Grunt

I couldn't imagine sending my kids there.

Your point doesn't "stand" though, and the majority of the discussion/thinking has been that your point was way off and you were wrong. You say you support them unreservedly, but you suggest there were better options. This is what I was referring to in my previous posts. This is Christ's restored Church. I trust he knows what he's doing.

That's why it's important to speak up when fellow Saints start saying things that aren't in line with Christ's Church. It's why I had a period where I was pretty upset with being bamboozled by wolves in sheep's clothing, even on here.

I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, but I enjoy listening to him.

I trust God knows what He's doing. I'm not interested in demographic pandering just for the sake of it. It certainly reads that way to me.

I agree with President Ezra Taft Benson in his position on the proper role of government, particularly his 15 Principles, which explains my position above. @JohnsonJones

I suppose my early years in the infantry could leave me with the predisposition.

I hate black and white responses, because if I say "yes" someone will provide an example against it that I agree with. Suffice it to say that I believe a level of taxation is necessary, and in some cases moral. Where that level ends is debatable. It's tough for me to definitively lay claim to the fruits of one man's labor.

I'm flying to FL tomorrow, so I'll add that to watch on the plane.

I've never read that but will when I have time. I completely agree that land tax is the best system we have currently.

The problem with a sales tax is it is far more variable and difficult to plan for community budgets in smaller communities. However, this likely wouldn't be an issue if governments also reduced spending. My ideal situation would probably be a sales tax with a pre-pay budget. In FY23 you collect sales tax, then on the eve of FY24 you have a town meeting (or city warrants ballot) and say "we raised X dollars for next year, where do you want to spend it".

It's ok. I'm the kind of guy that likes to sit around the fire with my friends and a good scotch or IPA (pre-convert, before I get excommunicated) and have hard discussions with friends. I don't mind having them online but it's tedious and not always easy to infer what someone is trying to say or how they are saying it. Also, people often demand answers or the splitting of hairs. In person, it's much easier to simply say "I don't know" or expand upon an idea to help someone understand the background that leads you to hold your views. This thread is a good example. Were we sitting around a fire, there likely wouldn't have been any emotional investment in the discussion because we could look each other in the eye. We would have gotten to the point we are at now much faster and probably with deeper understanding. Then we'd be off discussion the speculation of where "the line" should be and likely admit ignorance on a few examples along the way.

My beliefs have changed over time. I don't know if I would have joined if I believed how I do now. That said, I still believe the military is necessary. The nature of my specific service is very much in line with my beliefs.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm offended. I have zero emotional attachment to this discussion. I apologize if you feel that way. Theft is a legal term, just like murder is a legal term. I can kill someone without it being murder. I can take money forcibly from someone without it being theft. Where it changes from legal to illegal with both terms changes with time. What was a legal killing 200 years ago might not be legal today. Same with taking money. I think some taking of money is immoral, even if legal. I think some killing is immoral, even if legal. Heck, we fought a revolution largely based on what we felt was the immoral, though legal, taking of an individual's money. I think much of our taxes are immoral. I consider them theft, though they are legal. I hope that clears things up.

I don't disagree.

No, you did right here:

100%. I would liken it to the example I gave above about individuals benefitting from the labor of others. I benefit from my police department whether I ever use them personally or not. I benefit from the military. The EXTENT we should have or use a military, police, roads, etc is really the question, in my opinion.

Theft is a legal term and really doesn't apply here. I benefit from the work of others, whether I choose to or not. I benefit from roads, police, welfare, etc. I agree that because I benefit, willingly or not, it's fair to require my contribution. I DON'T think it's fair to require my contribution to the healthy neighbor's longterm upkeep because someone things he is entitled to my money.

That's untrue. It may have been true when I could pack up and sail to new lands to live my life in solitude, but now my choices are to live in a community or die. There is no "forced out" because there is no place for the displaced. Your belief exists in opposition to the facts, though. What is worth? Worth is what people are willing to pay for service. With a CEO, worth is the value they bring to their stakeholders. If I'm paying you 10 million dollars a year, and you're bringing me 100 million dollars a year, that is your value TO ME. Since I'm the one paying you, I determine your value. The same with the garage that changes my oil. Some garages will change my oil, do a safety inspection, and have me out in 30 minutes by cost 90 bucks. Others require me to drop my truck off and pick it up later after the oil is changed. They charge 50 bucks. Since I'm paying, I pay the garage that provides me my perceived value. If you don't see perceived value, you don't have to pay for their service. That doesn't mean you're in the right if you go to the garage and take 20 of the extra 40 dollars I gave him because YOU don't see the value. I saw it so I paid. We don't have to figure it out. The market figures it out.

I would argue we got a taste of that during covid, when people were suddenly getting checks in the mail.

I'm going to "kinda" disagree. I'm extremely sarcastic. I think I'm much funnier than I really am. I'm also very dry and tend to post short, precise sentences. Those can easily be interpreted as being a smart mouth jerk, but I might actually be a smart mouth nice guy, and you'd be able to see that if you could read my facial expression and body language.

People typically are betting in person. Conversations are better with real time feedback and body language, and people are generally just more polite in person.

Taxation is LITERALLY theft. Money is taken from someone who earned it under threat of violence. I'm not saying I don't believe we shouldn't have taxation, I'm just saying we should be honest about what it is. My neighbor has more land than me. Should I be able to gather a group of armed men and take it? Why not? If that is their worth, then why artificially restrict their pay? Because you don't like it? I have a problem with groups of people banding together and taking money from people who earned it. I have a problem with people who aren't paying me taking money from me simply because they feel the people who DO pay me are paying me too much.

I've met a few people from this group that we don't see anymore. I'm still a newb, though.

If you steal enough from people to remove the incentive to earn more you'll have nothing left to steal.