Roll-your-own cigarette operations to be snuffed out

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
yes. taxation is legitimate if it is levied for the purpose of funding the government, and if it is not restraint of trade. the tax must be applied evenly, and without exception, and must be (if it's federal) paid by excise a stamp, or through apportionment.

one could make the argument that AALL government actions are done under the threat of force, including putting out your house when its on fire (they dont ask if you want it to burn down, they just put it out) enforcement of traffic and safety laws (if you pop off rounds in your back yard you may be visited by disgruntled cops) our borders (supposedly) and the security of the president.

whinging about "threats of force" or the government's "monopoly on force" is part of the reason we have our constitution in the first place. without it we would be a group of tiny fiefdoms ruled by some local overlord and the king of england.
Thank you for agreeing that a legitimate argument could be made that all government actions are done under the threat of force. When did anybody whine? I was merely asking how you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate. Do you advocate paying for things you find "illegitimate" or forcing others to do the same?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Thank you for agreeing that a legitimate argument could be made that all government actions are done under the threat of force. When did anybody whine? I was merely asking how you differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate. Do you advocate paying for things you find "illegitimate" or forcing others to do the same?
nice try sonny. just because somebody could make an argument that the moon is suspended in the sky by the repulsive power of ellen degeneres' ugly mug doesnt mean it's true.

legitimate taxes are taxers levied for the express purpose of funding the government, not changing behavior, not sort-of-banning a product, not putting paul out of business for the benefit of peter, and not as a method of squeezing anyone into submission.

we have a constitution, and i think it's a pretty good one, maybe someday the government will follow it.

save your word games for the kiddies junior, i aint biting on your weasel words.

taxation is a taking, for the purpose of funding the government. when that government is run for your benefit (which the US on balance still is) then the tax can be legitimate if it follows the precepts of our constitution. cigarette taxes are legitimate, but our current cigarette taxes are usury and extortion for the purpose of changing the behavior of the people, and an attempt to run "Big Tobacco!" out of business. if the congress wanted to ban tobacco they have already (illegally) established the methods by which they could do so. they choose not to, for their own expedience.

TLDR; taxing something for the money to fund the govt. is ok, taxing something heavily because you think it's bad is not ok.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
^^^ Word games ? It appears that it is you who are applying different meanings to words when the same actions take place by different players. For instance if I take something from you against your wishes at the point of a gun or with a threat of violence it is theft and an act of aggression, agreed ?

How does the meaning of this act / theft change if a group of people calling themselves government do the same action?

You imply that government acts are "legitimate" if they benefit a person because a document (constitution) "grants" them this power. How can a document that a person never agreed to or actively particpated in the formation of delegate consent ?

As far as the "sonny" part, that's humorous. I look more like Lysander Spooner than this "sonny" person you imagine me to be, but I digress.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
^^^ Word games ? It appears that it is you who are applying different meanings to words when the same actions take place by different players. For instance if I take something from you against your wishes at the point of a gun or with a threat of violence it is theft and an act of aggression, agreed ?

How does the meaning of this act / theft change if a group of people calling themselves government do the same action?

You imply that government acts are "legitimate" if they benefit a person because a document (constitution) "grants" them this power. How can a document that a person never agreed to or actively particpated in the formation of delegate consent ?

As far as the "sonny" part, that's humorous. I look more like Lysander Spooner than this "sonny" person you imagine me to be, but I digress.
different actors can in fact have different words to describe the same action. if a random stanger breaks in your door with an axe and drags you out into the street, thats pretty serious, and its called kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, and "home invasion" (which we used to call mayhem)

put a fire department uniform on him and add some smoke and flame coming out of your windows and the same action takes on a whole new character.

