The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15181994
[quote="The Resister"]the 16th Amendment[/quote]
Industrialized warfare is expensive; it always has been. The top rate of income tax was 77 percent in 1918.

Today America has troops stationed in 70% of the world’s countries.

If you want a bloated military-industrial complex that lets you strut around the world, it has to be paid for somehow.

[i]“The costs of the Bush-Obama wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are now estimated to run as high as $4.4 trillion."[/i]

— Noam Chomsky, The Decline of America


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 21 Jul 2021 18:09, edited 2 times in total.
#15181997
The Resister wrote: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.


You argued that the government can take away the land of individuals if they use violent force to do so.

I doubt you would be able to stop the US military or even police if they came with guns and you were simply camping with a rifle.

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.


So your claim that people have an unrestricted and unalienable (sic) right to use their property as they wish is incorrect.
#15181999
The Resister wrote: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.


Taxes on gasoline do not even pay for road and highway maintenance. This maintenance is subsidised through income tax.

Much like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes do not even pay for the additional health care costs.

So these taxes would have to be significantly higher in order to get rid of income taxes.
#15182023
late wrote:This country is too horrible for your refined sensibilities. You should leave at once, Antarctica would work.


Your attempts at humor are lame. The cycles of history tell us it won't be long before we are once again at a starting point:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
#15182024
Pants-of-dog wrote:You argued that the government can take away the land of individuals if they use violent force to do so.

I doubt you would be able to stop the US military or even police if they came with guns and you were simply camping with a rifle.



So your claim that people have an unrestricted and unalienable (sic) right to use their property as they wish is incorrect.


Damn the dumbassery. Get a fucking life. Read the first paragraph of The Charter. NOTHING in life save of your stupidity is 100 percent absolute. Read the freaking thread or we can end this conversation here and now.
#15182027
Pants-of-dog wrote:Taxes on gasoline do not even pay for road and highway maintenance. This maintenance is subsidised through income tax.

Much like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes do not even pay for the additional health care costs.

So these taxes would have to be significantly higher in order to get rid of income taxes.


The income tax doesn't pay for the illegal debt incurred from farming the coining of money to the Federal Reserve and maintaining the IRS.

The income tax is primarily there to control people. According to one source:

"According to the IRS, the top 0.01% of earners—those with incomes above $10 million—paid a 24.8% effective federal income-tax rate in 2018. This isn’t very different from the 25.3% the group paid in 2017, and is higher than the average rate of 22.5% on the same group during the George W. Bush administration. As these rates only encompass federal income taxes, most filers can expect to add another 8% to 12% of income from other forms of taxation, placing their total burden well above the Saez-Zucman numbers."

https://www.aier.org/article/the-1-pay- ... ome-taxes/

Please stick to the OP and if you want to talk taxes, start another thread.
#15182028
late wrote:No shit.

Antebellum Southern BS...


That was non-responsive reply made by someone demonstrating that they don't have the IQ God gave a billy goat. The War of Northern Aggression has been over more than a 150 years. Wake up. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man acknowledges our unalienable Rights and demands that the federal government honor them. If it can't, the liberals get what they want: An updated Constitution.
#15182029
The Resister wrote:Damn the dumbassery. Get a fucking life. Read the first paragraph of The Charter. NOTHING in life save of your stupidity is 100 percent absolute. Read the freaking thread or we can end this conversation here and now.


Your rude and insulting behaviour is not an argument.

You previously argued that Indigenous people have no right to their private land, since they lost it through violent conflict, and this was why they have no right to their land.

This then means that you think that the government can take the land of people through force of arms.

Do you agree?

You also claim that one’s right to use land ends when it conflicts with the rights of others.

This then means that you support regulating land use, and land ownership rights are not inviolable.

Do you agree?

The Resister wrote:The income tax doesn't pay for the illegal debt incurred from farming the coining of money to the Federal Reserve and maintaining the IRS.

The income tax is primarily there to control people. According to one source:

"According to the IRS, the top 0.01% of earners—those with incomes above $10 million—paid a 24.8% effective federal income-tax rate in 2018. This isn’t very different from the 25.3% the group paid in 2017, and is higher than the average rate of 22.5% on the same group during the George W. Bush administration. As these rates only encompass federal income taxes, most filers can expect to add another 8% to 12% of income from other forms of taxation, placing their total burden well above the Saez-Zucman numbers."

https://www.aier.org/article/the-1-pay- ... ome-taxes/

Please stick to the OP and if you want to talk taxes, start another thread.


None of this addresses my claims.

