The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they’ll allow the government to collect taxes from them.

The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they’ll allow the government to Invade Iraq.

The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they’ll allow the government to ban travel to Cuba.

The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they’ll allow the government to take away their firearms.

I wonder if El Tubbo Grande would agree with either of these statements.

The government is of, by, and for the people works only when there is a community of 100 people.  When it is larger than that, it can become government by and for the government.

How did you arrive at that figure? If there were 101 people things would go sour? What if there were 99? Would things run smoother?

I think if we just followed the Constitution, things would be fine.

Lol Belcatar.

It was more of a concept than an actual number.  I just ment that smaller populations make it easier to interact with goverment.

Just my opinion.

Interesting column.  I disagree with the notion that the government “forces” us to pay taxes.  Lots of people don’t pay income taxes--they just live with the risk of getting caught and suffering the consequences.  If they are clever, there may be no consequences.  I also reject the notion that we have pure freedom to ignore Bill Gates’ software.  Yeah, it can be done, but some times it’s difficult to avoid when he approaches monopoly control.

Posted by Denver_Guy on 07/05/2007 at 07:44 AM (Link to this comment | )

The government is of, by, and for the people works only when there is a community of 100 people.  When it is larger than that, it can become government by and for the government.

I always say, politics starts as soon as you have three people dealing with each other…

Posted by esoteric on 07/05/2007 at 08:21 AM (Link to this comment | )

Interesting column.  I disagree with the notion that the government “forces” us to pay taxes.  Lots of people don’t pay income taxes--they just live with the risk of getting caught and suffering the consequences.  If they are clever, there may be no consequences.  I also reject the notion that we have pure freedom to ignore Bill Gates’ software.  Yeah, it can be done, but some times it’s difficult to avoid when he approaches monopoly control.

Not forced to pay taxes but not free to not buy microsloth… hmmm…

Thats some real interesting ‘thinking’ you got going there.

Smaller populations do have an easier time interacting with government, but unless you have a magic lamp, we have to deal with what’s here. The Constitution is the best way to do that.

I disagree with the notion that the government “forces” us to pay taxes.  Lots of people don’t pay income taxes--they just live with the risk of getting caught and suffering the consequences.

Can’t you say that about any action, legal or illegal?

There is a difference between the theoretical and the practical.  You are stating theoretically that the government does not force us to do anything (and indeed, you could extend that all the way to putting a gun to your head and asking you to poke your eye out with a fork.  Whether you poke out your eye, or take a bullet to the head, you’re the one making the choice… right?) We are stating that, as a practical matter, the government is appropriating money from its citizens by force of law.

"microsloth”? Interesting spelling.
Worf, yes.  But I took Stossel to be intimating that somehow government has gotten even more aggressive about chasing the public down for taxes.  I’m no authority, but I think the IRS is less Big Brotherish than it was forty years ago.  I pay taxes, but I have bought into the system.  Many people do not.  I liked the column, but thought Stossel overstated the evil of big government.

It’s a very simple premise.  You pay taxes to the government.  If you don’t, you go to jail.  That has nothing to do with levels of aggression or Big Brother or anything like that.

He’s just saying that the government has the force of law behind its appropriations, and Moore is suggesting that because we elect our representatives, then by extension we are choosing to give up our money, how much, and to what ends.

That there are consequences to not paying taxes since 1913 is not exactly breaking news.  The heart of Stossel’s point is that if you want to increase spending on health care, you force it by law (presumably you have political clout) or you persuade the populace via public debate and election procedures. Stossel wants to contrast that with private sector models where participation is voluntary and dependent on the quality of the product.  But he picks the rather odd example of Microsoft.  As I understand the point of the annoying computer viruses introduced by renegade hackers over the last few years, it was that they felt coerced into using Microsoft products through Gates monopolistic policies.  I’m using Firefox right now rather than Internet Explorer to avoid that shit.

Stossel says if you don’t like Microsoft, you can opt out.  Yeah, but it ain’t that easy, ask Mac users in institutional settings.  I also know people who don’t pay income taxes and haven’t for years, but that isn’t easy either if they want mortgages, government jobs, etc.  In my head, both models are coercive.

