It isn’t I who is arguing for benefits, so your straw man is misplaced. — NOS4A2

No straw man at all. You made an absurd categorical statement. - And of course you will not respond substantively to being called out on it. You're just a troll who says stupid ignorant things- which we're all guilty of one time or another. But you double down and dodge and evade. Which ultimately makes your comments meaningless - a kind of trash on the landscape.

You're projecting again, Tim. I answered your questions; no response but vitriol. I made a arguments; no response but vitriol.

Rather, it was you telling me I benefit from government, bringing me to recall the pro-slavery arguments from the past, which were nearly analogous. I responded by reminding you that slaves benefitted from slavery, insofar as their master provided for them. That does not mean slavery is good, that they owed their masters interest, that the relationship was just, and should shut up about their condition. You evaded this line of reasoning entirely, for what I think are obvious reasons.

Non-sequiturs, nose4. Blather-blather - stupid, stupid. Let's recall; you wrote,

Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2

I'm calling nonsense, and you're running every which-a-way so as not to engage. I'm calling you out as a troll, stupid, a coward, and a fool. So make your case, defend yourself and your statement, or quit posting because l'll be calling out fool wherever I find you fool.

And very likely for you to identify yourself with slavery or in any way as a slave is grossly offensive.

Oh, I’m engaging as much as you are, even more, except without the bad faith and vitriol.

But I’ll repeat what I said earlier. Taking the earnings from a certain number of hours of labor is like taking a certain number of hours from the person. If you labor eight hours, and I take 4 hours worth of the earnings from your labor to do with it whatever I want, you are laboring for my purposes.

If I work and you take, that's not taxes, fool. Try to address your nonsense.

Taking the earnings from a certain number of hours of labor is like taking a certain number of hours from the person. If you labor eight hours, and a government agent takes 4 hours worth of the earnings from your labor to do with it whatever he wants, you are laboring for the government’s purposes.

At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. — Relativist

Well, no. All of my points had to do with the original question I asked, and they were relevant to the way that you failed to address that question.

Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. — Relativist

That's fair. I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court.

I had been uninterested in the Trump case, but eventually I got pulled in due to the fact that various acquaintances and friends had provided me with different accounts of what Trump had done. One said he had interfered in the election, one said he had falsified business records, one said he had paid Daniels out of campaign contributions, etc. So I looked at sources like AP and found the same ambiguity. It seemed (and seems) that no one knows what Trump was convicted for.

So I went over to reason.com (as I often do for legal matters that libertarians have no direct stake in) and I found that a misdemeanor outside the statute of limitations is being raised to a felony and charged 34 times. Trump was convicted for falsifying business records (which requires an intent to defraud, which is not in evidence). Raising the misdemeanor to a felony requires the "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." That "other crime" is said to be a form of election conspiracy, which in turn requires unlawful means. The prosecution never settled on a theory of unlawful means, and Judge Merchan presented the jury with three theories of unlawful means: excessive campaign contribution, tax fraud (which resulted in higher taxes!), or the falsification of other business records. The judge said that the jury did not have to agree, as long as they all thought one of the three things was in effect. See "A Jumble of Legal Theories Failed To Give Trump 'Fair Notice' of the New York Charges Against Him," along with the articles linked therein.

So what did Trump do? No one has any idea, and everyone is providing a different story. No one seems to know or agree, including the judge, the jury, the prosecution, the American people, and even Trump himself. At the same time, everyone knows what the case is about. Everyone knows why the statute of limitations was not respected and the case was brought in an election year. Everyone knows why sentencing was delayed until the week before the Republican convention. It is not, as you say, that Trump is immoral. It is that the left is afraid Trump will win the election. A non-disclosure agreement is obviously not election interference, but disregarding the rule of law and using the court system to attack a political rival in an election year obviously is. The logical impossibilities involved in some of those attempts were a particularly stark example of the chicanery.

I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court. — Leontiskos

You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". So your judgement seems to be based on a mischaracterization of the case (from the article you linked, it seems). Your disinterest in delving into the technicalities -while nevertheless embracing that irrational judgement, implies you choose to cling to that judgement. That's your choice, but then there's nothing to discuss.

You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". — Relativist

I think you are simply mistaken about the level of research needed to confirm that this was a kangaroo court. It's not so hard to see. If you think those articles and/or the video grossly misrepresent the case, feel free to give your argument.

Here's a definition of "Kangaroo court":

an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

Trump's conviction was in an official court. The correct legal procedure was followed: he was indicted for committing specific crimes under New York law. An official trial was held. The prosecution presented evidence of his guilt, and Trump's attorneys presented a vigorous defense. The jury deliberated and judged that Trump was guilty of all the charged crimes. This was the antithesis of a kangaroo court.