The US constitution has as it's foundation the inalienable rights which the founders ascribed to god, and atheists call natural rights. these rights are fundamentally based on the idea of personal sovereignty,, that the individual owns himself and his life (with a few unfortunate early exceptions...) This brings with it a wide array of rights such as the right to own property (see unfortunate early exceptions...) and the right to defend oneself against others who would do harm to those rights.

as a part of the society we live in, certain of these "natural rights" (which has lately become a buzzword in socialist/anarchist circles for their presumed right to do as they will regardless of the rights of others) are transferred to the safekeeping of government, and we allow them to act on our behalf with the expectation that they will follow the direction of the people. among these rights we assigned to our governemnt is the power to lay taxes to fund other rights. as long as these taxes are laid fairly and without prejudice, while operating within the narrow guidelines set forth in the constitution, these taxes are allowed, and the power to tax is in fact GRANTED to the government BY THE PEOPLE (through their proxies, the states) the states were intended to be the watchdogs of their servant, the federal government and the people the watchdogs of their servant, their state. ever since 1910, the entire system has fallen off the rails, and this derailing can be placed at the feet of one thing. the federal reserve bank. the federal reserve bank was crafted in secret by powerful men with great wealth (jp morgan, the warburgs and the rothchilds) and sold through their hirelings as a restriction on the evil moneybags fat cats (like Mitt romney). ever since the federal reserve act was passed and signed by woodrow wilson (who recanted on his deathbed) our government has been controlled not by the people but by the moneyed interests.

as a result,, the federal government is now operated as a profit making machine by the bankers and their cartel, and all your attempts to curb their spending with anarcho-whateverism jargon will fail for the same reason the tea party will fail. the congress and the president dont work for us any more. and the courts are awfully lean on people with common sense and an understanding of the constitution. they are all lawyers, and lawyers see words as playthings to be twisted into the shape they desire for their own pleasure. lawyers are conditioned to win at the expense of truth and justice, when they put on their black robes they dont unlearn all the silly shit they have used their entire adult lives to make all their decisions.

argument becomes a sport to the lawyer, and truth gets carried out on a stretcher in the first quarter.

i'll leave you with something to ponder. where in the US constitution does the Bar Association find it's authority? i'll give you a hint... no-place!

the bar association is a trade guild for lawyers, operated for the aggrandizement and wealth of the legalist class. they have claimed for themselves the right to decide who is fit to practice law or not, and by extension, who becomes a judge. the most powerful authority in the land is not the congress, the president, or even the supreme court. it's the bar association, and the lawyers who run it. they are the ones who write our new laws and interpret our old ones. they are the ones who use the white-out and crayons on the constitution, and they are the ones who must be dethroned before they wreck us all with their foolishness

also, i cant see you, for all i know your a twelve year old kid with a persecution complex and a copy of walden.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You might find reading some Lysander Spooner interesting. Try his words on the constitution for starters.

Can others give your consent for you? How does this work?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Moonshine is illegal no matter what.
no it aint.

theres a pilot program started by bush.

it allows you to fill out a form, take a safety test and buy for 50 bucks a license to operate a fuel alcohol still to make ethyl alcohol as a motor fuel (no drinking now...)

they get to do random surprise inspections (not good for ganja gardeners) and you have to re-up your license every year.

further, makin your own whiskey for personal consumption is not technically illegal in the federal courts. only selling it, transporting it or giving it away. wierd huh? of course the still is considered a bomb, (ha ha ha ha ) the booze is considered illegal bootleg liquor with the assumption you will sell it, even if it's personal use, and you will definately be unable to prove your still is safe and for personal use in the courts. kinda like having 1/2 oz of pot in california. if you get busted by batf, and you got even one plant, even with a state cannabis card you just won a 5 year all expense paid trip to scenic lompoc.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
You might find reading some Lysander Spooner interesting. Try his words on the constitution for starters.

