Who has the right to your money?

[BreezeWood]

Who has the right to your money?

US Constitution

Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

It is the right of the gov't to extract payment for services rendered ... otherwise it belongs solely to whoever earned it.

The Church?
Your neighbor?
Your friends?
Total Strangers?
A business?

- certainly non of the above.

 

[g5000]

Who has a right to use that money the way they want, without your say or control?

Obviously conservatives believe the Church does, your religious-affiliated employer may dictate to you how you may or may not use your health insurance premium compensation.

They are not charging you for a service they do not provide. So nothing is being taken from you.

But your entitlement mindset is exactly why we need to move away from employer-provided health insurance. You should be buying your own health insurance just like you buy your own auto, home, and life insurance.

Then if you don't get something covered, it is because that is the way you wanted it.

 

[bripat9643]

The government has a right to a portion of my money to pay for the services it provides to me.

Roads, defense, post office, etc.

Says who? What code of ethics is that written in?

No one else has a right to stick their hands in my pockets.

The government doesn't have anymore right to my money than the guy living down the street.

 

[bripat9643]

Who has a right to use that money the way they want, without your say or control?

Obviously conservatives believe the Church does, your religious-affiliated employer may dictate to you how you may or may not use your health insurance premium compensation.

That's what you agreed to when you took the job, turd.

 

[Big Fitz]

I mean personally. Consider your paycheck every week/two weeks/month.

Who has a right to use that money the way they want, without your say or control? Is this right in your mind? Why yes or no?

The government?
The Church?
Your neighbor?
Your friends?
Total Strangers?
A business?

I'm curious to see who has what to say on that subject when it comes to their personal finance.

The left-wing turds have a million rationalizations as to why someone else (them) is more entitled to spend it than you are.

That's why I asked about everyone's PERSONAL paycheck or income. Not someone else's. Who has access and power over it without your say?

 

[Sweet Willy]

great... the ever mutable definition of 'is'.

you tell me, since you're using the relativist philosophy on the word 'right' what it means to you.

I didn't ask the question so I'm not sure that MY definition will help answer YOUR question.

For me, a "right" is only as meaningful as the power to ensure that right. You can claim a "right" to your whole paycheck but there are others who claim a "right" to some of it. So... who has the power to ensure their "right"?

I mean...this question can be addressed in a few different ways, is all I'm saying. And i would choose to address it from a realist perspective.

That's what I'm asking. What do you feel is 'right' by your definition, not mine. Is there someone out there that can take every penny out of your hand for their own purposes? Or is there a limit? What are those limits that are acceptable. Who are those who can do such things and why?

I want your opinion.

OK.

Along the same lines I already said, the "right" to take my money, even every penny, depends on who has the power to enforce what they believe they have the right to. If a guy with a gun pointed at me asserts his "right" to take my money by the natural right of the strong over the weak... and if he gets the drop on me, he is the strong and I am the weak, then at that moment in time, his right is the one ensured, by his force. Now, I will surely attempt to enforce my "right", hopefully through community agreed upon force that corrects this momentary suspension of popularly held "rights"... by some guy with a gun. Do you see what I mean? It is relative, in reality. Relative to who has the power at any given time. We collectively try to agree upon certain "rights" and try to use our collective power to ensure our "right" not be robbed, even if we are singularly weak. We collectively try to be stronger than those that believe in a more singular approach to strong vs weak, though it is still a strong vs weak scenario. So, the strength to ensure our rights often comes from a sort of collectivism that keeps us from savaging each other or being victims in what is surely natures way of determining individual rights. If you really want to be an individual, if you want individual rights to keep your own.... then you operate as an individual and you really only have the right to whatever you can protect.

If you want to participate with the group, as a pack, you can also claim a "right" but it will be a compromised right, a right agreed upon by the group. That's the price for the protection of the herd. If the herd demands that you help look after the infants, even if you have none of your own, then you do so or risk facing the scenario of being on your own and surely having no more rights than the right to be devoured those stronger than you.

