Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[Fishlore]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely. Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

 

[bripat9643]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

 

[Fishlore]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

 

[bripat9643]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Everything you post only proves that you're a servile brainwashed ignoramus. Private banks printed their own bank notes before the government made it illegal. Government wants a monopoly on printing money so it can rob you.

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

That's funny coming from such an obvious servile ignoramus as you. I understand exactly the ideas that it was founded on. Those ideas are not the ones used to justify our current government. You understand neither. You're a servile brainwashed toady who knows only what government propaganda organs have told. you.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

Allow me to quote you:

"However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit."​

 

[Fishlore]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Everything you post only proves that you're a servile brainwashed ignoramus. Private banks printed their own bank notes before the government made it illegal. Government wants a monopoly on printing money so it can rob you.

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

That's funny coming from such an obvious servile ignoramus as you. I understand exactly the ideas that it was founded on. Those ideas are not the ones used to justify our current government. You understand neither. You're a servile brainwashed toady who knows only what government propaganda organs have told. you.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

Allow me to quote you:

"However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit."​

Our angry little patriot cannot see a difference between "at its whim" and "as the government through its laws sees fit." This is only to be expected. The avatar says it all: rude and angry little boy. HIs fantasy is as a wise and corageous patriot whose brilliant exposition of the evils of government makes him a modern day Thomas Paine. I find this funny.

Why is this little fellow worked into a rage against some anonymous poster on the Internet? I think he has brought his boiling angry insults with him as the flip side of his patriot intellectual fantasy. It's all words to him. Someone who does not share his anarchistic version of libertarianism is a "servile ignoramus" who knows only what government propaganda organs have told him.

This is all a pose, a pose by an anonymous little fellow who wants the world to praise him for being wise and strong. Ego definition via social media is a shallow form of narcissim at best. Sad...

 

[bripat9643]

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Everything you post only proves that you're a servile brainwashed ignoramus. Private banks printed their own bank notes before the government made it illegal. Government wants a monopoly on printing money so it can rob you.

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

That's funny coming from such an obvious servile ignoramus as you. I understand exactly the ideas that it was founded on. Those ideas are not the ones used to justify our current government. You understand neither. You're a servile brainwashed toady who knows only what government propaganda organs have told. you.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

Allow me to quote you:

"However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit."​

Our angry little patriot cannot see a difference between "at its whim" and "as the government through its laws sees fit."

There is no difference, dumbass. "At its whim" and "as it sees fit" mean exactly the same thing. The fact that you don't know that only shows what a dumbass you are.

This is only to be expected. The avatar says it all: rude and angry little boy. HIs fantasy is as a wise and corageous patriot whose brilliant exposition of the evils of government makes him a modern day Thomas Paine. I find this funny.

Yeah, I'll bet you love it when I expose you for being the servile totalitarian dumbass toady you are.

Why is this little fellow worked into a rage against some anonymous poster on the Internet? I think he has brought his boiling angry insults with him as the flip side of his patriot intellectual fantasy. It's all words to him. Someone who does not share his anarchistic version of libertarianism is a "servile ignoramus" who knows only what government propaganda organs have told him.

I always insult servile bootlicking toadies like you. I also insult Nazis and communists for the same reason: you're all scum who want to destroy society and enslave humanity.

This is all a pose, a pose by an anonymous little fellow who wants the world to praise him for being wise and strong. Ego definition via social media is a shallow form of narcissim at best. Sad...

I have to admit I do enjoy taking self-important turds like you apart.

 

[Fishlore]

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Everything you post only proves that you're a servile brainwashed ignoramus. Private banks printed their own bank notes before the government made it illegal. Government wants a monopoly on printing money so it can rob you.

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

That's funny coming from such an obvious servile ignoramus as you. I understand exactly the ideas that it was founded on. Those ideas are not the ones used to justify our current government. You understand neither. You're a servile brainwashed toady who knows only what government propaganda organs have told. you.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

Allow me to quote you:

"However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit."​

Our angry little patriot cannot see a difference between "at its whim" and "as the government through its laws sees fit."

