This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Given that there is such a thing as an inalienable right should such rights be taxed?
Thomas Jefferson said that it was self evident that we all have certain inalienable rights. If a right is inalienable it seems to me that it should be free. Yet, we have a right to life and that life is taxed through income taxes. We must spend part of our lives working so we have what we need to live. We have a right to property yet we have to pay sales and property taxes. If you believe that Jefferson is correct then should such rights be taxed as they are now in pretty much every country on Earth?
Topics:
politics
greg dahlen 20+
I'm going to add that I don't think the government wants to be in the charity business. If they thought private people would take up the slack, I think they'd get out. They don't want to be in the military business. If they thought everyone would live peacefully, they'd get out. They don't want to be in the police business. If they thought nobody would commit crimes, they'd get out. They probably don't want to be in the government business. If they thought private, separate individuals could handle everything, they'd get out. Unfortunately, some problems government handles better, in my mind.
greg dahlen 20+
Thinking about the "slave" term: could we also say that by forcing us to follow laws that forbid murder, rape, and robbery, the government is "enslaving" us? I would say this is a kind of "slavery" I can live with.
These are difficult issues, and you can make a great case for both sides.
Robert Haacke
I contend that forced charity does more harm than good. I left off a some reasons why that I forgot about in my other post. I'll put them here.
Forced charity becomes a means by which politicians buy the favor/vote of those who are on charity. This encourages our leaders to come up with more ways to get people on charity so that their voting base is expanded. They get to come off as being for the little guy while in reality they are using him.
It is a historical fact that every nation in history that has gone down the path of creating huge welfare programs has collapsed under the burden of paying for them. Present nations excepted of course because they haven't quite reached the point of collapse. The present sorry state of the finances of most nations means they are working on it though. Go to usdebtclock.org and check out the current state of US finances. Down toward the bottom you will see the off book debt that is money owed in the future for currently promised entitlement benefits. That total is something like $122 trillion ($122,000,000,000,000). The clock is real time so you'll see that the number is increasing rather rapidly. When the US requires corporations to report their finances they are required to report the portion of their debt that is financially equivalent to this debt since it is critical to judging the state of the company's finances. This means that the US's real debt to GDP ratio is about 760%. Economists usually say a country is in big trouble when debt to GDP passes %100.
So as a result of helping the poor along with all the other things the government does that it has no business doing we as well as most other western nations are on the verge of a complete financial collapse. How many poor people do you think there will be then? Probably billions and there will be no one to help them.
greg dahlen 20+
Technically, Robert, you could have a society where no government outlawed murder, or enforced laws against murder. Every man for himself. It'd be a pretty violent society, I would think. Would you want to live in such a society?
As far as governmental charitable programs go, well, I admit to not having the big picture. I would really hesitate to say whether I think government charity is sustainable. But it seems to me you're getting into a different issue, although I admit they're really hard to separate. Before you were asking if one can philosophically justify the government taking some of successful people's money to help poor people. Now you're getting into more of a practical question of what effects this has. Possibly I don't worry about it, because if it becomes unsustainable, we will simply adjust it.
Robert Haacke
Just because I want to live in a society where everyone is free to pick their own associations and their own causes rather than something demanded by our overlords doesn't mean that people with similar beliefs can't work together to achieve their goals. I doubt seriously that you, me and your mom would be the only ones to come together voluntarily to feed the hungry. It would be every man for what he believes in. Nothing could be further from every man for himself.
Robert Haacke
greg dahlen 20+
I would say that if people have a right to life, liberty, and property, well, in the Constitution isn't the third one the pursuit of happiness, well, if someone is too poor to buy food I suppose they will die, which pretty much does away with their life, right? Or they will try to steal food from someone else, and in the process someone might die and lose their life, as the owner of the food tries to defend it; or the person stealing the food will get caught and go to prison, which does away with their liberty; or the person will successfully steal the food, so the other person loses their property. So starving people threaten the three values you named. It's not that government taking away successful people's money to feed poor people isn't taking some of their life, liberty, and property, because it is; I'd think rather the idea is that not feeding poor people is an even greater threat to life, liberty, and property. I don't know where you are financially, I think some of us who are doing okay are glad to know that if we ever became really poor, there is a "safety net" for us.
