If the Hyde Amendment is repealed, will you still pay taxes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arizona_Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JonNC said:
True, individuals must take responsibility for their own actions. The freedom to do something does not imply the virtue of doing it.
OTOH, progressives and the Democratic Party continue to press its advance and encourage its availability, even compromising of the religious free exercise of those who oppose it. That may not be illegitimate, but it is certainly immoral and anti-constitutional.

Jon
Click to expand...
I agree. But the question was what constitutes a legitimate authority, in the sense of the catechism’s treatment of the 4th commandment.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Nonsense. Democracies and other forms of representative government determine communal consent all the time. Elections are one way of doing it, but perhaps not the only way.

There will always be difficult borderline cases. But some cases are clearly legitimate and some cases are clearly not legitimate. The US government is clearly legitimate, regardless of what you think about hypothetical borderline cases.
Click to expand...
No, consent is something only individuals can do. Can you have communal consent for sex? If a plurality of people think a man should have sex with a woman that doesn’t mean the woman has consented to sex. Democracies impose rules on non consenting individuals the same as any other form of government. All that can be said about them is that they in some way, if truly free - and few really are, formally take into account the opinion of citizens. But even monarchies can take into account the opinion of citizens informally.

I’m still not sure why it is clear the US is a legitimate government. By its own foreign policies this is especially questionable. For instance the US supported the overthrow of the democratic government of Ukraine.
 
exnihilo said:
No, consent is something only individuals can do. Can you have communal consent for sex?
Click to expand...
We can have communal consent for certain issues about sex. We can pass laws prohibiting engaging in sex acts in public. And for other issues that are obviously communal issues, like should we build a park down by the river, the community quite properly gives consent or not.
Democracies impose rules on non consenting individuals the same as any other form of government. All that can be said about them is that they in some way, if truly free - and few really are, formally take into account the opinion of citizens. But even monarchies can take into account the opinion of citizens informally.
Click to expand...
Yes, under the right circumstances, monarchies can also be legitimate authorities in the sense of the catechism. And even if they don’t have formal elections, they could still be considered as representing the consent of the people. Even in the bible we have reports of Moses announcing the will of God, and the people all cried “Amen”. There were no elections. But the Moses exercised legitimate authority.
I’m still not sure why it is clear the US is a legitimate government. By its own foreign policies this is especially questionable. For instance the US supported the overthrow of the democratic government of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
A legitimate government can make bad, even immoral choices sometime. That does not automatically make them illegitimate authorities in other areas, like taxation.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
We can have communal consent for certain issues about sex. We can pass laws prohibiting engaging in sex acts in public. And for other issues that are obviously communal issues, like should we build a park down by the river, the community quite properly gives consent or not.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not consent. A community can’t have consent. That is like saying a community ‘thinks’. Only minds think and minds belong to individual persons. A community can have rules which in a manner of speaking it expects people to obey. A majority can vote to have those rules. But that doesn’t create something called community consent. Community consent is a fiction.
 
exnihilo said:
No, that’s not consent. A community can’t have consent. That is like saying a community ‘thinks’. Only minds think and minds belong to individual persons. A community can have rules which in a manner of speaking it expects people to obey. A majority can vote to have those rules. But that doesn’t create something called community consent. Community consent is a fiction.
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to have your own private definition of consent, go right ahead. But when I talk about consent, I mean the kind that can be expressed by a community. To see that it is a real thing, referred to by many people in many different contexts, just google “community consent”.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is the people themselves - mothers and doctors - who are killing those babies. Not the government. If anything is illegitimate, it is them.
Click to expand...
Is it legitimate for the laws of a country to permit murder of innocent people?
 
Government is illegitimate when it usurps power not granted to it by consent of the governed, which in the United States, is only found in the enumerated powers in the constitution. In some ways it is true that the federal government is acting illegitimately.

Jon
 
I’ve been told by a moderator that this was an inappropriate thread subject, and that political topics cannot be discussed on this forum as they relate to a particular party’s policies.

I’ve enjoyed posting on Catholic Answers for years, and I certainly respect her service as a moderator and her right to interpret the rules as she sees fit, but I don’t really see the point of spending time to post on a site where I can receive demerits and warnings for behavior, as I have been an adult for quite a few decades now. I’ll be ending my association with Catholic Answers at this time and won’t be posting on the site anymore. I regret to say this, as I’ve really enjoyed this forum and discussion with everyone on it.

God bless all of you, and thanks for the time I have spent here with you!
 
Arizona_Mike said:
I’ve been told by a moderator that this was an inappropriate thread subject, and that political topics cannot be discussed on this forum as they relate to a particular party’s policies.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to go. We can discuss policies. We just can’t mention whose policies they are. But most of the posts in this thread could just as well have been made in a thread entitled “If the law preventing spending on abortion is repealed, will you still pay taxes?”. Then there would be no problem. It’s a small thing.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
I’ve been told by a moderator that this was an inappropriate thread subject, and that political topics cannot be discussed on this forum as they relate to a particular party’s policies.

I’ve enjoyed posting on Catholic Answers for years, and I certainly respect her service as a moderator and her right to interpret the rules as she sees fit, but I don’t really see the point of spending time to post on a site where I can receive demerits and warnings for behavior, as I have been an adult for quite a few decades now. I’ll be ending my association with Catholic Answers at this time and won’t be posting on the site anymore. I regret to say this, as I’ve really enjoyed this forum and discussion with everyone on it.

God bless all of you, and thanks for the time I have spent here with you!
Click to expand...
I would certainly encourage you to stay, as your contributions are appreciated

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You don’t have to go. We can discuss policies. We just can’t mention whose policies they are. But most of the posts in this thread could just as well have been made in a thread entitled “If the law preventing spending on abortion is repealed, will you still pay taxes?”. Then there would be no problem. It’s a small thing.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The issue isn’t that I was asked not to post on party issues, I can understand that and would comply, as I was not aware of the rule. It is the discourteous and unpleasant way the issue was handled by the moderator. A simple “please don’t do that again” would have been appropriate, instead of being told that I had been “issued an infraction notice.” It isn’t worth the time and effort spent participating in an online community if one is not treated with the same common courtesy that I would extend to a moderator, or anyone else on this forum. I treat others with respect and courtesy, and I expect the same in return.

Thank you to you and JohnNC, I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you as well. Again, the years I have spent on this forum have been very enjoyable, and I wish the best to you all.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
Thanks. The issue isn’t that I was asked not to post on party issues, I can understand that and would comply, as I was not aware of the rule. It is the discourteous and unpleasant way the issue was handled by the moderator. A simple “please don’t do that again” would have been appropriate, instead of being told that I had been “issued an infraction notice.” It isn’t worth the time and effort spent participating in an online community if one is not treated with the same common courtesy that I would extend to a moderator, or anyone else on this forum. I treat others with respect and courtesy, and I expect the same in return.

Thank you to you and JohnNC, I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you as well. Again, the years I have spent on this forum have been very enjoyable, and I wish the best to you all.
Click to expand...
I’ve been issued an infraction notice by the moderators too, with the very same language. I’m sorry it bothered you, but please reconsider. It is just a stock form they send out. I’m sure no insult was intended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top