Anyway, you can thank everyone who pays income tax every time you drive a public road, since they are the ones paying for the road you are using.
#15182043
@The Resister ;

I haven't considered co-operatives.


You should consider co-operatives. Then you might have a different perspective about worker owned businesses, because that's basically what actual ''Socialism'' is, and nothing else.


Have you ever studied America's deficit before and after the 16th Amendment?


I have indeed. Deficit spending is a symptom of the larger problems within Capitalism in it's later stages. It is an attempt by the government (owned by the wealthy) to inject financial liquidity into the market and spur economic activity. And why would they do that? Because of the crisis of overproduction.
#15182059
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your rude and insulting behaviour is not an argument.

You previously argued that Indigenous people have no right to their private land, since they lost it through violent conflict, and this was why they have no right to their land.

This then means that you think that the government can take the land of people through force of arms.

Do you agree?

You also claim that one’s right to use land ends when it conflicts with the rights of others.

This then means that you support regulating land use, and land ownership rights are not inviolable.

Do you agree?



None of this addresses my claims.

Anyway, you can thank everyone who pays income tax every time you drive a public road, since they are the ones paying for the road you are using.


I would not be rude IF you weren't always LYING. I DID NOT SAY "that Indigenous people have no right to their private land, since they lost it through violent conflict, and this was why they have no right to their land." The way that it is does not mean that I support it, it simply means that is the way things are decided. The Right of Conquest is as old as mankind. Just because ugly people exist doesn't mean I'm "for" ugly. And I got a feeling you're fugly.

If you're having a hard time reading the FIRST PARAGRAPH of The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man, then maybe you should stay away from trying to troll me. You have to have some realistic concept of what it is I really wrote.

I haven't said anything that you claim I've said. Would you like to try again OR should I plan on ignoring your trolling and baiting?
#15182060
annatar1914 wrote:@The Resister ;



You should consider co-operatives. Then you might have a different perspective about worker owned businesses, because that's basically what actual ''Socialism'' is, and nothing else.



I have indeed. Deficit spending is a symptom of the larger problems within Capitalism in it's later stages. It is an attempt by the government (owned by the wealthy) to inject financial liquidity into the market and spur economic activity. And why would they do that? Because of the crisis of overproduction.


What you describe is socialism and socialism stifles individual creativity.
#15182068
The Resister wrote:
I DID NOT SAY "that Indigenous people have no right to their private land, since they lost it through violent conflict, and this was why they have no right to their land." The way that it is does not mean that I support it, it simply means that is the way things are decided. The Right of Conquest is as old as mankind. Just because ugly people exist doesn't mean I'm "for" ugly. …


If we recognise the historical fact that governments can and do use violent force to deprive and enforce property rights, we see that property rights are not some god given objective truth. Instead, they are social constructs. People own land because society agrees they do.

Having said that, let us discuss what you support.

Do you personally think the land we now call the USA should be given back to Indigenous people because the government took their land without consent? Yes or no?
#15182069
@The Resister ; you replied;

What you describe is socialism


Exactly. Socialism is specifically the ownership by the working people of the economic concerns they are employed at. That's Socialism, if something else is called Socialism, that is incorrect.


and socialism stifles individual creativity.


How so? Seems a rather subjective judgement to make on your part.
#15182078
@Pants-of-dog

If one reads his other thread - all Ubermenschen Whites and the Untermensch, the poor Black destined to serve - I think it's obvious what @The Resister wants. He acknowledges that rights are nonsense, a nonsense that any sensible person wouldn't expect his inferiors to enjoy, and invites us to go on a journey.

Image


:lol:
#15182094
annatar1914 wrote:@The Resister ; you replied;



Exactly. Socialism is specifically the ownership by the working people of the economic concerns they are employed at. That's Socialism, if something else is called Socialism, that is incorrect.



How so? Seems a rather subjective judgement to make on your part.


If an individual is motivated to work nights, week-ends, and holidays building a business, then he should fully own that business and run it the way he or she sees fit. That way that business grows as much (or as little) as the owner sees fit. In America, if a group wants a cooperative, they can do so. Why don't they and why are you advocating it? You advocate it because you believe in force and distraint. Your way only works by force.

BEFORE America began adopting socialist principles, our country progressed faster and further than any nation in history.
#15182098
Pants-of-dog wrote:If we recognise the historical fact that governments can and do use violent force to deprive and enforce property rights, we see that property rights are not some god given objective truth. Instead, they are social constructs. People own land because society agrees they do.

Having said that, let us discuss what you support.

