote:On June 27 2013 13:02 frogrubdown wrote:On June 27 2013 12:57 Kimaker wrote:
"It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal."- Aristotle
Little known fact: Aristotle was talking about 21st century gay marriage when he said this and it is entirely appropriate to quote him about it. + Show Spoiler +p.s. This isn't actually an Aristotle quote (and not just because he spoke a different language) and the man himself lived in a society where male-male sexual activity was institutionalized in the upper classes. Try targeting the sentiment, not the attribution. Also, I appreciate the focus you've placed on an ornamental aspect of my post. Ok, that statement is pretty bad and doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of the thread. This ruling didn't harm anyone and only provided that states now must recognize people as married if they are married in another state, regardless of their sexual orientation. No inequality was created by this ruling. I was referring to the false equivocation of a male/female pairing, and a male/male or female/female pairing. THAT was the equality I was referring to. The two aren't remotely equal, regardless of what the law may say. I would have preferred to simply create a means of legally equating domestic partnership and marriage in terms of tax law and estates proceedings. It's a nuanced point, but I don't want to stop anyone from being with whoever they want to be with, that's not my problem. I view the entire issue as a ridiculous way to approach a situation which is a matter of pragmatism first and foremost. If you are a gay man with a, functionally "married", significant other and you want to ensure that your possessions and labor are afforded the same treatment as those of a "married couple" fine. But in terms of definition, marriage between the two groups (heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage) are by their very natures, unequal and to label them with the same word is a horrible degradation of the language considering how simple the concept is. TL;DR: I take issue with how it was justified and defined, not with the pragmatic outcome. I believe the way it was framed was intentional with the desired result being a cultural change. It's nothing but sly social engineering. Right. So if it was civil unions and we all had the same rights, you wouldn't care. It seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Once again, no one was harmed. Marriage is still marriage. Unless you are using the argument that "gay people getting married means my wife and I can't get it on". At that point I can't help you really. Well I DID say that the ruling was largely irrelevant in my first post...so, I'm not exactly sure what we've having a conversation about then. O_o? I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. So...we agree-ish? No not really, you seem to be talking about vapor and either, rather than substance and reality. The foundation of marriage is fine and the ruling obfuscates nothing. It only confirmed what we already knew, that all relationships between two adults are equal. On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! I completely agree sir. Gobstoppers are candy and always have been. Snickers are a melding of several candies, creating impurities in its basic parts. Also it has nuget in it, which is not even a candy, but some sort of filthy filler. What did you think law in this country has become? It's nothing but self justified dialectical systems anymore (for the most part). Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 19:29 Thorakh wrote:I'm simply noting that it was poorly done. The strength of the foundation dictates the height of a structure, and this has a very shaky foundation because it degrades the language and obfuscates it, it doesn't clarify anything. Marriage is simply the legal bonding of two consenting human beings. There is no language being degraded or obfuscated here. No, NOW it is the legal bonding of two consenting (and I would add adult) human beings (or potentially). And that's my point.
K so you are quibbling about using the term "marriage" to refer to homosexual marriages. You want "marriage" as a term to ony include man-woman relationships, based loosely on some idea that it's historical and important, etc.
As someone looking on to your discussion, your argument seems really weak. There's no reason "marriage" as a term can't expand to include homosexual marriage? Says who?
|
On June 29 2013 00:17 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! Poor analogy. "Candy" is a meta-descriptive term for a broad category of an aggregated type which entails a number of specific variants. Marriage, on the other hand, has a historical precedent of being a very specific thing in Western culture. Examples of institutional or socially accepted homosexuality which occurred were not referred to as marriage, though they could entail similar legal obligations and traditions. Still, never called marriage. To call the Civil Union of a gay couple marriage is false equivalency. Edit: That being said, NOW it would an accurate equivocation (or potentially rather). Not sure what you're trying to pull here. I'm not saying that both gay and straight "marriage" aren't functionally the same from a legal standpoint, I'm saying that there is a strange confabulation of language, and hence, the idea the language represents is effected as opposed to simply accepting a new idea; i.e. Civil Unions.
Terms you should consider looking up before using them again: "meta", "entails", "confabulation", "effected".
Words used awkwardly though not straightforwardly incorrectly as above: "equivocation", "variant".
Anyone else find it hilarious that the great defender of language, Kimaker, not only misquoted Aristotle but then goes on to misuse as many big words as he can find in an attempt to bully others he assumed wouldn't understand. Guess 'marriage' is the only word whose dignity we must protect.[1]
Lucky for me, I'm approaching my 1000th post and won't be wasting it with you. Sorry, rest of the thread.
[1]+ Show Spoiler +This is not a concession that heterosexuality was ever part of the meaning of 'marriage'. That claim is at worst absurd, and at best not nearly sufficiently supported by the reasons offered.
|
On June 29 2013 02:51 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 00:17 Kimaker wrote:On June 28 2013 06:26 frogrubdown wrote:
Snickers aren't the same thing as Gobstoppers and to call them both 'candy' is a horrible degradation of language! Poor analogy. "Candy" is a meta-descriptive term for a broad category of an aggregated type which entails a number of specific variants. Marriage, on the other hand, has a historical precedent of being a very specific thing in Western culture. Examples of institutional or socially accepted homosexuality which occurred were not referred to as marriage, though they could entail similar legal obligations and traditions. Still, never called marriage. To call the Civil Union of a gay couple marriage is false equivalency. Edit: That being said, NOW it would an accurate equivocation (or potentially rather). Not sure what you're trying to pull here. I'm not saying that both gay and straight "marriage" aren't functionally the same from a legal standpoint, I'm saying that there is a strange confabulation of language, and hence, the idea the language represents is effected as opposed to simply accepting a new idea; i.e. Civil Unions. Terms you should consider looking up before using them again: "meta", "entails", "confabulation", "effected". Words used awkwardly though not straightforwardly incorrectly as above: "equivocation", "variant". Anyone else find it hilarious that the great defender of language, Kimaker, not only misquoted Aristotle but then goes on to misuse as many big words as he can find in an attempt to bully others he assumed wouldn't understand. Guess 'marriage' is the only word whose dignity we must protect.[1] Lucky for me, I'm approaching my 1000th post and won't be wasting it with you. Sorry, rest of the thread. [1] + Show Spoiler +This is not a concession that heterosexuality was ever part of the meaning of 'marriage'. That claim is at worst absurd, and at best not nearly sufficiently supported by the reasons offered.
Missing the humor, derp.
|
Those decisions are pretty ridiculous, but were the obvious end-result.
|
On June 28 2013 20:50 Stol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:24 PCloadletter wrote:the US constitution is clear that the government cant treat people differently LOL! You must be joking. Affirmative action, progressive taxation, and a host of other left wing policies which I'm guessing most of you support, all have as their direct aim the treating of people differently. On another note I have really never understood how progressive taxes has anything do to with discrimination. You are not paying more taxes because of your skin colour or sex, or anything else for that matter which can in any way be related to you as a person. Money as a concept is not a part of a person, more or less all currencies today has it's value directly derived from government regulation or law. Its pretty much the reason why destroying money is generally prohibited across the world, you only own the value which is ensured by the government, not the actual coins or bills in your hand.
Thats not true at all. You are saying you can tax certain individuals for any reason and have it not be discrimination.
Congress can not say "Lets only tax the team liquid store and no one else"
Progressive Taxing is arguably unconstitutional.
Your last paragraph explains why getting off the gold standard and having a federal reserve is dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