Do you seriously want to do away with food stamps? Because I don't think you'll like the society you see, with beggars on every corner like India.
You say you want to pick your association. I guess we've decided as a country that not enough people will choose to join associations that fight hunger, and thus we have to fight it with a certain amount of force, not a huge amount, but some.
As far as slavery, I suppose in the strictest sense none of us are slaves, because we all have the right to leave and go to another country. But wherever we are, we're going to have to exercise great self-control. Freedom doesn't mean being able to do anything you want to do.
Robert Winner 50+
Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.
In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
Inalienable is defined as: impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away
Having the three terms defined helps me to understand better. If I accept these three definations then Natural Right are basically the same as Jefferson termed inalienable. Tese terms were argued at length by Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, Thomas Paine, among others ... and the consences was that there are two basic laws .. Natural and legal.
A tax (from the Latin taxo; "I estimate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many administrative divisions. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent.
Since I am a simple person ... I say by the above definations as defined by both taxes and legal rights that only legal rights are or can be taxed.
But I have been wrong before and can be timed with a egg timer until I am wrong again. I live in my own world but I am happy there as everyone knows me and accepts me.
I wish you well. Bob.
By the way I grabbed all thoese definations from the web. You can tell because they are spelled right.
Robert Haacke
Of course, There are a ton of philosophical and religious issues that can be brought up about whether natural rights exist or not and exactly what they are. If you believe in God then you must also believe that the Ten Commandments give everyone a natural right to life and property since they are forbidden to be removed from us by the highest power in the Universe. If you don't believe in God then things get a lot murkier and I probably don't have enough room to finish talking about it in just one reply, but I think you can get to the same conclusion using logic.
I have similar ishues with spelling.
Robert Winner 50+
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all."
— Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
In the USA we can thank John Locke for our right to property. also read Thomas Hobbs, James Harrington, Robert Filmer, William Blackstone, David Hume, etc ....
Land is not a natural right .... unless you were a royal and that was a divine right.
Robert I am a little lost on the rights to life and property in the ten commandments. The only association I could make would be to do not covet. Which number gives me those rights? I am christian but in my opinion I would not go to court with that argument .... remember that inalienable rights are those that cannot be transfered or given away ... does property meet that defination?
I have enjoyed this discussion. Not all discussion are this respectful. Thanks.
I wish you well. Bob.
Robert Haacke
The right to property, like all rights, stems from your right to life. If you don't have a right to life then all other rights are meaningless. If I want to deprive you of other rights in the abscence of the right to life then all I have to do is kill you. The right to property also doesn't mean that someone is impaired by some physical law of the Universe from stealing your stuff or that if you drop something you own it will jump back into your hand. It just means you have the right to possess things. Though the things themselves can be transferred your right to keep your stuff if you want cannot.
I have also enjoyed this a lot and learned as well. Mission accomplished I suppose.
Barry Palmer 50+
Human rights is a concept that was developed by humans in an attempt to develop a natural, rational basis for self governance. In the final analysis self governance is a choice. There is nothing natural about human rights. People must choose and define human rights. If the concept of human rights is to survive, then the concept must gain the support of the global community. This will be difficult because different people believe in different rights, and the priorities of those rights. Some people claim that the "right to life" means that the government must feed the hungry. Others claim that feeding the hungry makes slaves of the hungry; that any and all freedoms rest on the foundation of our freedom to starve. Some people insist on complete separation of religion and state, while others believe that the legitimacy of the government and its laws comes from the Almighty.
Jefferson was not completely correct, but his words constituted a big step in the right direction. If we take the words of the framers to be the last words on the subject of human rights, we are completely misconstruing their efforts. The framing of the Constitution of the United States was an experiment in self governance. The framers started a work in progress, leaving the bulk of the work to future generations (us).
