buffalo_girl wrote:You know, it seems to me that the 'conservative' American contributors on this thread are talking about 'taxation without representation'.
Moses seems to be presenting a very valid case for 'taxation with representation' based on the 'consent of the People'.
I don't see Moses' case as contrary to the 'unalienable' rights of a People or of Constitutional Law - as long as the People make the decision, develop the plan, and retain control over the process.
Anyway, it seems like a lot of bad feelings to have among brothers and sisters. Even the Roman Empire refrained from crucifying Christ. It was members of His religion who demanded it.
Some things, buffalo, the "people " have no right to. The fruits of someones labor being one of them. Life being another. It does not matter what the majority say. You might think you can delegate your rights to a party, but when you stand at that judgement bar, you will stand alone. You surprise me buffalo, you being against the intrusion of government when it suits you, like the military and the USDA. They are ran by the "people". The "people" want it. So maybe you shouldn't complain about having your animals ID'd in the future. Maybe you should be grateful that the government of the people infringe upon your rights. It's for the good of the people they say.
I suppose they are not rights after all if a majority of the "people" have control of them and you don't. That would make them privileges. Maybe we have no rights after all. No individual rights, no accountability (certainly I can't be held responsible for the wishes of the majority). Sweet!!! Eat, drink, and be merry folks!
Taxation with representation is a crock if used out of context.