Finally, I’m not sure exactly what Stossel’s problem with Moore is.  Moore is trying to persuade people via his celebrity and his filmmaking skills.  It’s not like he’s threatening anyone with a jail term if they don’t adopt Canadian health care models.  Either the public buys into this or they reject it.  Personally, I would pay more taxes for better public health care, but I am probably far from the majority.

Esoteric, re Microsoft: have you ever been coerced into buying a PC?  Were you ever threatened with repercussions if you did not?  Are you aware of other operating systems than Windows?

The point is, you have a choice.  It doesn’t matter if it’s easy or not.  (That argument in itself is irrelevant—didn’t your parents ever tell you that life isn’t fair or easy?)

Once government starts controlling something (not regulating, but controlling, as Moore advocates) you start losing your choices.

Actually my parents were more into warning me about silly platitudes.
It’s not a big point, but I do have colleagues who were forced to buy PCs or the institution wouldn’t service them.  Macs have superior graphic capabilities, but that wasn’t a priority. 
Regulation is a form of control.  I assume by putting the boldface on, you want to indicate that there is control, and then there’s control.

As I understand the point of the annoying computer viruses introduced by renegade hackers over the last few years, it was that they felt coerced into using Microsoft products through Gates monopolistic policies.  I’m using Firefox right now rather than Internet Explorer to avoid that shit.

The fact that you are using Firefox rather than IE demonstrates that you are not coerced.  Similarly, many people use Macs, or PCs with Linux distros.  If anything, these alternative forms of doing computing are gaining traction since they are quality alternatives (in some cases better than MS product).

Gates does not have force of law behind his actions.  He cannot fine you or put you in jail for not using his product.  The people who are not paying taxes, are not living that way because they have the option, but because they are disobeying the law.  They are still subject to the same force of law as any of us, if the law catches up with them.  To say otherwise is to suggest that it is okay to rob a bank, but against the law to GET CAUGHT robbing a bank.  That’s a semantic game I don’t care to play.

I don’t think I said it was okay to not pay taxes, I said it was an option.  Not one I am willing to take being the public spirited individual I am.  Meanwhile, I wish the feds would figure out a way to tax the underground economy.  They could probably fix those VA hospitals like they should be.

I assume by putting the boldface on, you want to indicate that there is control, and then there’s control.

Clearly you get my drift then, yes?  Generally speaking: the gov’t regulates firearms, for instance (yes, an assault weapons ban is certainly control, but the gov’t doesn’t tell me what I must own.) The gov’t controls Social Security.

Actually, I think we are into semantic problems that will probably bore anyone who reads this.  There is good regulation and bad regulation just like there is good control and bad control. You’re saying regulation is good, control is bad. I don’t think the dictionary supports you.
Anyway, we would probably agree that if the government veers toward over-regulating and over-controlling, then there is likely to be considerable dissatisfaction with its operation.

I don’t think I said it was okay to not pay taxes, I said it was an option.

No, it is not.  You can be put into jail for not paying your taxes.  You cannot be put into jail for using Firefox.  THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THESE TWO CONCEPTS.  Attempting to dodge the law does not mean they do not have jurisdiction to enforce it upon you.

I don’t think I said it was okay to not pay taxes, I said it was an option.

No, it’s not an “option.” It’s a crime.  As soon as you do it, the government grants itself the right to use force against you for not complying.  Thereby proving Stossel’s point.

Sorry, but you’ve utterly and completely lost this semantic argument.

esoteric
Finally, I’m not sure exactly what Stossel’s problem with Moore is.  Moore is trying to persuade people via his celebrity and his filmmaking skills.

I suspect that much of his problem with moore is the same one that brings many of us to this site--moore’s deceits and lies that he uses in his films to “persuade” people into his line of thinking.  I suppose that’s okay for those of you who appreciate being lied to when making decisions.

Again, another moore supporter who’s credo is “the end justifies the means.” This is getting ridiculous.

Remember, pious fraud is a logical fallacy.  If you lie to accomplish a greater good, the rules of forensics say I don’t have to take your argument seriously.

Doing the wrong thing for (ostensibly) the right reason is still the wrong thing.

If the case was so obvious and cut-and-dried as Moore presents it, he wouldn’t need to manufacture his examples.  The evidence would be damning unto itself.

If Moore really wants to win hearts and minds, he needs to do it with The Truth (tm), not a one-sided agitprop film that someone with a lick of common sense can see through in a heartbeat.

