Quote:
I guess I draw the line at having an opinion vs. forcing an action.
The thing is, though, that any political opinion does have an action. Like if we decide that we value people's basic needs, so we take money from the rich and give it to poor who cannot sustain themselves. What if some people don't agree, though, and think that they should be entitled to do what they want with their money. In fact, what if their belief system tells them that by being merciful they are hurting people (Ayn Rand, anyone?) We have now taken harmful action against these people person by taking their money- are we who have supported such a tax bigots? It's not good enough to call these people stingy or selfish. What makes one person's definition of what is good better than someone elses? At some point, we decide what the law is and someone loses. In the cases of our tax law, the unwilling tax payer must give up a porition of his or her earned income because we have agreed collectively that this is the moral and right thing to do.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.