[The Resister]

@The Resister, did you get vaccinated?

If you can make a connection between the OP and vaccinations, I will gladly answer that question. I support your Right to take the vaccination or your Right to refrain. I also support the Right of private businesses to accommodate unvaccinated people OR deny them service. The government should act in accordance with what their constituency wants. If a local school district says wear a mask in school, then wear a mask. If they say it isn't necessary, then that is the way it is there.

[Pants-of-dog]

We hold that the American People have a Right to own Private Property. With that Right, belonging to the People, government has no authority to dictate to any private owner the limits of the size, type, or style of house abode the People can build or have transplanted. It is the individual’s prerogative to buy, sell, rent, build, and otherwise control Private Property at will.

Does this mean that people outside the USA do not have this right? you seem to specify that only US citizens have this right.

If individuals have a right to own property and the government cannot take it away, does this mean that Indigenous people still own all the land we now call the USA? After all, the government seized their land without their consent.

Does this mean I can rent you a house filled with asbestos and lead and store PCBs in the basement in leaking rusty barrels without telling you, the tenant?

[late]

Does this mean that people outside the USA do not have this right? you seem to specify that only US citizens have this right.

If individuals have a right to own property and the government cannot take it away, does this mean that Indigenous people still own all the land we now call the USA? After all, the government seized their land without their consent.

Does this mean I can rent you a house filled with asbestos and lead and store PCBs in the basement in leaking rusty barrels without telling you, the tenant?

It means his thinking is pre-civil war, and south of the Mason Dixon.

Save yo Dixie Cups, the South will rise again.

[The Resister]

Does this mean that people outside the USA do not have this right? you seem to specify that only US citizens have this right.

If individuals have a right to own property and the government cannot take it away, does this mean that Indigenous people still own all the land we now call the USA? After all, the government seized their land without their consent.

Does this mean I can rent you a house filled with asbestos and lead and store PCBs in the basement in leaking rusty barrels without telling you, the tenant?

What absolutely ridiculous anti-reasoning! The Charter only specifies U.S. Citizens having the Right as that as far as the jurisdiction of the United States government goes. You already know that. The United States spends money to finance and even sacrifice the lives of Americans in defense of the Rights of people on foreign land.

Throughout history the people all over the world have acknowledged a Right of Conquest. Land not purchased or negotiated for was taken via wars. We will never alter that reality. The Charter is a demand made upon government. If you want more beyond that, then AFTER the demands are met, you would be encouraged to direct your questions to the appropriate legislators.

In your analogy, the unalienable Right to life of each person is weighed upon the Right of his fellow man. If an action denies to any other person their Rights, the situation must be looked at. An example is, where I live you have the Right to carry a firearm. You cannot, however, shoot that firearm within 500 feet (IIRC) of a house or other structure, a road (like the highway, Interstate, etc.) or any other place where other people might congregate.

[Pants-of-dog]

What absolutely ridiculous anti-reasoning! The Charter only specifies U.S. Citizens having the Right as that as far as the jurisdiction of the United States government goes. You already know that. The United States spends money to finance and even sacrifice the lives of Americans in defense of the Rights of people on foreign land.

Then the charter is unclear about who gets rights.

On the one hand, it implies these unalienable (sic) rights are universal, and on the other hand, it implies they are specific to US citizens.

This means that illegal aliens should be allowed to own property snd live in the USA.

Throughout history the people all over the world have acknowledged a Right of Conquest. Land not purchased or negotiated for was taken via wars. We will never alter that reality. The Charter is a demand made upon government. If you want more beyond that, then AFTER the demands are met, you would be encouraged to direct your questions to the appropriate legislators.

So if the government uses military force and conquers you, they should be allowed to deprive you of your unalienable (sic) right to property.

That seems to be what you arguing.

In your analogy, the unalienable Right to life of each person is weighed upon the Right of his fellow man. If an action denies to any other person their Rights, the situation must be looked at. An example is, where I live you have the Right to carry a firearm. You cannot, however, shoot that firearm within 500 feet (IIRC) of a house or other structure, a road (like the highway, Interstate, etc.) or any other place where other people might congregate.

In other words, the government is allowed to regulate how a landowner uses their property.

[The Resister]

Then the charter is unclear about who gets rights.

On the one hand, it implies these unalienable (sic) rights are universal, and on the other hand, it implies they are specific to US citizens.

This means that illegal aliens should be allowed to own property snd live in the USA.



So if the government uses military force and conquers you, they should be allowed to deprive you of your unalienable (sic) right to property.

That seems to be what you arguing.



In other words, the government is allowed to regulate how a landowner uses their property.

Are you trying to be serious? Look. America was founded upon the premise that we have unalienable Rights. In order to secure those Rights the founders and framers fought a War of Independence and they ratified a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. The social contract guarantees those Rights so, we the people can hold the government accountable to make good on the contract. I'm sorry, but that contract is not binding on foreign governments. OTOH, when free people ask for our help, the American people have shown up, sacrificing American lives in defense of other peoples Liberty.