Have I cycled through all my bumper sticker arguments against Moore?  I think that’s about it.  Point being, I do not agree that Moore’s actions are benevolent (even if I were to stipulate that they were well-intended), and I do not think the public is served by having his films as part of the discussion.

JimK, crime is always an “option.” If you don’t like the fact income tax evasion is a crime, you also have the option of moving somewhere else.
Crichton, I am baffled at how you come up with me arguing a “ends justify means argument.”
Worf, your bumper sticker arguments haven’t convinced me. “Pious fraud is a logical fallacy”?

Esoteric, I’m confused.  On the one hand, you tell us that paying taxes is a choice, but on the other hand, buying computers is not.  Can you clarify this for me?

Worf, your bumper sticker arguments haven’t convinced me. “Pious fraud is a logical fallacy”?

Yes.  Lying to make a point ultimately undermines that point.  If my arguments are unconvincing, then maybe you can explain how it is okay to do the wrong thing for the (supposedly) right reasons.

JimK, crime is always an “option.” If you don’t like the fact income tax evasion is a crime, you also have the option of moving somewhere else.

You continue to play semantic games that lead nowhere.  I already extended this logic to its furthest conclusion on like the 9th post of this thread.  There’s no point in continuing down this road only to end up someplace that I already took you yesterday.  Can we at least agree that citizens of a country, as a principle, are bound by the laws that govern it?

Crichton, I am baffled at how you come up with me arguing a “ends justify means argument.”

That would fall under the “Moore is trying to persuade people, therefore Stossel has no grounds to complain” assertion.

Bismark, yes, buying computers is a choice. My decision which computer to buy is constrained by what is available. My decision to be a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is constrained by possibly two things: 1. whether I believe in the system, 2. whether I am prepared to accept the consequences of not being law-abiding. The amoral might add a #3, whether I think I can get away with it.
Worf, I always try to do the right thing, I hope you do as well. Your sentence “Pious fraud is a logical fallacy” just gives me fits. “Fraud” is generally determined by a court of law. “Piety,” however, is a subjective, moral judgment. You’re marrying the two together--ok, maybe Moore defrauds his audience and is pious in the process according to your judgment. But then to add “logical fallacy” to it is asking too much for my tired brain. Logic can be fallacious, such as an enthymene or a straw man argument, but to mix that all together throws me. Fraud has nothing to do with logic, nor does piety. Sorry, it’s a bit much.
I would never argue Michael Moore should be able to lie to achieve favorable results. I think he has the right to attempt to persuade us--as Stossel seems to acknowledge--it’s up to us in the marketplace of ideas to either accept or reject the persuasion. I’m in Ireland at the moment and still haven’t seen Sicko, so I will render my own judgment at that time. I will get a chance to see “Manufacturing Dissent” in Galway next week.

JimK, crime is always an “option.” If you don’t like the fact income tax evasion is a crime, you also have the option of moving somewhere else.

WHICH PROVES THAT THE STATE IS USING THE POWER OF FORCE TO TAKE YOUR MONEY.

You are NOT this stupid.  Just admit you were wrong about this particular point and move on.

How about we just agree to disagree?  There’s much more interesting stuff going on over at Moore’s site right now.  He just posted a leaked memo from a Blue Cross PR expert about the impact of Sicko.  Well worth a read.  I yield the floor.

My decision to be a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen is constrained by possibly two things: 1. whether I believe in the system, 2. whether I am prepared to accept the consequences of not being law-abiding. The amoral might add a #3, whether I think I can get away with it.

I would argue that #3 is already inherent in #1 and #2.  But more importantly, I find your statement to be in direct violation of one of your following statements:

I always try to do the right thing

Isn’t being a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen the right thing to do?  Methinks your entire argument is much like the ouroboros.

Bismark, I file every year, in fact, I vote for increases in property tax when the school referendum comes around.  Somehow I am being depicted as a tax evader.
On the other hand, my brother is a crazy poet who lives on about $4,000 a year.  He’s never had a credit card in 50 years and he doesn’t file taxes. Am I supposed to see him as a criminal?
There’s also a group of radicals who believe that income tax is unconstitutional.  I don’t agree with them, but they exist.
I know of people who make extraordinary money in illegal drugs--no income tax filed.
Life has a set of choices.  I choose to pay taxes.