There is no difference, dumbass. "At its whim" and "as it sees fit" mean exactly the same thing. The fact that you don't know that only shows what a dumbass you are.

This is only to be expected. The avatar says it all: rude and angry little boy. HIs fantasy is as a wise and corageous patriot whose brilliant exposition of the evils of government makes him a modern day Thomas Paine. I find this funny.

Yeah, I'll bet you love it when I expose you for being the servile totalitarian dumbass toady you are.

Why is this little fellow worked into a rage against some anonymous poster on the Internet? I think he has brought his boiling angry insults with him as the flip side of his patriot intellectual fantasy. It's all words to him. Someone who does not share his anarchistic version of libertarianism is a "servile ignoramus" who knows only what government propaganda organs have told him.

I always insult servile bootlicking toadies like you. I also insult Nazis and communists for the same reason: you're all scum who want to destroy society and enslave humanity.

This is all a pose, a pose by an anonymous little fellow who wants the world to praise him for being wise and strong. Ego definition via social media is a shallow form of narcissim at best. Sad...

I have to admit I do enjoy taking self-important turds like you apart.

There are no two words or expressions in the English language that mean exactly the same thing. In this case, "whim" denotes "a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained,," while "fit" denotes "suitable or appropriate under the circumstances; right or proper". The difference is clear, at least to an educated person. Whim is essentially unexplained choice while what is fit or fitting conforms to criterion.

Like so many autodidacts, this sullen brat is oblivious to the nuance of mood and tone. Like all people schooled beyond their capacity, Finger Boy has contempt for that which he doesn't understand. His obsession with appearing knowledgeable makes him look smug while his philosophy of government is as nutty as a Port-A-Potty at a peanut festival.

 

[JoeNormal]

Like so many autodidacts, this sullen brat is oblivious to the nuance of mood and tone. Like all people schooled beyond their capacity, Finger Boy has contempt for that which he doesn't understand. His obsession with appearing knowledgeable makes him look smug while his philosophy of government is as nutty as a Port-A-Potty at a peanut festival.

Autodidact seems a little charitable. Autoproctologist is more appropriate.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

Why not take a dollar out of your bank account and look at it closely. If you don't think that dollar is a creation of the government, who do you think printed it?

Everything you post only proves that you're a servile brainwashed ignoramus. Private banks printed their own bank notes before the government made it illegal. Government wants a monopoly on printing money so it can rob you.

Part of your childish misunderstanding is revealed in your depiction of government as "bureaucrats and hack politicians" I don't think you really understand our government or the ideas upons which it is founded.

That's funny coming from such an obvious servile ignoramus as you. I understand exactly the ideas that it was founded on. Those ideas are not the ones used to justify our current government. You understand neither. You're a servile brainwashed toady who knows only what government propaganda organs have told. you.

I never suggested that "government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim"; in fact, I was quite careful to say the opposite. You don't read very carefully.

Allow me to quote you:

"However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit."​

Our angry little patriot cannot see a difference between "at its whim" and "as the government through its laws sees fit."

There is no difference, dumbass. "At its whim" and "as it sees fit" mean exactly the same thing. The fact that you don't know that only shows what a dumbass you are.

This is only to be expected. The avatar says it all: rude and angry little boy. HIs fantasy is as a wise and corageous patriot whose brilliant exposition of the evils of government makes him a modern day Thomas Paine. I find this funny.

Yeah, I'll bet you love it when I expose you for being the servile totalitarian dumbass toady you are.

Why is this little fellow worked into a rage against some anonymous poster on the Internet? I think he has brought his boiling angry insults with him as the flip side of his patriot intellectual fantasy. It's all words to him. Someone who does not share his anarchistic version of libertarianism is a "servile ignoramus" who knows only what government propaganda organs have told him.