Non-American foreigners CAN own property in the United States of America. People can live in the United States without becoming citizens. For YEARS the people have been misled by the far left politicians. The Democrats wanted to divide the people by yapping about the so - called "illegal aliens:"

Meanwhile, Republican politicians wanted to establish more realistic ways for foreigners to come here without jumping through impossible hoops so that they could participate in the free market:

When the liberal Democrats began losing on this issue, they dropped it on the Republicans and the National Socialists took the lead on promoting the anti-immigrant agenda. The so - called "Minutemen" that developed the current talking points were all National Socialists:

J.T. Ready committed a mass murder, killing his Mexican fiancee and her family members before taking his own life. Minuteman founder, Chris Simcox, was convicted of child abuse:

Shawna Forde, another of the founders of the so - called "Minutemen" was convicted of murder and was a member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - which is THE top organization in America for creating the talking points and lobbying for the anti-immigrant lobby. If you're going to argue on behalf of that position, be prepared to tell me which of the neo-nazis you like the most. FAIR was financed by John Tanton who funds about a dozen anti-immigrant non-profits. Tanton is a supporter of eugenics which is the racial ideology of nazis. How far do you want to go with this?

My PERSONAL OPINION, and not as someone qualified to speak for The Charter signatories, I do not believe in the language of legal vs. "illegal immigrants." The Declaration of Independence is unequivocally clear:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

The moment a foreigner lands on U.S. soil, they have Rights. That does NOT entitle them to become citizens or draw from the public (i.e. unemployment, welfare, socialist security, etc.) They have no "right to vote" under our Republican Form of Government. The notion that someone must be here legally (which means that everybody who washes up on our shores must, at some point, become a citizen) is inconsistent with the original intent of our Constitution. While the Preamble was a contract between we, the people and that entity called government, nonwhites poured into the United States to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. If a majority of white people don't want foreigners here then they shouldn't buy from them, sell to them, hire them, or do business with those that do. Let the free market determine that. Sure, you can regulate people coming in by requiring a Guest Worker status, but you cannot limit them by any arbitrary number OR expect them to become a citizen in exchange for participating in the free market.

[Pants-of-dog]

@The Resister

The USA has often supported dictatorships abroad. It is still doing so.

Anyway, you seem to agree that as long as the government takes your land away with military force, you lose your unalienable (sic) right to it. And even if you do not, the government has a right to regulate how you use your land.

[The Resister]

@The Resister

The USA has often supported dictatorships abroad. It is still doing so.

Anyway, you seem to agree that as long as the government takes your land away with military force, you lose your unalienable (sic) right to it. And even if you do not, the government has a right to regulate how you use your land.

I don't fully agree with the government's position on land. FWIW - BEFORE the anti - immigrant lobby cleaned out the civilian militias I was supporting the civilian militias effort to crack down on eminent domain abuses. In the last case I got involved in, a couple sold their land to private buyers (a married couple). Before the closing, the husband passed away. While this was being settled, Walmart went to the county commission, got the property condemned, and tried to steal the land for far less than what the private buyer was willing to pay for it.

I camped on that property, rifle in hand and had no intention of allowing the land grab to take place. The county commission and Walmart met with the woman's attorney and he called to say they worked it out. And so I vacated the property.

In this instance, I think you are trying to make this silly case of an absolute, absolute, absolute case that if absolute 100 percent unalienable status cannot be reached, then we should support socialism. My response is the same thing I have said in previous posts:

1) Unalienable Rights are a journey, not a destination. Pure silver is not 100 percent and neither is anything else in life

2) It is always a challenge to quantify the Rights of property owners when their Rights may impede the Rights of others. This is why governments are instituted among men to try and reach an answer that protects of all parties equally without unfairly infringing on the Rights of one. That was discussed at length during the drafting of The Charter. Your concern was addressed in the first chapter of The Charter with these words:

"Unalienable Rights are those Rights that are above the reach of man. Those Rights are absolute, inherent, natural, irrevocable, pre-existing, as unlimited as possible, and not subject to any popularity vote that democracy can afford."

3) The only regulations that government should have over land, in my personal opinion, is to regulate it so that your neighbor's Rights are not jeopardized.

Common sense dictates that if you have a toxic landfill on your property or maybe your property is an attractive nuisance for rodents and vermin, you have no control over its impact on your neighbor. Your neighbor has a Right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, so as individuals, you're going to kill each other over this kind of issue or the government is going to have to balance everyone's Rights. OTOH, if you move into a neighborhood you don't like, you cannot expect they will change just to please you. Again, it's a journey, not a destination. We've allowed the situation to go unchecked for so many years that a demand is the only answer whereby government either makes good on the guarantees in the Constitution OR admit that they are the dictatorship that you seem to imply you're in favor of.