See where I'm coming from? If'd you'd like to go live on an Island, you can try. But rest assured, someone, somewhere with bigger guns and steeper demands that what you face now will show up and take it all. And since you opted out of our herd, we will stand by and say to the kids "see what happens if you leave the herd?"

 

[bripat9643]

It is the right of the gov't to extract payment for services rendered ... otherwise it belongs solely to whoever earned it.

Not if you haven't asked for its worthless "services."

 

[BreezeWood]

It is the right of the gov't to extract payment for services rendered ... otherwise it belongs solely to whoever earned it.

Not if you haven't asked for its worthless "services."

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

 

[bripat9643]

It is the right of the gov't to extract payment for services rendered ... otherwise it belongs solely to whoever earned it.

Not if you haven't asked for its worthless "services."

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Not if you haven't asked for its worthless "services."

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

The reality is, if you can't enforce your right to not pay the bill, you don't have it. I do reserve the "right" to change that answer if you'd like to conduct the conversation in a vaccum.

 

[bripat9643]

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

The reality is, if you can't enforce your right to not pay the bill, you don't have it. I do reserve the "right" to change that answer if you'd like to conduct the conversation in a vaccum.

Sorry, but the idea that rights are whatever the law says they are is absurd. According to that theory, slavery and putting Jews in gas ovens didn't violate anyone's rights.

Don't talk about rights until you learn what they are.

 

[g5000]

Not if you haven't asked for its worthless "services."

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

Anarchist, eh?

 

[bripat9643]

perhaps not receiving the service would be ok by the gov't but they can still bill you for it ... whether facts are what this thread intends seems another story.

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

Anarchist, eh?

Yeah, more or less. I think the concept of limited government is doomed to fail. The American experiment shows the truth of that. If you have even the slightest trace of government, it will grow until it entirely consumes society. The only way to keep government under control is to eliminate it.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The issue is whether the government has a right to bill you for anything. It doesn't.

The reality is, if you can't enforce your right to not pay the bill, you don't have it. I do reserve the "right" to change that answer if you'd like to conduct the conversation in a vaccum.

Sorry, but the idea that rights are whatever the law says they are is absurd. According to that theory, slavery and putting Jews in gas ovens didn't violate anyone's rights.

Don't talk about rights until you learn what they are.

Not what the law says they are, what can be assured by force or will or threat. The Jews "rights" were only asserted by force, the same thing that was required to assert the "right" to gas them. Even the "rights" you consider good are only ensured by force against those who don't equally believe in your "right".

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but the idea that rights are whatever the law says they are is absurd. According to that theory, slavery and putting Jews in gas ovens didn't violate anyone's rights.

Don't talk about rights until you learn what they are.

Not what the law says they are, what can be assured by force or will or threat. The Jews "rights" were only asserted by force, the same thing that was required to assert the "right" to gas them. Even the "rights" you consider good are only ensured by force against those who don't equally believe in your "right".

In other words, might makes right. That's even dumber.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Sorry, but the idea that rights are whatever the law says they are is absurd. According to that theory, slavery and putting Jews in gas ovens didn't violate anyone's rights.

Don't talk about rights until you learn what they are.

Not what the law says they are, what can be assured by force or will or threat. The Jews "rights" were only asserted by force, the same thing that was required to assert the "right" to gas them. Even the "rights" you consider good are only ensured by force against those who don't equally believe in your "right".

In other words, might makes right. That's even dumber.

Well yes, if you need a nut shell to put it in.

That's just reality, dumb or not. And even if you believe that the ultimate "rights" are decided by God or Gods, and that they will enforce these "rights" they set forth, how is it that they are believed to do this? With force, with heavenly might to smite and smote and flood and burn things and cause those that would take your God given "rights" to perish. So... you tell me, where do you believe "rights" come from? A communal agreement of what "rights" exist? A God given edict of what "rights" exist? Where do rights come from, in your mind?