The article you pointed to did not address the specific technical issues involved in the case, and instead analyzed a strawman - a distorted view of the case. If your perspective is consistent with that article, I can understand why you might conclude there was something inappropriate or nefarious. If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement.

I had a lot of questions before and during the proceding. I did the research to get those questions answered. As I said, I was not in favor of prosecuting it - but not because Trump was actually innocent, but because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. Nevertheless, it was a legitimate trial with a legitimate verdict.

:up:

None of the lawyers who frequent these fora have claimed the Campaign Violation Cover-Up trial in NYC was a "kangaroo court" proceeding. (I'm sure I would have noticed that having been in a paralegal once upon a time.) I've also not heard that claim made by any serious, reputable, conservative lawyers (including former prosecutors, former judges or former criminal defense attorneys), only by third-rate MAGA (morons against great america) hacks on Faux News, etc.

Here's a definition of "Kangaroo court":

an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor. — Relativist

I would suggest using a reputable dictionary and citing your source.

Here is Merriam-Webster:

2: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures

I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. — Relativist

Which is much my point.

If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement. — Relativist

We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike.

: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures — Leontiskos

You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how.

The trial was clearly authorized and conducted according to the law. The only party who acted irresponsibly, was Trump - by violating the gag order multiple times.

I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced.
— Relativist

Which is much my point. — Leontiskos

That's very different from claiming the procedure was "irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular". Laws were actually broken, and it was within the lawful discretion of the DA to prosecute it. Furthermore, by trial's conclusion, I had come around to thinking that it actually was a useful exercise.

We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike. — Leontiskos

The trial was conducted in accordance with reasonable interpretations of the law. Appellate courts may interpret the law differently, or decide there's something unconstitutional in the law. Overturning on some technicality will not mean he didn't do the deeds.

Just for show? Maybe, but Trump only has himself to blame. He did the deeds with no regard to the legality, and he constantly attacked the system. If it's overturned on appeal, that's the system working. If it's upheld- that's also the system working.

When I worked for a big oil company, I received annual training on business ethics - and was taught to always refrain for any activity that could possibly be construed as illegal, and this was because we had a target on our backs- our corporate behavior was often judged in the most negative light. Still, lawsuits were common, but the company never attacked the legal system. The company trusted the system. Why can't a candidate for President?

You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how. — Relativist

At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol:
That's not a great look when your sole argument has been an appeal to your own authority.

That's very different from claiming the procedure... — Relativist

Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. I've been waiting for quite awhile now. If not and you're just going to keep making unsubstantiated assertions and begging the question, then I think we're done.

At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol: — Leontiskos

I googled the definition, and that's what appeared. My intent was to get you to explain what you meant, not to argue semantics.
You failed to make the case for it being a "kangaroo court" using your own definition.

Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. — Leontiskos

I told you the article attacked a strawman legal argument. This would be clear if you understood the technicalities of the actual legal argument. You told me you weren't interested in those technicalities. Seems like you've come full circle.

Again nonsense, nose4. Again, you wrote this:
"Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor."
— NOS4A2

And that is a lie, and you a liar. So you can either address what you wrote, or we're going to just keep this up.

Again, you are laboring for the government’s purposes. When you labor for another’s purposes, involuntarily, that’s forced labor. When they take your property without your permission, that’s theft.

I have addressed what I wrote many times now, and to no avail. I’m happy enough that the public record shows Tim Wood possessing and utilizing the same logic of the anti-abolitionists as he justifies the exploitation, theft, and forced labor of human beings so that he may benefit. Thank you.

Principled Democrats starting to feel stupid about the political prosecutions of Donald Trump. Too late.

I can tell the difference between taxation and the need for it, and slavery. Apparently you cannot. But I am pretty sure you are an avid consumer of the benefits of what you call slavery and theft.

And you have refused to address the absurdity of your categorical claims - which are themselves nonsense. Which leaves in place all the invective I pour out on you. And until you do, you're nothing but an absurd and lying troll.

I have addressed my claim and put it right in front of you in the form of an argument, and here you are on public record continuing to avoid it. Here you are on public record continuing to use the same reasoning found in the justifications of slavery and tyranny. Others witness you do it, your subsequent bad faith, along with your slavish proclivities, and that’s fine enough for me.

Whether the charges should have been brought is one question, and to my mind not an interesting question, and certainly an ignorant question. The fact is he was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted.

Whether the charges should have been brought is one question, and to my mind not an interesting question, and certainly an ignorant question. The fact is he was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted.

Charged by a DA who campaigned on prosecuting him, tried by a judge who donates to the opposing campaign in violation of the states ethics rules, and convicted by a jury who were given poor jury instructions. They are willing to sacrifice justice itself on the altar of their mental illness.