[annatar1914]

@late ,yes, the argument against the 16th Amendment is wrong, but it does appear rational on a superficial level. You presented an issue for me though in your concluding remark however;

When we started to develop a capitalist economy, taxes became inevitable. The Modern world comes with a price tag.

Not to quibble, but taxation is part of the human condition and almost always has been,well before Capitalism.

[wat0n]

"Human condition" is probably a strong term. But yes, you can't have a functioning state without some form of taxation.

[The Resister]

@late ,yes, the argument against the 16th Amendment is wrong, but it does appear rational on a superficial level. You presented an issue for me though in your concluding remark however;



Not to quibble, but taxation is part of the human condition and almost always has been,well before Capitalism.

The income tax is not necessary. We have plenty of other revenue generating resources. The federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is about 18 cents (not to mention that state taxes can be has high as an additional 58 cents a gallon). There are federal taxes on cigarettes, booze, and firearms / ammunition. The income tax is not about raising revenue; it's solely about keeping control of the people. I suppose if you're not going to watch the video, you will be happy to live in ignorance of the subject. Again, not looking to debate it on this thread. It's irrelevant to the over-all topic.

[The Resister]

@late ,yes, the argument against the 16th Amendment is wrong, but it does appear rational on a superficial level. You presented an issue for me though in your concluding remark however;



Not to quibble, but taxation is part of the human condition and almost always has been,well before Capitalism.

The income tax is not necessary. We have plenty of other revenue generating resources. The federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is about 18 cents (not to mention that state taxes can be has high as an additional 58 cents a gallon). There are federal taxes on cigarettes, booze, and firearms / ammunition. The income tax is not about raising revenue; it's solely about keeping control of the people. I suppose if you're not going to watch the video, you will be happy to live in ignorance of the subject. Again, not looking to debate it on this thread. It's irrelevant to the over-all topic.

[annatar1914]

The income tax is not necessary. We have plenty of other revenue generating resources. The federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is about 18 cents (not to mention that state taxes can be has high as an additional 58 cents a gallon). There are federal taxes on cigarettes, booze, and firearms / ammunition. The income tax is not about raising revenue; it's solely about keeping control of the people. I suppose if you're not going to watch the video, you will be happy to live in ignorance of the subject. Again, not looking to debate it on this thread. It's irrelevant to the over-all topic.

@The Resister , I have a problem with high taxation, as it generally benefits the wealthy Oligarchs who control government. They use the funds collected to benefit themselves, directly and indirectly.

One group of societies that have the least taxation to speak of, however, are Socialist ones, as utilities and services are collectively owned and held in trust to begin with.

Do you have a problem with co-operatives?

[ingliz]

I camped on that property, rifle in hand

It's a good job you're White and not a Black man with a rifle.

[late]

Not to quibble, but taxation is part of the human condition and almost always has been,well before Capitalism.

Yes, for at least 4,000 years.

But this is different. I was arguing against a lunatic who keeps saying taxation is slavery. He's referring to, among other things, the income tax. The Modern World phrase is not interchangeable with capitalism; but they are different aspects of the same phenomenom...

Holding things together enough to keep a capitalist economy working, takes a lot of money and involvement you simply didn't see in earlier eras.

[The Resister]

@The Resister , I have a problem with high taxation, as it generally benefits the wealthy Oligarchs who control government. They use the funds collected to benefit themselves, directly and indirectly.

One group of societies that have the least taxation to speak of, however, are Socialist ones, as utilities and services are collectively owned and held in trust to begin with.

Do you have a problem with co-operatives?

I haven't considered co-operatives. Have you ever studied America's deficit before and after the 16th Amendment?

[The Resister]

Yes, for at least 4,000 years.

But this is different. I was arguing against a lunatic who keeps saying taxation is slavery. He's referring to, among other things, the income tax. The Modern World phrase is not interchangeable with capitalism; but they are different aspects of the same phenomenom...

Holding things together enough to keep a capitalist economy working, takes a lot of money and involvement you simply didn't see in earlier eras.

I don't like labels, so use your common sense. I'm not selling capitalism. I believe in the free market economy, have a laissez faire attitude and took a pledge many years ago to oppose any increase in the size, power, and / or scope of government regardless of who it promised to benefit - including myself.

[The Resister]

"Human condition" is probably a strong term. But yes, you can't have a functioning state without some form of taxation.

Taxation does not mean you have to tax wages. There are millions of other ways to tax people and all of them are covered. The income tax is not about raising revenue. It is about controlling people.

[late]

I don't like labels, so use your common sense. I'm not selling capitalism.

I believe in the free market economy, have a laissez faire attitude and took a pledge many years ago to oppose any increase in the size, power, and / or scope of government regardless of who it promised to benefit - including myself.

No shit.

Antebellum Southern BS...

[late]

Taxation does not mean you have to tax wages. There are millions of other ways to tax people and all of them are covered. The income tax is not about raising revenue. It is about controlling people.

This country is too horrible for your refined sensibilities. You should leave at once, Antarctica would work.