What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet "Caesar" does not own me and certainly does not own my labor, therefore "Caesar" must steal from me what I have rightfully earned to do things that I don't agree "Caesar" has the right to do.

Honest question: How would you fund national defense?

If you have a better way to guarantee the security of the nation besides taxes, I would love to hear it because "Caesar" has folks out there every day working to make sure you stay free and secure, and those folks deserve payment.

I understand that government has certain legitimate functions, and to fund those taxation is required. I've already said that in this thread.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

I agree, how much, and how, we are taxed, as well as what that is spent on is a worthy topic of debate. Folks need to realize that unless you intned to abolish government in all forms at all levels, taxation will exsist. You can not have government with taxation of some form.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My issue is your stance on taxation. Again, even Christ when asked about the isse said "Render unto Cesear..." It is impossible to have a nation that can survive without taxation, and by agreeing to live in your community, you agree to do your part.

Running a nation isn't free. Pay your part. If you don't like how the nation is run, you do have options. Among them is leaving. You also have the option to vote, protest, make your voice heard, run for office, try to organize a Constitutional Convention, etc.

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

An interesting nuance to our federal government is that all tax legislation must start in the House. That is the part of government that is most easily controlled by the smallest group of citizens (districts)...and the most frequently (2 year terms). We ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

All appropriations bills must begin in the House. However, that constitutional rule was ignored back when the Senate voted for the $700 billion bailouts before the House did.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

 

[Intense]

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

I agree, how much, and how, we are taxed, as well as what that is spent on is a worthy topic of debate. Folks need to realize that unless you intned to abolish government in all forms at all levels, taxation will exsist. You can not have government with taxation of some form.

Government Body in Itself is Socialist, by definition, not Producing or Distributing, or Growing, for Resale, but Maintaining Our Infrastructure. The Rules Of Play, Field Integrity, Maintenance, Oversight. Etc... Those numbers add up fast. By Definition "Enumerated Powers" kept it in check. We lost that and need to regain it. We need to first stop adding to the Chaos by saying No. Second we want Proposals that both Simplify and Justify Expenditures.

There are Businesses that Government needs to get out of. Government does not Need to be the Silent Partner in Corporate Tyranny any longer. We need to start back pedaling, and reform, first that which we have the Power to, and Second Prioritize the rest.

 

[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.

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

 

[Intense]

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.

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

I agree, how much, and how, we are taxed, as well as what that is spent on is a worthy topic of debate. Folks need to realize that unless you intned to abolish government in all forms at all levels, taxation will exsist. You can not have government with taxation of some form.

And it's always the same tired assed argument kids...

Review this thread and you will see the exact same tactics used in every one of such threads...

The issue comes to the unjustifiable level of taxation and the Left runs to point out necessary infrastructure; as if anyone has argued that such is an unjustifiable function of government.

What the Left NEVER DOES in this discussion is to run and point to the >50% of the US budget which respresents taxation for SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS... and the reason for this is that they want to focus the argument upon the irrelevance that there is a sound moral justification for taxation; and then summarily hijack that sound moral justification to justify the unsound, immoral usurpation of the product of the individual's labor to subsidize the Leftist THEFT of that product through SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS...

It's not a complex issue... and its not an issue which the left can ever HOPE to justify... and this is conclusively established as truth, through the tens of thousands of threads throughout cyber-space where when the same issue comes to the table; and the Left runs to distract from such... through the above noted tactic; with this thread being no exception.

 

[Intense]

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

I agree, how much, and how, we are taxed, as well as what that is spent on is a worthy topic of debate. Folks need to realize that unless you intned to abolish government in all forms at all levels, taxation will exsist. You can not have government with taxation of some form.

And it's always the same tired assed argument kids...

Review this thread and you will see the exact same tactics used in every one of such threads...

The issue comes to the unjustifiable level of taxation and the Left runs to point out necessary infrastructure; as if anyone has argued that such is an unjustifiable function of government.

What the Left NEVER DOES in this discussion is to run and point to the >50% of the US budget which respresents taxation for SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS... and the reason for this is that they want to focus the argument upon the irrelevance that there is a sound moral justification for taxation; and then summarily hijack that sound moral justification to justify the unsound, immoral usurpation of the product of the individual's labor to subsidize the Leftist THEFT of that product through SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS...

It's not a complex issue... and its not an issue which the left can ever HOPE to justify... and this is conclusively established as truth, through the tens of thousands of threads throughout cyber-space where when the same issue comes to the table; and the Left runs to distract from such... through the above noted tactic; with this thread being no exception.

I'm not coming from a Left perspective, more Federalist. Much of this Authority belongs with The Individual States. Federal Authority should be very light.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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.

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I agree, how much, and how, we are taxed, as well as what that is spent on is a worthy topic of debate. Folks need to realize that unless you intned to abolish government in all forms at all levels, taxation will exsist. You can not have government with taxation of some form.

And it's always the same tired assed argument kids...

Review this thread and you will see the exact same tactics used in every one of such threads...

The issue comes to the unjustifiable level of taxation and the Left runs to point out necessary infrastructure; as if anyone has argued that such is an unjustifiable function of government.

What the Left NEVER DOES in this discussion is to run and point to the >50% of the US budget which respresents taxation for SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS... and the reason for this is that they want to focus the argument upon the irrelevance that there is a sound moral justification for taxation; and then summarily hijack that sound moral justification to justify the unsound, immoral usurpation of the product of the individual's labor to subsidize the Leftist THEFT of that product through SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS...