Do you personally think the land we now call the USA should be given back to Indigenous people because the government took their land without consent? Yes or no?


That kind of talk is annoying. You nor I can change what governments have done in the past. If anything you should be supporting The Charter. It is not an attempt to start a new government or even overthrow the existing one. That is why I am supporting it. The government guaranteed we, the people certain Rights and then, through deception and force, they rescinded the guarantee. They duped the people into buying a pig in a poke. Liberals keep using the terminology "social construct" as if it means something. It doesn't. Socialism is a social construct; communism is a social construct; atheism is a social construct. It's utterly meaningless.

The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,..."

IF truth is self evident and we do have these unalienable Rights, then there should be no problem making good on the guarantee. OTOH, if you are correct and all this Rights talk is lot of cheap B.S. - a "social construct" as you like to call it, then the government should be compelled to admit it. If we, the people, don't like that outcome there are legal remedies for us... win, lose or draw. The point is, you don't need some half assed document purporting to guarantee Rights and then having a government make excuses for not honoring their part to guarantee said Rights. Did it ever occur to you that if those people pushing hard and demanding satisfaction from the government might evoke the response you long for?

The only thing that is accomplished by not forcing the government to address the fact that they are not upholding their end of the social contract called the Constitution is for people like me to have unrealistic expectations. There is no point in having a document proclaiming all these wonderful Rights I have, only to find out I'm really a push button monkey for some Armani suit wearing tyrant in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption or maybe some billionaire Canaanite in New York City.

You continue to prod me over my personal views on a thread about The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. I have no authority to make my personal views a part of that document nor can I say that others who may sign it have the same views I have. It's simply a demand that the government make good on the guarantees pursuant to the interpretations of the Constitution by the men who ratified it. My personal view is not incumbent upon The Charter. Understand that going in. The two are not related. I'm not arguing my personal views with you on a thread about The Charter as you would be dishonest and try to claim that since I said something, it is a pretext for others not to support The Charter.

My views may or may not reflect the consensus of those that wrote that document. And when I tell you what the law is or how things came to be, it has NO bearing on what I believe or disbelieve. My private thoughts on the matter are mine and mine alone, not associated with what this OP is about.

Having said that, the founders and framers justified their actions in terms of Manifest Destiny and their view that since the Indians were not civilized NOR did they have any concept of property Rights, it was justifiable to appropriate it. Would I have held the same views I have today if I had lived back then? I honestly don't know. What I do know are facts. The facts are that the over-all view was that the colonists were the Israelites of the Bible; America was the New Jerusalem; Manifest Destiny was the future. We go back to the Declaration of Independence. Truth is supposed to be self evident. Well, the colonists and early Americans were blessed in proportion to their obedience to God. When America ceased being governed by biblical principles, they were punished with curses as per the Holy Writ. That is an observation, not a manifesto.

As someone who has lived in slavery and had it as bad as any slave, there is not a snowball's chance in HELL that I would forfeit my God given, unalienable Rights. Those are my words about me, not what I expect from others. I won't give up the Right to keep and bear Arms lest we become subjects to a tyrannical master. Nobody is going to tell me what religion I can or cannot adopt. If the need arises that I should use the prohibited words that whites can't say without it being a felony, I would defend myself against an unlawful arrest because America was founded on the presupposition that all men have unalienable Rights. You can call presuppositional Rights that have proven to be God given social constructs or whatever floats your boat. Their origin has been proven to me to my satisfaction. Therefore, I will support them. If you don't, more power to you. Benjamin Franklin said that America would ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants. I think that, in the meantime, we should live and let live and work toward unalienable Rights. It's a journey, NOT a destination.
#15182099
late wrote:Slavery and ethnic cleansing can be very profitable, speaking of force...


As a current victim of ethnic cleansing, I understand the use of force. Slavery is profitable and that is not debatable. The thing wrong with your view is that slavery is a reality and when the masses are left to vote on it, they vote for slavery. You may vote to take the ability to have slaves away from individuals and give it to the government, but the government means to rule over you. Changing slave masters may give you the illusion of control, but if you are property then you are property. Explain if you will what that has to do with the OP. Or, is your own view so fragile you have to derail any discussion that isn't about YOUR favorite topics?
#15182100
The Resister wrote:had it as bad as any slave

Castration of male slaves was a relatively common punishment during the colonial era.

Who chopped your balls off?


:knife:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

an inherent, natural, God given, unalienable Righ[…]

I just find it interesting that people who can't […]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Did you do it, PoFo?

Silly. The West wasn't worse than any other empir[…]