Thanks for the heads-up, esoteric.  I just checked out that Blue Cross post on MM’s site.  A couple of thoughts:

Ooh, secret memos!  How terribly clandestine!  And deliciously evil!  I’ll bet they write them in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms!
Honestly, if you buy into that image, clearly you don’t know much about the corporate world.  Thousands of memos are written every hour.  And by nature of the business, all of those are supposed to be “secret.” They are company property regarding company business.  This particular memo is a standard PR dept report regarding strategy.  These types of memos are written every day—there is nothing terribly special or secret about it… but it does make for a good headline and GREAT publicity for michaelmoore.com!

Second thought… Moore makes this offer:

Just me and your CEO openly debating the merits of a system that kills thousands of innocent Americans every year.

I would love to see the Vegas odds on this.  If I were the CEO, I’d get this lined up right away—after all, based on past history, Moore would flake at the last minute.

Ooh, secret memos!  How terribly clandestine!  And deliciously evil!  I’ll bet they write them in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms!
Honestly, if you buy into that image, clearly you don’t know much about the corporate world.  Thousands of memos are written every hour.  And by nature of the business, all of those are supposed to be “secret.” They are company property regarding company business. 

Hell a lot of e-mails are considered confidential and “secret” even if they are as boring as talking about problems with one of the printers.  They still may contain a notice about confidentiality.

Exactly!  But in THIS case, it’s part of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to shut down Mikey!

From Moore’s website regarding the memo:

But don’t be scared, and certainly don’t be ashamed to be a capitalist. Greed is good! Especially good for you. There’s nothing like having the pre-existing condition of being rich, should you ever get sick and need help.

I see Mike just couldn’t help it . . . he just had to make his real message clear . . . this really isn’t about health care.

If I were the CEO, I’d get this lined up right away—after all, based on past history, Moore would flake at the last minute.

Nah, Moore would hold the interview, get his ass schooled, then deny that the interview ever took place and make himself some liberal street cred by saying “the Man” was afraid to interview him.

That is, after all, how he made his career.

esoteric
How about we just agree to disagree?  There’s much more interesting stuff going on over at Moore’s site right now. He just posted a leaked memo from a Blue Cross PR expert about the impact of Sicko.  Well worth a read.  I yield the floor.

How about you tell us when moore puts his forums back up and we’ll discuss it over there.

Your sentence “Pious fraud is a logical fallacy” just gives me fits.

Well, then let me guide you to the proper understanding.

Fraud is deception to your advantage.
Piety is when you do something in the service of a good cause.

Lying in the service of an (ostensibly) good cause is still lying.  If you are lying to make your point, your logic cannot hold up because it is based on a flawed premise.  That makes it fallacious.

Lying to prove your point undermines it instead.

Are we clear now?

I would never argue Michael Moore should be able to lie to achieve favorable results. I think he has the right to attempt to persuade us

Stipulating the first part of this makes the second part of it meaningless.  If he abuses this “right” of persuasion, he forfeits his claim on serious merit.

There’s also a group of radicals who believe that income tax is unconstitutional.  I don’t agree with them, but they exist.

If the government comes upon these people, CAN THEY PUT THEM IN JAIL OR NOT?  Here’s a hint: the courts can fine you $25,000 for even ARGUING that tax laws are unconstitutional!

I know of people who make extraordinary money in illegal drugs--no income tax filed.

If the government comes upon these people, CAN THEY PUT THEM IN JAIL OR NOT?

w0rf… oh, my… I think I love you now. :)

Worf, I think I can make the statement clear for you.  You are asserting: “Michael Moore commits fraud with his audiences by his frequent use of logical fallacies such as (pick example).  That he does this with a pious manner is (pick adjective).”

I still think “pious fraud” is oxymoronic, but let’s drop it.  I understand your position.

About the tax evasion question: that the government puts evaders in jail is just not an earth-shattering revelation.

You are asserting: “Michael Moore commits fraud with his audiences by his frequent use of logical fallacies such as (pick example).  That he does this with a pious manner is (pick adjective).”

No.  That would be what I was asserting if I had constructed the sentence completely backwards.  What need do you have to put words in my mouth when I told you precisely what I mean?