I have addressed my claim and put it right in front of you in the form of an argument, — NOS4A2

Your claim is

Taxes are not only theft, but forced labor. — NOS4A2

And you have neither argued nor defended. On the other hand, my claims about your character are exemplified and proved by your responses. Two statements: "Taxes are theft," and "[taxes are] forced labor."

If they're theft, why not file a complaint and have the thief arrested? And sue for recovery? If forced labor, are you being forced to work? Is anyone you know being forced to work? And if theft, are you not a willing and eager receiver of stolen goods?

The only thing you put in front of people is your ignorance and shamelessness as a troll. If it's my website, you'd have to up your game or be gone.

Charged by a DA who campaigned on prosecuting him, tried by a judge who donates to the opposing campaign in violation of the states ethics rules, and convicted by a jury who were given poor jury instructions. They are willing to sacrifice justice itself on the altar of their mental illness. — NOS4A2

Lies. How easy it is for the troll to lie. Bragg was a replacement, remember? And he put the whole thing on hold while he reassessed it. Merchan submitted himself for review of his donations and was cleared to stand as judge. And poor jury instructions? Another claim - make your case, in what respect were they "poor," and what exactly should they have been? "They," who are they? Mental illness? Whose? What mental illness? Just more lurid lies from the troll.

I’ve laid out the argument almost exactly as it was first laid out by Robert Nozick half a century ago.

“taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another's purpose”

-Nozick, “Anarchy, State, Utopia”

The argument has generated much discussion which anyone can find for themselves. You are then supposed to give me a reason why it isn’t forced labor or why the argument is wrong. But for whatever reason you dodged it, even straight up ignored it.

As for it being theft, I made my argument.

“When they take your property without your permission, that’s theft.”

You’re then supposed to tell me why it isn’t theft or why the argument is wrong. But you trade your opportunity for vitriol and slander. Sorry, Tim, you’re a fake.

From this site:
http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/NozickExcerpt.html

"A distribution is just if it arises from another just distribution by legitimate means. The legitimate means of moving from one distribution to another are specified by the principle of justice in transfer. The legitimate first "moves" are specified by the principle of justice in acquisition.1 whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just. The means of change specified by the principle of justice in transfer preserve justice. As correct rules of inference are truth-preserving, and any conclusion deduced via repeated application of such rules from only true premises is itself true, so the means of transition from one situation to another specified by the principle of justice in transfer are justice-preserving, and any situation actually arising from repeated transitions in accordance with the principle from a just situation is itself just."

Further down:
"Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor.ii Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose. Others find the claim absurd."

As with so many, one can question whether you read - it's clear you did not understand and that you took your quote out of context.

But why not answer and argue for yourself? Modern society is built on infrastructure, "infrastructure" broadly understood. Without it, no society as known and understood. And society itself aspirational, continually trying to be better. But it comes at a price. One aspect of the price is taxation. Taxation paying for infrastructure, for the betterment of the lives of all. You call that theft and those who pay, slaves. If it's justice how is it theft? And if society freely chooses, how are they slaves?

The fact is he [Orange Turd] was charged - with crimes - tried and convicted. — tim wood

:up: :up:

@NOS4A2 Sentencing on 11July24 ...

Well, my guess (today, 31May24) is that Convicted Felon-1 will be sentenced to 2-4 years for each of the 34 felonies that will run concurrently (so that if only 1 felony survives the appeal process, he will still serve 2-4 years in prison), probably starting in spring 2025. The basis of sentencing will be ... — 180 Proof

(Adults who can "handle the truth", click username link for my argument.) :victory: :mask:

I can’t wait!

But why not answer and argue for yourself? — tim wood

Have you run away? You quoted out of context what you appear not to have understood. Imho you should either yourself disavow your usage or defend it. Or like a horse in the city, wear a bag to catch your droppings, in your case from your mouth.

As with so many, one can question whether you read - it's clear you did not understand and that you took your quote out of context.

What am I supposed to take away from those two quotes, Tim? I’ve read the book and understand the context. I already know Nozick thinks taxation is on par with forced labor, and redistribution is unjust. I don’t understand how quoting from the work I just cited is an argument against what I or Nozick have said. You’re supposed to counter it, not reiterate it. Unfortunately this isn’t the stupidest thing you’ve done yet, but getting close.

But why not answer and argue for yourself? Modern society is built on infrastructure, "infrastructure" broadly understood. Without it, no society as known and understood. And society itself aspirational, continually trying to be better. But it comes at a price. One aspect of the price is taxation. Taxation paying for infrastructure, for the betterment of the lives of all. You call that theft and those who pay, slaves. If it's justice how is it theft? And if society freely chooses, how are they slaves?

Taxation isn’t the voluntary transfer of property. That’s why the transfer is unjust and that’s why it’s theft. Society does not freely choose. Those in power do. That’s why it is slavery.