If you're looking for someone to argue that the federal government isn't overstepping its limited authority, you won't find it with me. All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.

Thanks for your kind words saying I have argued eloquently. It's nice to hear even though it's an attempt to be sarcastic.

I wouldn't say contractors should quit their job if they are part of an illegal expansion of power on the part of government. But if they are good citizens, they will agree not to take part in that particular project.

As far as any ambiguity goes with regard to the Constitution, don't kid yourself into thinking I've said anything that wasn't accurate and clear. The Constitution says that the federal government may collect taxes to pay for roads. UT asked why the Constitution didn't merely say "roads" rather than "post roads". I speculated as to the reason and described why the roads currently being used by mail carriers are still legitimate uses of the federal government. The words "perhaps" and "probably" were used in discussing the possible reasons behind the use of the term "post roads" by the founders; not over the actual meaning of the Constitution or the words within it.

I want to know if you're winning or not Radar? Seems to me no one much is seeing your point of view yet.

I'll check back on your progress later. lol

And about this? I guess you don't believe all men (or women) are created equal then?

What an arsehole. lol

I had written a long rant in response to Ali's misconception about the relationship between States and roads. Bruce said it nicer and better.

[mini-rant]Radar makes a mistake tying everything to the long dead document which attempted to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government. There are no longer any significant checks to the power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Please remember that when you call for more Federal control of roads, morgages, health care, or security, you are feeding the same creature that puts American combat boots on the ground all over the planet.[/rant]

Roads, Federal, State & County(Parish), are funded by fuel taxes. :lame:

All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.

AND

all roads are used to deliver the mail

THEREFORE

All Federal involvement in roads is Constitutional. Which is really what you were saying in the beginning, we just didn't believe you would make such a case.

I mean, even the Feds don't use that interpretation. That interpretation is a wild granting of power to the Feds. But whatever, you're the man now dog.

It occurs to me that this is one of those threads non-Americans find to be utterly American. But would probably enjoy the quirkiness of regardless.

I'd assume Radar would see this differently. For him the Constitution is like the 10 Commandments before a few millenia of tinkering made an indecipherable mess of some pretty simple rules. He'd like to do the impossible, turn back the clock on entropy...

I was only using roads as an example of a public facility, so I apologize for my misconception as to where the funds come from. It's not exactly that way here although a portion of road maintenance is paid for by fuel taxes, not all is.

My point is and always has been against Radar's notion that it's illegal for the government to expect citizens to pay personal income taxes.

If roads is a bad example, perhaps we could use public libraries instead. Perhaps it's not the same there, but here most towns and definitely all cities have public libraries which are funded mostly by government grants but also through some patronage but of course, the government funding is raised through taxes.

If you'd rather, we could look at police. Who's going to pay their wages if there's no income tax? Or how about judges and magistrates?

There are a whole range of public facilities and systems which would not be possible if it were not for income taxes.

As I've said before, if you don't want to pay taxes, that's fine, but you go and live away from society. Be self sufficient and do your thing. I have no problem with that what so ever. If that's what people want to do, they should go ahead and do it, but you only make yourself a hypocrite if you live within society and don't pay your taxes.

IIRC Radar is okay with other forms of taxes, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. It is only when the tax rate is directly tied to income that he objects.

That's a lovely little speech Radar, but you've blown a hole in your own foot with a lot of the tripe you've posted here. You constantly tell most if not all of us how you're better or more intelligent than us. You have some very strange ideas about how certain documents should be interpreted and quite frankly, you're incredibly rude and condescending in practically every single post you decide to create.

If that's a shining example of what an American is, then you and your countrymen have a problem.

I'm only rude to those who richly deserve it. You're as rude as I've ever been and you're consistently wrong on every subject and then get snippy when you are corrected.

If more Americans were like me, America would be loved throughout the world...including Australia. You are an anomaly because every other Australian I've ever met is very kindhearted, caring, worldly, and classy. In other words, they are everything that you are not.

I'm a much better American than you are an Australian.

Yep I know thanks Clod

You are right on all counts other than property tax. I don't think I should ever be taxed on what I own, or what I earn. Owning property is a right. Keeping the fruits of your labor is a right. I have a problem being taxed for exercising my rights. I have no problem with paying taxes or fees for services I use.

I suppose you think that's a winning post Radar? lol

Let's just have a look at the elements for a minute so you can see why it's not.

Which must include pretty much everyone on this forum at least. From what I've observed, you've been rude to everyone at one time or another.

Not correct and I have no problem being corrected by someone who knows better than me.

Firstly, this is only your opinion. It'd be interesting to do a poll on it don't you think? I wonder also if you're implying that you're better than most other Americans here.

You have no idea how kindearted, caring, worldly (although this is not a word that has any relevance with regard to any group of people made up of individuals) or classy I am. Just because I don't sprout off all the good deeds I do or boast about the people I help or do nice things for doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means I don't tell you about. You're making a very mistaken assumption here and it's so far wrong it's funny.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. I suppose that'd be another interesting poll. I suppose you'd have to ask what makes a better American and also what makes a better Australian. Maybe the same ideals apply and maybe they don't. Once again, this is a very presumptive statement and is also simply your opinion until you can show me how you've quantified it and proven your theory.

So in summary, I'd say no, this is not a winning post. There is far too much left to speculate about yet. :)

Wait a minute. What do you mean? Are you really suggesting we are born with a natural right to own real estate? or a car? or anything for that matter? owning these things is a privilege, a luxury really. you work for your money and you purchase them if you are able.