A logical premise must be supported with factual information.  If you lie to make your point, you end up undermining it instead.  Being well-intended is not a substitute for being well-supported.

About the tax evasion question: that the government puts evaders in jail is just not an earth-shattering revelation.

Well, apparently it is, because you keep equating tax evasion with the use of Firefox.  The use of Microsoft products versus the use of other products is a free-market decision that any user or business/organization (lest you attempt that “I am forced to because of my job” nonsense again) can make without fear of prosecution/persecution.

Evading taxes may be a choice that a person can make, but that does not make a LAW optional.  If you BREAK the law, YOU GO TO JAIL.  Therefore, the government has FORCE OF LAW behind its appropriation of taxes, and if you do not abide by that, THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT to fine you, put you in jail, or… and here’s the important part, seize your assets and garnish your wages.  You can wake up tomorrow and find your bank account suddenly lighter by that $50k you “opted” not to pay.

The bottom line: there is no genuine correlation between MS business practice and the force of law, nor between the freedom to choose a product and the “option” not to pay your taxes.

Donna:
w0rf… oh, my… I think I love you now. :)

As flattered as I am by that sentiment, I’m afraid you’ll have to take a number on my “adulterous affair” list behind my old high school sweetheart and the total babe working at the Origins convention booth where I am volunteering my time this weekend.  Don’t take it personally, that’s just the cross one bears when one is such a chick magnet.

/tongue-in-cheek

//will miss all you guys when Jim bans him :)

Worf,
In Lee’s post about Stossel, he links to an AP article about tax evaders:

Based on the committee’s mailing list and reports from numerous groups it works with around the country, Benn estimates 8,000 to 10,000 Americans refuse to pay some or all of their federal taxes over war objections. Internal Revenue Service officials say they don’t have figures for that specific category, but earlier this year reported an overall noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent and estimated the annual tax gap at about $345 billion.

Now this particular committee and the I.R.S. may be doing voodoo math--$345 billion seems astronomical to me. But if your assertion that if you don’t pay taxes you go to jail is 100 percent true, then the government is going to be pretty busy.
You don’t like my Microsoft analogy? Fine, I don’t like your use of the word “piety.”

Posted by w0rf on 07/06/2007 at 06:19 PM (Link to this comment | )

Your sentence “Pious fraud is a logical fallacy” just gives me fits.
Well, then let me guide you to the proper understanding.

Fraud is deception to your advantage.
Piety is when you do something in the service of a good cause.

The phrase has some history too. Good to google and read up on. Sort of a religious faker of miracles or facts for (in their opinion) ‘the greater good’. Sums Moore up perfectly. I like it.

Posted by esoteric on 07/07/2007 at 01:29 AM (Link to this comment | )

Worf, I think I can make the statement clear for you. You are asserting: “Michael Moore commits fraud with his audiences by his frequent use of logical fallacies such as (pick example). That he does this with a pious manner is (pick adjective).”

Not the crime of fraud, he is a fraud (in the common sense). He also claims to be pious. So, yeah, I’ll bite. Yes.

I still think “pious fraud” is oxymoronic, but let’s drop it. I understand your position.

I think its meant to hold together some cognitive dissonance as a phrase… it makes two words become ironic when paired (with extra points for brevity)… and IMO catchy (I like it). Anyway, I thought lefties were all sophisticated and loved nuance and don’t need everything simplistically black and white. :)

Here is some background. http://skepdic.com/piousfraud.html

A pious fraud is someone whose fraud is motivated by misguided religious zeal.

Considering to Moore and his fan base, their politics has taken on the same zeal as religion and that they don’t mind using fake facts to push what they think is the larger truth.... seems perfect.

Slore, that’s well done, thanks.  However, if a “pious fraud” is a “someone” in the definition, how can this “someone” be a “logical fallacy”? If the answer is that it is simply nuanced cognitive dissonance, I give.

nuanced cognitive dissonance

I would say that’s a complex way to phrase it.

A simpler way would be to use the word “hypocrite.” Or more simply, “liar.” In this world created by far left wing social “activism,” a lie is a good thing in service to a larger “truth,” which is propped up almost solely by the batch of lies told in order to “expose” said truth.

It’s creating reality.  It’s manufacturing a moment.  It’s everything Moore is good at.

