Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arguing about the abuses of socialism and democracy by the majority over the minority highlights the reason why America was promised a republican form of government - to stop such abuses. By. Your. Consent.
(Or withdrawing consent, in this case).
Remember, pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, governments have two jobs :
1) secure endowed rights, and
2) govern those who consent.
If you haven't consented, you retain your endowed rights which NO MAJORITY CAN VOTE AWAY.
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
These natural rights and liberties are not dependent upon government, nor a majority vote.
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
OWNERSHIP - “ ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106
Lands, houses, and chattels absolutely owned by an individual is private property, a sacred right. And only private property is constitutionally protected.
That which is held with qualified ownership (estate) is not a right, but a revenue taxable privilege.
Absolute ownership by the individual of his person, his labor, the fruits of his labor and lands he acquires is part of the endowment from his Creator - not government.
" Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or AUTOMOBILE, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
- - - II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
This is the birthright of sovereignty, freedom and independence, our Forefathers fought to provide for us. Do not let it slip away under the fraud and deception of collectivist slavers -ahem- glorious socialist advocates.
Before 1933, private property ownership was a “Sacred right,” that predated the formation of constitutional government. And was explicitly protected in all constitutions, federal and state.
After 1933, it was abolished, in compliance with the Communist Manifesto.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America, a full service collectivist totalitarian police state, where everything not mandatory, is licensed, taxed, regulated or prohibited by law.
(And do not go out without your government approved internal passports!)
It's not robbery because it's done through a democratic process. People run and they will either publicly support or oppose things like welfare. The people can then vote for whom they like, and in the end, we have a collection of people with varying views who will make those decisions for us.
Welfare is done through this process. The government already has the authority to tax. This is a given. They can also decide what to spend that money on and so long as it is not explicitly unconstitutional, the only actual limitation is if the people find the move favorable. And if it's not, come election cycle, the people who supported that will find themselves looking for a new job.
Granted, the system has been corrupted by money, but if people actually took a stance on that, this is how it would work.
I also don't care what the founding fathers thought. Don't get me wrong, I agree with them on a lot and respect their contribution to Western Civilization. But of all the things they believe, what would offend them most is that some things are justified only by saying 'the founding fathers..." They were not kings, gods, ruler; they were public servants. They want you to think for yourself.
On that, the founders would not have supported any war we've been in for the last 50 or so years. I don't disagree that the government oversteps it's bounds all the time. But I don't think welfare is a sign of authoritarianism so long as the system is transparent and regulated properly. There's room for improvement within the current system, no doubt, but the concept as a whole is not unconstitutional and it's certainly not robbery. Simply because you are against the decision does not mean it's robbery. My taxes went into allowing ISIS to take Iraq, but I don't consider the tax dollars spent on that to be stolen from me. That doesn't mean I can't argue the decision.
If you or the OP want to argue that welfare is unjust, fine, but I won't be able to take anyone who calls if theft too seriously.
As much as you oppose using the US armed forces to start wars for "financial gain", others oppose taxes for social welfare, aka "organized robbery". Both you and them use fabricated names to make a point.
On the other hand, the American society decided on all these issues (through our representatives), either right or wrong. Life in a society, any society, requires compromises.
Just think how all the other countries are jealous of our election process.
We the people get to choose our most powerful person.
Look at Bernie he can get the most votes but not the most delegates.
Then in the other party candidates are told to stay in the race to make sure Trump can't get the recommended delegates, so the party elites can choose who runs for their party.
Just think if we did not have this power we could find ourselves getting penalised for not buying a government product.
It is immoral to take money from one person and give it to another. Theft by government is still theft and immoral.
There is absolutely nothing immoral, illegal, or illogical about members of a society contributing to other to provide for other members of a society especially when you are talking about .30$ of every tax dollar paid to the Federal government.
I'm one of those people who doesn't want their taxes spent on defense.
Granted, my view is not that simple. As you said, giving technical names to things doesn't usually determine what it is. Toppling foreign country's states for our own economic need is not defense. It's imperialism. Never the less, I don't think our military is being used in a morally just way, and certainly not a way that defends the interests of American people. If the military fought for my freedom, the army would have marched on Washington and removed everyone who voted for the Patriot Act from office as it's the only law that directly violates the constitution (well, only high profile law that violates the constitution in an obvious way). That didn't happen, so I cannot logically connect my freedom to the military.
However, I do not think that my taxes going to the military is unjust. That's where I'm different from the 'taxes are stealing and I don't know what taxes actually are' crowd. I'll vote for people who will cut military spending and I will argue why that is the better option. If everyone votes for an imperialist like Ted Cruz, then that's what they want. Not that Cruz can actually declare war, but the constitution is limited to what he wants it to be, as that is how a psychopath thinks.
Yes, I called Ted Cruz a psychopath. It's not a joke. Trump would make a better president than Ted; at least Donald might just be joking. Ted Cruz means what he says and that's precisely why he should not be president.
There is your strawman Ted Cruz and the real Ted Cruz:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cruz says “if and when U.S. military force is required,” it should only “proceed under three preconditions.” You might call it the “Cruz Doctrine.”
“First, it should begin with a clearly stated objective at the outset. It should be directly tied to U.S. national security,” he said. “Second, we should use overwhelming force to that objective. We should not have rules of engagement that tie the hands of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines.”
The final point in the Cruz Doctrine is that the U.S. military should not be asked to help birth democratic societies.
“Third, we should get the heck out,” he said. “It is not the job of the U.S. military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias.
There is absolutely nothing immoral, illegal, or illogical about members of a society contributing to other to provide for other members of a society especially when you are talking about .30$ of every tax dollar paid to the Federal government.
Taxes for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution are theft in some cases and forced retirement and medical plans in others. Robin Hood was still a thief.
Taxes for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution are theft in some cases and forced retirement and medical plans in others. Robin Hood was still a thief.
Good thing that isn't the sole purpose of taxes.
I file my taxes so early that I forget that tax season is upon us.....so I guess these whiny tax threads makes sense. My mistake for wasting commenting on this thread.
[1] There is absolutely nothing immoral, illegal, or illogical about members of a society contributing to other to provide for other members of a society especially when you are talking about [2] .30$ of every tax dollar paid to the Federal government.
[1]
Voluntary charity is a blessing.
Compulsory charity IS immoral and a curse.
It is government administered SLAVERY - unless you consented.
You do know how and when you consented, right?
[2]
30% is too low. . .
❏ Federal spending, per capita : $12,083.0 (percentage of GDP: 24%)
❏ State spending, per capita : $ 4,454.10 (percentage of GDP: 9%)
❏ Local spending, per capita : $ 5,308.4 (percentage of GDP: 11%)
Summed up, combined government spending takes (approx) 44% of the GDP.
If you’re one of the donors (tax payers), you’re working 44% (or more) of your life to support “their spending habit”.
(Pharaoh's serfs only paid 20% - one part in five.)
"Crack that whip"
- - - DEVO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
