What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

 

[Sidestreamer]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

This is what I was going to get at.

 

[Care4all]

but kevin,
You don't have a right to a fire department and you don't have a right to have roads and you don't have a right to have a military or a post office EITHER...or policemen or even secret service for the president...you don't have a right to wall street regulation or schools etc yet taxes are taken from us and given to another....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin's 'rights' in our society are not unmallable. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, for instance, and one can't not practice cannibalism on one's property. If he is concerned about taxation and property, he needs to take up with his state and national legislatures.

 

[goldcatt]

Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

 

[editec]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

 

[Fatality]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

spoken like a true totalitarian

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

 

[Oddball]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

Most often, property is the end product of applying your life's energy to available resources.

If you don't freely offer them for sale, in what way does another have claim to the products of your efforts?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Naturally there are no rights to anything other than your thoughts and ideas, and that does not include the expression of those two or the life that gives you the ability to have them. Every "right" we have in society, including your right to life, is created through common social standards within our society, and have to be protected by law, force or whatever mechanism is in place wherever you are. What's called your "god-given right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can theoretically be taken away by a simple change of government if it was to fall to a ruthless dictator. In this very nation, African slaves had no right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. So I would say yes, you need some kind of social order to establish any kind of right beyond the right to possess your thoughts during your life.

Your other questions are moot. You're not arguing rights, you're clearly arguing legalities between the government-given right to property and taxation.

You say that government and a social order must protect your rights, because, after all, a government could take your rights away. However, this doesn't negate what I said at all. Your right to life, liberty, and property do exist without a government, because they don't require a government to back them up. Just because a government can infringe on those rights doesn't negate that they're natural rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but kevin,
You don't have a right to a fire department and you don't have a right to have roads and you don't have a right to have a military or a post office EITHER...or policemen or even secret service for the president...you don't have a right to wall street regulation or schools etc yet taxes are taken from us and given to another....

Well my first point in regards to this post is how do I access this so-called right to the military or to the secret service for the President? As for wallstreet regulation, what do I need that "right" for when the free market could do a better job of "regulating" wall street on its own?

As for your other examples, no we don't have a right to them. Those are goods and services that could be supplied by the market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin's 'rights' in our society are not unmallable. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, for instance, and one can't not practice cannibalism on one's property. If he is concerned about taxation and property, he needs to take up with his state and national legislatures.

One cannot yell fire in a theater or practice cannibalism, even on your own property, because both actions constitute a violation of the rights of others. I clearly said in the first post that you don't have any rights that infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Oddball]

but kevin,
You don't have a right to a fire department and you don't have a right to have roads and you don't have a right to have a or a post office EITHER...or policemen or even secret service for the president...you don't have a right to wall street regulation or schools etc yet taxes are taken from us and given to another....

You have a right to be free from aggression.

Some of the things that you listed -police, firemen, military, SS agents- are the collectivized extension of that individual right.

Insofar as schools, the post office, and regulations are concerned, those can be MUCH more efficiently provided by freedom and free enterprise rather than gubmint aggression.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

Don't you have the right to not be taxed? Is taxation not simply a form of theft? Is there truly any difference between a government that takes your money for the "good of the people," whether you agree with that supposed "good" or not, and an actual thief who takes your money but promises that it will be put to a good cause? Shouldn't you be able to freely decide where the money you've earned goes without the guns of the state or the guns of the thief deciding for you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

A right is something that cannot be taken from you without it being a grave injustice. Certainly my life or my property could be taken from me, but those acts would be considered crimes.

 

[Oddball]

Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

Don't you have the right to not be taxed? Is taxation not simply a form of theft? Is there truly any difference between a government that takes your money for the "good of the people," whether you agree with that supposed "good" or not, and an actual thief who takes your money but promises that it will be put to a good cause? Shouldn't you be able to freely decide where the money you've earned goes without the guns of the state or the guns of the thief deciding for you?

Depends upon how we're defining a tax.

A user fee (i.e. fuel tax) is supposed to pay for upkeep of the rights-of-way for all.

Insofar as property and income "taxes" are concerned...Those are outright expropriation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rights are powers and protections set aside for entities outside government to pursue their interests without unreasonable limitation or restriction, whether they are individuals, communities, businesses, religious institutions, or what have you. Different opinions of how to balance various kinds of rights and what constitutes "reasonable" linitations are often in conflict - always have been, always will be. That's the beauty of possessing the individual liberty to have and express an opinion.
The right to be free from taxation does not exist. Rather, the type and level of taxation is one reflection of the balance between different kinds of rights and how the government (which in the US includes the People) splits the difference between competing rights.
An obvious example: Should the right of the community as a whole to fire and police protection (the right to a basic level of security in your person and property) be more important than the individual right to not pay taxes? The answer is almost always "YES". Other questions provoke more heated debate, depending on the individual's view and the balance between the individual and the community.
The OP's error is in equating the desire for minimal taxation with a "right". Tax policy is (or ideally should be) a tool and a reflection of the balance between collective and individual rights, not in itself either a right or an infringement of rights.

Don't you have the right to not be taxed? Is taxation not simply a form of theft? Is there truly any difference between a government that takes your money for the "good of the people," whether you agree with that supposed "good" or not, and an actual thief who takes your money but promises that it will be put to a good cause? Shouldn't you be able to freely decide where the money you've earned goes without the guns of the state or the guns of the thief deciding for you?

Depends upon how we're defining a tax.

A user fee (i.e. fuel tax) is supposed to pay for upkeep of the rights-of-way for all.

Insofar as property and income "taxes" are concerned...Those are outright expropriation.

I understand that government requires some amount of taxation to function, however I don't see a change in the definition of taxation. It's still money extracted from the people against their will by the government. Though I do agree with you on the property and income taxes being far more belligerent forms of taxation that our government has come up with.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Every member in Congress has lifetime single payer health insurance! It's good enough for them but not for you?