I always insult servile bootlicking toadies like you. I also insult Nazis and communists for the same reason: you're all scum who want to destroy society and enslave humanity.

This is all a pose, a pose by an anonymous little fellow who wants the world to praise him for being wise and strong. Ego definition via social media is a shallow form of narcissim at best. Sad...

I have to admit I do enjoy taking self-important turds like you apart.

There are no two words or expressions in the English language that mean exactly the same thing. In this case, "whim" denotes "a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained,," while "fit" denotes "suitable or appropriate under the circumstances; right or proper". The difference is clear, at least to an educated person. Whim is essentially unexplained choice while what is fit or fitting conforms to criterion.

There's no functional difference between the two, bonehead, since the government decides what conforms to the criteria, and that's whatever its whim happens to decide.

Like so many autodidacts, this sullen brat is oblivious to the nuance of mood and tone. Like all people schooled beyond their capacity, Finger Boy has contempt for that which he doesn't understand. His obsession with appearing knowledgeable makes him look smug while his philosophy of government is as nutty as a Port-A-Potty at a peanut festival.

"Nuance" doesn't matter to anyone when the government is hauling away everything you own.

 

[Dragonlady]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

You're a perfect idiot. There is nothing you can have or own that cannot be taken from you in one minute or less, including your life.

I learned this when a tornado destroyed my house in 1979.

Thinking that anything is yours absolutely is living in a fool's paradise.

 

[bripat9643]

Calling obedience to the law "servile idiocy" is a feel-good statement that really takes us nowhere. Government isn't some bizarre third party that interferes in your life, it is the controlling principle created by society as part of the context within which your life is lived. All those precious liberties granted by the government are sustained by society. "No man is an island."

Within this context, your possession of "your" money is not absolute; indeed, nothing you possess is absolute nor are any of your other rights and liberties absolute. The American libertarian notion of the individual and his rights is mere solipsism.

So are you saying that you don't own the money in your bank account? It shouldn't go on your balance sheet?

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely.

That's a power that is immoral for government to have. Your ownership should be absolute. It sure as hell shouldn't be contingent on the decisions of bureaucrats and hack politicians. You have a servile totalitarian view of property rights that places the individual at the mercy of the state. That's the opposite of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

My money in my bank is not a creation of the government. You're a complete ignoramus. You have no understanding of money or banking or government.

It's truly pathetic that you believe the government should have the right to dispose of your possessions at its whim. You are the perfect slave.

You're a perfect idiot. There is nothing you can have or own that cannot be taken from you in one minute or less, including your life.

I learned this when a tornado destroyed my house in 1979.

Thinking that anything is yours absolutely is living in a fool's paradise.

You post that refuse and then call me an idiot? The fact that something can be taken from you means you don't own it? Can you explain what the term "own" means, in your view, that is?

 

[Centinel]

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely. Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

And if the government chooses to take less, do you consider this redistribution?

 

[bripat9643]

No, I'm saying that my ownership is not absolute, that it is a contingent possession which goverment has the power to reduce or confiscate entirely. Of course, we expect the government to exercise its power according to law as created by our democratically elected Congress. However, "my" money in "my" bank account is a creation of the government, to be acquired and disposed of as the government, through its laws, sees fit.

And if the government chooses to take less, do you consider this redistribution?

Of course he does.

 

[Fishlore]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

 

[kaz]

But for the federal government and US constitution and laws thereof, your farmer has no property rights, no farmland, no apples to sell.

You libertarians occupy a fantasyland where rules, infrastructure and life in general come ready made and are at your disposal for exploitation. You stand on the shoulders of others...of the efforts of others. You are no island. Start showing a little goddam gratitude to the people that made your lifestyle possible.

Article I, Section 8, states:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

And the 16th Amendment states:
"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."

Sad you fundamentally don't understand the Constitution of your own country. The Constitution says ALL rights are naturally to the citizens. We are in the Constitution ceding certain, enumerated rights to the Federal government. The government does not give us our rights. That is the basis of your country. Geez man.

