The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[JBeukema]

KK You are confusing me. Come back down from the ledge Bro., it's not that bad. Take a deep breath, ... good... Government has a proper role in our lives, KK, it in fact is part of the Social Compact, without which, Anarchy would rule. You don't want that, KK. Let's just learn to focus more on Government by consent, and funding that.

What do you call it when a person or organization takes money that they have no right to? I call it theft.

They may have taken more than their share, I agree with you, and work within the rule of law to change it.

Man is bound by the Law only insomuch as the Law is good and reflects what is right, for it is what it right, not to what is lawful, to which man is bound.

 

[The T]

and the states get authorization to charter corps from the 10th amendment.

You appear to believe that governments have no right to tax citizens, is that true?

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

In this lexicon>? Some would be wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In a republic all taxation is consensual.

If you don't want to pay the taxes, leave. Besides your social contract literally has your signature on it. You had to sign a form seeking a tax payer identification number, and you did sign that form.

If it were consensual I'd have the right to say no. Since I don't have that right it is clearly not consensual.

Wrong, you can leave.

And you already DID consent when you signed for your tax payer identification #.

I would still be taxed by the U.S. government if I left. Something I had no choice in signing doesn't make it consensual.

 

[Sallow]

Because of the government.

Usually..a democratically elected representative government keeps the spirit of capitalism alive.

Are you nuts?

Usually, democracies devolve into the majority voting themselves bread and circuses to be paid for by a minority.

That is not the Spirit of Capitalism.

Again..Cognition is not your strong suit.

But I invite you to try again. Read the post. Try and understand. Then get back to me.

 

[loosecannon]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

who said that?

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

Not so many years ago, our city voted to raise sales tax

 

[Intense]

and the states get authorization to charter corps from the 10th amendment.

You appear to believe that governments have no right to tax citizens, is that true?

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

Some would say property is theft

(As they put on their Ski Masks)
Only to justify their own action of theft.
It's not rational, but that is beside the point.

 

[JBeukema]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

who said that?

I did. Just a few minutes ago.

 

[JBeukema]

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

Some would say property is theft

(As they put on their Ski Masks)
Only to justify their own action of theft.
It's not rational, but that is beside the point.

I was referring to

Property is theft! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely correct.

Which is why..we pay taxes. We determine how our government is shaped and what powers they have..not the other way around.

Well thanks for the applause but I'm not sure we are anywhere in agreement here. I think the people lost a great deal of freedom and personal power and continue to lose freedom and power when they allowed the federal government to take more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Do you think the hundreds and hundreds of permanent US agencies plus temporary groups authorized by Congress plus all the President's cabinet and staff and their staffs and the czars and their staffs etc. etc. etc. were what the Founders had in mind when they set up the first federal government? Do you think the government spends your money more wisely than you would spend it on your own behalf?

How can you be truly free unless your property is yours to do as you wish short of infringing on the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of others?

The founders didn't have 50 states and 300 million people to deal with. It's a complicated nation and economy.

The reality of individual liberties remains the same no matter how many or how few people are involved, however. In fact the larger the group, the more the principles work without too many complications because the inevitable anomalies are diffused and have smaller affect.

The Founders envisioned a great nation in which no king, no dictator, no feudal or totalitarian powers would have authority or power to dictate rights to the people. They saw the people as having unalienable rights and put together a governing principle in which the government would have no power or authority to violate those rights in any way. The only way people could forfeit their personal liberties is when they presumed to unlawfully deny those liberties to others.

You either see rights as coming from the government to the people--the old world model--or you see the people authorizing the power that the government will be allowed to have which was the new experiment and vision of the Founders that exceeded their highest expectations.

You either see the government as governing the people--the old world model. Or you see the people governing themselves--the unique American principle.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

Not so many years ago, our city voted to raise sales tax

That doesn't make it consensual.

 

[Intense]

What do you call it when a person or organization takes money that they have no right to? I call it theft.

