So you believe in a flat tax rate where everyone pays the same amount regardless of income, and are against basically every form of state spending, including for instance infrastructure and military because that spending then goes to disproportionately benefit certain groups from certain areas over others?
If you're an anarchist then fair enough, carry on. But if you're not, then just about every single government program is going to give some people better cuts than others, for instance the aforementioned military spending propping up some entire communities around military bases.
I feel like maybe we could have a conversation, but on the other hand maybe it's a waste of time if you're just going to tell me what my positions are for me.
At that point you could just go debate a wall and imagine whatever responses you want just like you're doing here.
So do you want to ask about my positions, or dictate them to me?
I also left you the option of being an anarchist . . .
I very much doubt that you hold the positions I listed. My point is that unless you do hold those position, you're not consistently applying your arguments and are hypocritical. Your argument was that people having 5+ kids is irresponsible, and it's unfair for people who don't have children to have to pay for other's children. That's a fair and logically sound position to hold.
However, when those same principles are applied to many other areas of life, they're likewise flawed. It's likewise unfair for someone in a rural area to pay for infrastructure they'll never use. Given that the vast majority of taxes are payed by a select few individuals, it's unfair that pretty much anyone has aspects of their childraising paid for, the vast majority is effectively subsidized.
What is the principle or value that you can derive your stance on children from that doesn't also imply the other forms of unfairness I mentioned?
Or if you just have a wide collection of opinions and positions without consistent values, that's allowed, free country and all that, but there's not much room for coherent debate at that point.
So you believe in a flat tax rate where everyone pays the same amount regardless of income, and are against basically every form of state spending, including for instance infrastructure and military because that spending then goes to disproportionately benefit certain groups from certain areas over others?
If you're an anarchist then fair enough, carry on. But if you're not, then just about every single government program is going to give some people better cuts than others, for instance the aforementioned military spending propping up some entire communities around military bases.
Did I say ANY of that?
I feel like maybe we could have a conversation, but on the other hand maybe it's a waste of time if you're just going to tell me what my positions are for me.
At that point you could just go debate a wall and imagine whatever responses you want just like you're doing here.
So do you want to ask about my positions, or dictate them to me?
I also left you the option of being an anarchist . . .
I very much doubt that you hold the positions I listed. My point is that unless you do hold those position, you're not consistently applying your arguments and are hypocritical. Your argument was that people having 5+ kids is irresponsible, and it's unfair for people who don't have children to have to pay for other's children. That's a fair and logically sound position to hold.
However, when those same principles are applied to many other areas of life, they're likewise flawed. It's likewise unfair for someone in a rural area to pay for infrastructure they'll never use. Given that the vast majority of taxes are payed by a select few individuals, it's unfair that pretty much anyone has aspects of their childraising paid for, the vast majority is effectively subsidized.
What is the principle or value that you can derive your stance on children from that doesn't also imply the other forms of unfairness I mentioned?
Or if you just have a wide collection of opinions and positions without consistent values, that's allowed, free country and all that, but there's not much room for coherent debate at that point.
How very nice of you to leave me that option...
That first sentence tells me your wall of text is a waste of time... Good day to you friend.