My belief is what I've laid out for you. An agreed upon set of "rights" that the particular agreeing parties set out to enforce. And until someone stronger knocks them off, those are the rights that exist, in real terms, on the ground.

 

[bripat9643]

Well yes, if you need a nut shell to put it in.

That's just reality, dumb or not. And even if you believe that the ultimate "rights" are decided by God or Gods, and that they will enforce these "rights" they set forth, how is it that they are believed to do this? With force, with heavenly might to smite and smote and flood and burn things and cause those that would take your God given "rights" to perish. So... you tell me, where do you believe "rights" come from? A communal agreement of what "rights" exist? A God given edict of what "rights" exist? Where do rights come from, in your mind?

My belief is what I've laid out for you. An agreed upon set of "rights" that the particular agreeing parties set out to enforce. And until someone stronger knocks them off, those are the rights that exist, in real terms, on the ground.

So you're combining your two theories of rights: might makes right and rights are whatever the law says. They aren't any smarter because you're combining them.

You don't know what a right is.

Rights are rules that separate justice from injustice. When you violate a right, you step over the line of acceptable behavior. You justify society to retaliate against you. Whether rights are enforced or not is irrelevant. Injustice doesn't become justice because no one enforces the later. Gassing Jews will always be a violation of rights, regardless of the legal or power situation.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Well yes, if you need a nut shell to put it in.

That's just reality, dumb or not. And even if you believe that the ultimate "rights" are decided by God or Gods, and that they will enforce these "rights" they set forth, how is it that they are believed to do this? With force, with heavenly might to smite and smote and flood and burn things and cause those that would take your God given "rights" to perish. So... you tell me, where do you believe "rights" come from? A communal agreement of what "rights" exist? A God given edict of what "rights" exist? Where do rights come from, in your mind?

My belief is what I've laid out for you. An agreed upon set of "rights" that the particular agreeing parties set out to enforce. And until someone stronger knocks them off, those are the rights that exist, in real terms, on the ground.

So you're combining your two theories of rights: might makes right and rights are whatever the law says. They aren't any smarter because you're combining them.

You don't know what a right is.

Rights are rules that separate justice from injustice. When you violate a right, you step over the line of acceptable behavior. You justify society to retaliate against you. Whether rights are enforced or not is irrelevant. Injustice doesn't become justice because no one enforces the later. Gassing Jews will always be a violation of rights, regardless of the legal or power situation.

So if rights are rules that separate justice from injustice, is there a word for these rules? Are these rules sometimes called laws?

Who decides acceptable behavior? Were you born knowing?

What right, in specific, did gassing people violate?

 

[DaGoose]

great... the ever mutable definition of 'is'.

you tell me, since you're using the relativist philosophy on the word 'right' what it means to you.

I didn't ask the question so I'm not sure that MY definition will help answer YOUR question.

For me, a "right" is only as meaningful as the power to ensure that right. You can claim a "right" to your whole paycheck but there are others who claim a "right" to some of it. So... who has the power to ensure their "right"?

I mean...this question can be addressed in a few different ways, is all I'm saying. And i would choose to address it from a realist perspective.

That's what I'm asking. What do you feel is 'right' by your definition, not mine. Is there someone out there that can take every penny out of your hand for their own purposes? Or is there a limit? What are those limits that are acceptable. Who are those who can do such things and why?

I want your opinion.

If you're talking net income then nobody has a "right" to it other than me.

If you're talking gross income then the government has the Constitutional right to tax for services rendered.

I mean, fire protection, police protection, prison guards, prisons, water departments, highways and trash removal are not provided for free, right?

And if you want the government to stop providing those things then you can vote into office representitives to change it.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13mlndJIVFg&feature=g-all-lik&context=G2ad522aFAAAAAAAABAA]Ron Paul Teaches CNBC Economics - YouTube[/ame]