And BTW, none of the powers ceded to the Federal government include distribution of rights

 

[Fishlore]

Sad you fundamentally don't understand the Constitution of your own country. The Constitution says ALL rights are naturally to the citizens. We are in the Constitution ceding certain, enumerated rights to the Federal government. The government does not give us our rights. That is the basis of your country. Geez man.

And BTW, none of the powers ceded to the Federal government include distribution of rights

The 18th century believed "rights" to be inherent in "human nature," either as an endowment by some "Creator" or as an organic practice in the "state of nature". Government, according to Whig theory was instituted among men to secure these rights.

The Whig theory of history and government was never the operating principle in the West, where governmental authority was considered to be devolved from the power of God through the bishops of the Church to the anointed king. The anointed king as agent of God is the Biblical theory of government.

The great experiment of the American Revoution was a flirtation with the Whig theory of contract government. Then as now, the idea was rejected by those who believe in a "Christian nation." In the states and in the new federal goverment, Blackstone law and English precedent formed the legal system of the new nation. Those noble Whig sentiments about a contractual government ensuring the Creator's gifts of liberty etc was largely window dressing for the elite. America was founded as a slave society. The most valuable property in the new nation was black slaves. Unalienable rights, my ass!

I wish you wouldn't try to condescend to me with your rhetoric instead of presenting ordered facts to support your view. It gives me confidence that you are not only less educated than I and don't realize it, but that you are motivated not by an interest in discussion but argument as a chance to express your inner angers and well founded fears of inferiority. Try to be more dignified next time or you won't get an answer.

 

[Centinel]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

 

[Fishlore]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

What is even worse a government that doesn't respect the property any of the people who happen to possess some means they no longer respect the conventions that protect private property. One of those conventions are the laws themselves since laws are often used to protect private property from others. if it thinks it can take yours and give it to someone else then it also thinks it can violate your property at will. Hence, a violation of personal space and privacy. Don't we see that with government survelance programs.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

To "own" something is to exercise a right of possession. The critical point in our discussion is that the right of possession is (like all rights) not absolute. You own your car but it can be taken away if you don't make the payments. That ownership is subject to a lien, so is a home mortgage.

The government can take away your property, condemning it as a public health hazard or seizing it by eminent domain if it is needed for some public purpose. The government can seize your property if you don't pay your taxes. The government can take your money in fines or taxes. The reason for this is "sovereignty" the power of the government over the individual. Since government has a monopoly on force, all governments have sovereignty.

The government can also take your liberty, draft you into the army, even take your life. That is true in a dictatorship as well as in a democracy. It is what governments do. There is a cute idea that citizens have "unalienable" rights to things like life and liberty but, obviously, that unalienability has never applied where sovereign government is concerned. Just ask George Washington.

There was, for a brief while in the 18th century, an idea that people had rights before they had government. This was part of a speculative theory about the "state of nature" and origins of human society. The modern sciences of anthropology and archeology have proven conclusively that this notion of "rights" is just a myth. Rights are socially constructed. All primates have societies with social rules and norms. Monkeys have government. It's older than humanity. Get over it.

And if the government chooses to not take your property but instead allows you to keep it, do you consider this to be redistribution?

Your phrasing "if the government chooses" reflects a fundamental misperception. The government is not a person who choses, it is an institution which operates by legal programming created by elected representatives. The government does not have a mind of its own, it is a mechanism not a person.

The mechanism of government runs on money. The government gets its money from various sources, mostly through taxes, and spends its money on the items described in the federal budget. This activity is inherently redistributive. Can you think of something the government does which does not involve taking money from one source and transferring it somewhere else?

The left is nothing more than a force of pure authoritarianism. It generally believes that the government can do whatever it wants with the people. It chooses not to take our stuff...it chooses not to kill us...it chooses not to rape us and sell our daughters into white slavery....blah blah blah. Why even have democracy if it can do whatever it wants to the people without their consent?