The saddest part of it all is, Moore’s so unable to tell the truth as it stands that he ends up bolstering his enemies.  He makes it easy to discount the core of whatever it is he’s “fighting” against - corporate greed, government power, HMO misconduct.  He does more harm than good.

Now this particular committee and the I.R.S. may be doing voodoo math--$345 billion seems astronomical to me.

At first glance that may seem true. Perhaps the term “noncompliance” used by the IRS needs explaining. While that term includes tax evasion, it also includes other under-reporting which is not necessarily illegal. The fact is IRS regulations are subject to intrepretation and misinterpretations are commonplace due to the complexity of the Tax Code. There’s simply no way for the IRS to audit everyone’s tax return . . . or even a meaningful number of them. When 5 different tax professionals come up with 5 different amounts for the taxes owed by the same individual in a given year, no wonder noncompliance is so high.

Congress will fix this problem shortly after they fix the Social Security and Medicare problems . . . which will occur the day after I win the lottery.

P.S. 345 billion is over 100 billion less than the yearly interest on the national debt . . . which is rising continuously.

Casual reading suggests that the I.R.S. audit rates were in a decline from the Reagan administration through the Clinton administration. The Bush administration made announcements that they were going to put teeth back in the I.R.S.  However, this article from a 2004 Washington Post is skeptical:

IRS officials have pointed to individual audit rates, saying taxpayers earning at least $100,000 were 52 percent more likely to be audited last year than they were two years ago. Revenue from tax collection actions reached $35. 5 billion in 2003, a 9 percent increase.

But Syracuse researchers were unimpressed. The increase last year in individual audits was entirely attributable to computer-generated letters automatically mailed when discrepancies are found between tax returns and income data, they said. The rate of face-to-face audits of individual taxpayers has not changed in the past three years, remaining at 1.6 audits for every 1,000 returns. High-income individuals did face a slightly higher chance at being audited: 4 returns per 1,000 were audited last year compared with 3.8 in 2002.

But individuals identified by the administration as small-business owners or entrepreneurs—those who file Schedule C forms to claim business income—saw their audit rates dip to 11 returns per 1,000 in 2003 compared with 11.4 per 1,000 in 2002.

Everson and other IRS officials said those statistics draw only a partial picture of IRS efforts. Computer-generated “correspondence audits” are effective, they say, bringing in an average of nearly $3,400 per exchange. That is less than the $4,597 brought in by a typical audit, or the $6,335 garnered by more rigorous tax examinations, but the cost is a fraction of that of face-to-face meetings, IRS officials said.

Esoteric, do you have a Grand Unifying Theory that ties this all together?  I’ve just re-read this entire post, and damned if I can tell what your point is.  Are you just arguing semantics for the sake of it, or do you seriously not believe that “government is force,” as Stossel claims?

No unifying theory, sorry. But since you ask, I will make an assertion that will probably be unpopular. Stossel makes a seven figure salary living in Manhattan. He’s far more likely to feel the “force” of an I.R.S. audit by all evidence than a waitress in South Texas ekeing out a living on $20,000 a year. He no doubt has a high-priced accountant and aggressive lawyers at his disposal. He’s bright and writes well, so we listen to his whine about the government. I can’t help but wonder if Stossel and Moore’s dilemmas about government taxation are a little different than 95 percent of the population’s.

As for myself personally, I generally think I get my money’s worth out of my tax bill. I wish some of it weren’t going to Iraq, but I understand I don’t get a line item veto. If I knew increased taxes would truly fix health care in America, I would support it, but I certainly find the arguments that big government also means big waste compelling.

But if your assertion that if you don’t pay taxes you go to jail is 100 percent true, then the government is going to be pretty busy.

The fact that the government even has the power and the right to prosecute is all the support I need.  100% conviction rate is more semantic bullshit, and I think we all would appreciate if you’d stop wasting our time with it.  Whether or not the government CAN is what is relevant in terms of establishing power behind the force of law; whether or not the government DOES is irrelevant to the question.

You don’t like my Microsoft analogy? Fine, I don’t like your use of the word “piety.”

What I do and do not “like”, and what you do and do not “like”, is entirely irrelevant.  Your Microsoft analogy is fundamentally flawed, which has always been my criticism of it, regardless of what one “likes”.  Similarly, my definition of piety is accurate, so what you “like” means nothing.