Can others give your consent for you? How does this work?
under our constitution consent is assumed. if you do not like a law, you have the right to advocate for it's repeal, or a constitutional amendment, or start your own political movement. if you get enough people who agree with you the law can be changed and the constitution modified. thats the deal in our (brace yourself for another phrase co-opted by the left) Social Contract. you can move to a different country or if the shit is too far out of bounds, dissolve the government, even by force.

it doesnt work properly any more. senators are now populist demagogues who serve hidden interests with deep pockets instead of appointees by the states, the states are now subservient to the federal government, and the federal government ignores the constitution as a matter of course. if we can fix the system by eliminating the poisonous influence of the deep pockets, push corporate power back into the form originally intended (single purpose entities with almost no rights outside their single stated purpose) and put the senate back into the hands of the state legislatures then we could once again have a constitutional government instead of a nation-state that looks more like a plutocracy than a representative republic.

also, i have very little interest in reading the ramblings of a marxist ideologue. i already read the ramblings of most of the other marxist thinkers of his era, and i dont need any more, regardless of how prettily he wraps up his useless political theories.

i'd rather read ayn rands collected works again. she makes more sense than the marxists.
 

Justin00

Active Member
TLDR; taxing something for the money to fund the govt. is ok, taxing something heavily because you think it's bad is not ok.
how is that not what the government is doing with tobacco? nvm i think i picked up what you were saying thru later posts.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
This isn't a tax forcing people to quit smoking, its a tax forcing people to buy brand name cigarettes.

How some people see this as some kind of government funding operation is beyond me. There will be no increase in government revenue, only a increase in Big Tobacco sales.
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
I'm confused.

In my state we vote on our us senator and us congressman. Then the state sends that person to Washington.

So how are they not appointed by the state then? Because the people in each state appoints them?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I'm confused.

In my state we vote on our us senator and us congressman. Then the state sends that person to Washington.

So how are they not appointed by the state then? Because the people in each state appoints them?
in the constitution the congress is to be elected directly by the people, and senators would be CHOSEN by the state legislature (kinda like judges) based on the state's desire to see the interest of the STATE carried out in the upper house of the congress. if a senator fucked up, or acted a fool, the state legislature and governor could yank his ass out of the big chair with a wave of their magic wand. in theory senators would always operate with the interests of the state formeost in their minds but it wasnt perfect. it was however better than today, where populist loudmouths like harry reid and diane feinstein blow in the breeze of public opinion and take their marching orders from pollsters.

the house of reps (representatives of the peoples) drafts laws and sends them to the senate (the representatives of the individual states) for review. if found acceptable and constitutional, it was then sent on the the pres for signature and it became a law.

senators are now chosen by popular election so the states no longer have a voice in the congress, they are slaves to the whims of the congress and hoi poloi.

even the decision on whether a law is fundamentally constitutional was stripped from the senate, that power was stolen by the supreme court. instead of being a deliberative body which considers the rights of the states and the peoiple over political desires and expediency we have Congress Two, Electric Boogaloo. a useless dickless nutless pile of dimwitted subservient eunuchs who simply oversee the operations of the other imperial eunuchs who keep the forbidden city running, and watch over Black Jesus' concubines.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
This isn't a tax forcing people to quit smoking, its a tax forcing people to buy brand name cigarettes.

How some people see this as some kind of government funding operation is beyond me. There will be no increase in government revenue, only a increase in Big Tobacco sales.
It is the goverment trying to close a loophole and stop tax losses
When their favorite money generators (us smokers) find a way to save money on smokes
I was rolling my own (at home) until they boosted the tax on a pound of tobacco to 16 bucks a pound
Now what shops do is
They sell pipe tobacco to roll
The tax is less
Tastes like shit
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
It is the goverment trying to close a loophole and stop tax losses
When their favorite money generators (us smokers) find a way to save money on smokes
I was rolling my own (at home) until they boosted the tax on a pound of tobacco to 16 bucks a pound
Now what shops do is
They sell pipe tobacco to roll
The tax is less
Tastes like shit
so guess what you are gonna be forced to do to support your nicotine habit? Buy the name brand shit and pay the tax. LOL and you haven't even figured out why a big tobacco company was behind the whole thing have you?

Retarded people don't know they don't know anything. Know what I mean? Of course you don't.
 
Top