It's not a complex issue... and its not an issue which the left can ever HOPE to justify... and this is conclusively established as truth, through the tens of thousands of threads throughout cyber-space where when the same issue comes to the table; and the Left runs to distract from such... through the above noted tactic; with this thread being no exception.

I'm not coming from a Left perspective, more Federalist. Much of this Authority belongs with The Individual States. Federal Authority should be very light.

Yeah, I get that...

 

[Intense]

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Treaty Power can really effect Us and Hurt us. Texas recently went through an issue with The World Court. Bush sided with The World Court, Texas Ignored Bush. Go Texas.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yet "Caesar" does not own me and certainly does not own my labor, therefore "Caesar" must steal from me what I have rightfully earned to do things that I don't agree "Caesar" has the right to do.

Honest question: How would you fund national defense?

If you have a better way to guarantee the security of the nation besides taxes, I would love to hear it because "Caesar" has folks out there every day working to make sure you stay free and secure, and those folks deserve payment.

I understand that government has certain legitimate functions, and to fund those taxation is required. I've already said that in this thread.

Do you consider taxation for legitimate governmental functions theft?

If not, then I owe you an apology. The debate over what is and is not legitimate cause for taxation is a good one.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

 

[Intense]

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

That was part of Hamilton's Scheme. He was a Player. Look at The Declaration of Independence and The Articles Of Confederation, even The Magna Carta which Preceded both as Law.


Search Rights in the Federalist Papers. It's full of good Hits. http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-5983849578006601:8y2j0m-i52g&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Rights

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Honest question: How would you fund national defense?

If you have a better way to guarantee the security of the nation besides taxes, I would love to hear it because "Caesar" has folks out there every day working to make sure you stay free and secure, and those folks deserve payment.

I understand that government has certain legitimate functions, and to fund those taxation is required. I've already said that in this thread.

Do you consider taxation for legitimate governmental functions theft?

If not, then I owe you an apology. The debate over what is and is not legitimate cause for taxation is a good one.

As of right now I see all taxation as theft. Even for certain constitutional provisions such as national defense and the Post Office. We've taken national defense too far. We've got troops stationed in over 130 countries and are fighting in two undeclared wars and branching one of those wars into another country. It is theft for the government to extract taxation from the populace to maintain an overseas empire. The Constitution doesn't allow this, and I see the Constitution as a contract between the people, the individual states, and the federal government. As for the Post Office, it's wasting so much money that I believe it should be put down immediately. I see it as theft for the government to use taxpayer money to prop up such an obviously inefficient industry.

However, in a perfect world taxation would go to fund only legitimate government functions such as enforcing contracts and what I would call true national defense. This would of course lead to far less taxation, as well. I would not categorize this perfect world taxation as theft, but how likely are we to get there?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

Then I gave my definition of a right, which is that no right can interfere with the rights of others or it is not truly a right. The 9th amendment doesn't negate this definition.

 

[Intense]

I understand that government has certain legitimate functions, and to fund those taxation is required. I've already said that in this thread.

Do you consider taxation for legitimate governmental functions theft?

If not, then I owe you an apology. The debate over what is and is not legitimate cause for taxation is a good one.

As of right now I see all taxation as theft. Even for certain constitutional provisions such as national defense and the Post Office. We've taken national defense too far. We've got troops stationed in over 130 countries and are fighting in two undeclared wars and branching one of those wars into another country. It is theft for the government to extract taxation from the populace to maintain an overseas empire. The Constitution doesn't allow this, and I see the Constitution as a contract between the people, the individual states, and the federal government. As for the Post Office, it's wasting so much money that I believe it should be put down immediately. I see it as theft for the government to use taxpayer money to prop up such an obviously inefficient industry.

However, in a perfect world taxation would go to fund only legitimate government functions such as enforcing contracts and what I would call true national defense. This would of course lead to far less taxation, as well. I would not categorize this perfect world taxation as theft, but how likely are we to get there?

One step at a time. We need Vision, Transparency and a plan, that we don't loose sight of. The opposition will be doing everything in it's power to divert and derail.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, it's that pesky Ninth Amendment which says that just because certain rights are not listed in the Constitution doesn't mean they don't exist. Lawyers and scholars have been debating your question for centuries.

I'm aware of the 9th amendment and it doesn't negate anything I said at all. How does the 9th amendment give you the right to infringe on the rights of others?

It doesn't... but I'm interested in hearing the response.

My money is on her erroneous belief that such provides the government with a right... thus founded in her ignorance that governments do not have rights... governments have power... a point which she likely has no means to even conceive, let alone discuss.

Gee, Pubi--thanks for speaking for me. Incorrectly, I might add. Do you have puppets at home?

 

[MaggieMae]

Is that Debating or Scheming for Power and Money?

I don't think it's either. The Ninth Amendment is ambiguous is all I was saying. Kevin originally asked to define what a "right" is and the only honest answer is who knows? It isn't even clearly defined in the Constitution.

Then I gave my definition of a right, which is that no right can interfere with the rights of others or it is not truly a right. The 9th amendment doesn't negate this definition.

But it doesn't affirm it either. The USSC has been hearing cases for decades regarding the RIGHTS of a plaintiff/defendent in specific cases. I don't even pretend to have an answer. I defer to the justices who are far smarter than any of us. The question, imo, is therefore moot.