They may have taken more than their share, I agree with you, and work within the rule of law to change it.

Man is bound by the Law only insomuch as the Law is good and reflects what is right, for it is what it right, not to what is lawful, to which man is bound.

That is a fantastic argument for limited Government. I too have a great respect for Thoreau.

If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. -Thoreau Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

 

[boedicca]

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

In this lexicon>? Some would be wrong.

JB is speaking like a truly unhinged leftwing zealot.

 

[JBeukema]

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

In this lexicon>? Some would be wrong.

I never said I agreed with the statement. Just pointing out that there on the other side just as adamant as KK- and, I would argue, just as wrong in their fundamentalism.

 

[boedicca]

Usually..a democratically elected representative government keeps the spirit of capitalism alive.

Are you nuts?

Usually, democracies devolve into the majority voting themselves bread and circuses to be paid for by a minority.

That is not the Spirit of Capitalism.

Again..Cognition is not your strong suit.

But I invite you to try again. Read the post. Try and understand. Then get back to me.

Cognition and you shouldn't be used in the same sentence.

All you are doing is spinning progressive class warfare nonsense.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

Not so many years ago, our city voted to raise sales tax

That doesn't make it consensual.

Everyone who voted 'yea' didn't consent in their so doing?


Wow.. so all sex really is rape

 

[loosecannon]

No, it doesn't. People voluntarily paying me to provide a good or service, thus causing me to accumulate wealth, does not aggress against the rights of anybody.

Commerce isn't accumulation of wealth. We were discussing, or rather YOU were discussing "The accumulation of wealth".

People accumulate wealth through commerce.

not the same things. Different things.

 

[Sallow]

Well thanks for the applause but I'm not sure we are anywhere in agreement here. I think the people lost a great deal of freedom and personal power and continue to lose freedom and power when they allowed the federal government to take more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Do you think the hundreds and hundreds of permanent US agencies plus temporary groups authorized by Congress plus all the President's cabinet and staff and their staffs and the czars and their staffs etc. etc. etc. were what the Founders had in mind when they set up the first federal government? Do you think the government spends your money more wisely than you would spend it on your own behalf?

How can you be truly free unless your property is yours to do as you wish short of infringing on the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of others?

The founders didn't have 50 states and 300 million people to deal with. It's a complicated nation and economy.

The reality of individual liberties remains the same no matter how many or how few people are involved, however. In fact the larger the group, the more the principles work without too many complications because the inevitable anomalies are diffused and have smaller affect.

The Founders envisioned a great nation in which no king, no dictator, no feudal or totalitarian powers would have authority or power to dictate rights to the people. They saw the people as having unalienable rights and put together a governing principle in which the government would have no power or authority to violate those rights in any way. The only way people could forfeit their personal liberties is when they presumed to unlawfully deny those liberties to others.

You either see rights as coming from the government to the people--the old world model--or you see the people authorizing the power that the government will be allowed to have which was the new experiment and vision of the Founders that exceeded their highest expectations.

You either see the government as governing the people--the old world model. Or you see the people governing themselves--the unique American principle.

Again..binary.

We elect representatives..hopefully experts in how government functions and works. They are supposed to read and understand legislation and advocate for the people of their states. Or they are representing the majority of the people of the entire nation on the world stage.

Clumsy as that sounds..that is how it works. We don't have direct democracy. I like it that way. So far it's the best system that I can see historically and worldwide.

 

[loosecannon]

If it were consensual I'd have the right to say no. Since I don't have that right it is clearly not consensual.

Wrong, you can leave.

And you already DID consent when you signed for your tax payer identification #.

I would still be taxed by the U.S. government if I left. Something I had no choice in signing doesn't make it consensual.

you consented to signing it, you consent to staying.

 

[loosecannon]

I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

Not so many years ago, our city voted to raise sales tax

That doesn't make it consensual.

YES IT DOES! VOTED being the operative word!