Robert Haacke
greg dahlen 20+
You might opt out of having a pipe built to your house because you want to dig your own well. But possibly the government is thinking ahead, that eventually you will leave that house and the next person who occupies it will want the pipe. It's certainly easier to place the pipe now when they're doing everybody's.
Most programs are too big to opt out of. Are you going to opt out of national security, so that when another country invades the U.S., the army will defend the house next to yours, but not yours. It doesn't work, we need a concerted front.
If you don't like certain programs, you have a perfect right to try to change or eliminate them within the law.
Robert Haacke
The government doesn't exist for any other reason than to protect the rights of the citizenry. If it is enslaving us then it is failing at its primary mission. We are not here for the convenience of the government but rather the other way around.
If another country invades this one then must I fight? If I am a free human being rather than cannon fodder then it is my choice whether to fight or not. If enough of us love our country enough to fight for it then the country will survive. If we don't then was it really worth saving?
greg dahlen 20+
You can call it slavery, but realize that government workers themselves pay taxes and help support programs, so they are just as much slaves as we non-government workers.
You don't have to fight if another country invades, but currently the military will fight for you, as that is the way we have organized. I think we believe that we are more effective in having a trained, professional, cohesive fighting force, than each man fighting for himself. It's certainly true that other countries are going to come at us with a professional army.
If you want to add more time to your conversation, the last time I looked it had only a few days, you can hit edit and add more time. If I already told you this and you changed it, I apologize.
Robert Haacke
You assume that just because we have the right to refrain from helping the poor that every single one of us will refrain from doing so. You also assume that there will be millions of poor no matter what system we use. I think that if people lived together in mutual respect of each others rights that poverty would be a small problem.
My philosophy is that while it is wrong to see someone suffering and do nothing it is also wrong to force others to help in your place.
I think that government forced charity is actually detrimental to society in several ways. First, there is ample evidence that it fosters dependence in the poor and thus makes it harder for them to become self sufficient. Second, It breeds resentment and even hatred amongst those that must pay. Third, it detracts from the sense of community and friendship that comes from people helping each other directly. If you don't want to live in a world with poor people begging in the streets then do something yourself with your time and your money to help those that are immediately around you. Only then will you see the good that was done with your own eyes and know for certain that this person or that is better off because you cared enough to do it yourself. After all, if you aren't willing to go out and act on your own to help others then how much do you really care?
Random Chance 30+
So, Gu L, just give up? Is that it?
Gu L
Gail . 50+
Are you willing to live a natural life - without modern medical intervention? If you want more than that which you can produce through your own effort (work), then taxes become necessary FOR AS LONG AS we remain a culture that loves money more than people.
Robert Haacke
I don't want more than I can produce with my on effort and enginuity. You are right. If you want more than you can produce then you must take it from someone else. You don't mention other methods of taking more than your due, theft and slavery. Both concepts are closely related to taxation.
Gail . 50+
Adesope Rebecca
Gail . 50+
Life is not taxed. Income is taxed. We do not have a inalienable right to money or to earn money. That's a choice, not a right.
We must spend part of our lives working so that we can survive - but you are not required to spend part of your life working for money. You are free to go walk the Adirondack Trail, eating off the land and the offerings of others - heading north as summer approaches and south as winter approaches. There are also national parts and forests - if you don't set up a permanent site and obey Smokey the Bear's rules.
I don't agree that we have an inalienable right to "own" property. The birds and bears don't "own" property. They merely avail themselves of the bounty thereof. The notion of property rights is a rather recent one in human history. I think that it is at the core of all that is wrong with America.
If you want to drop off the grid and out of the system, you will pay no taxes whatsoever. But if you want your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness protected, you must understand that your liberty ends where mine begins, and your pursuit of happiness cannot deprive me of life or liberty or my pursuit of happiness.
Of course, if we were all to drop out of the system and head to the mountains, it would be too crowded there and we would destroy the place, thus our lives, our liberties, and our pursuits of happiness
Robert Haacke
The core of all that has come to be wrong with America is the disrespect of the lives, liberty and property of its inhabitants that has become so rampant.
Gail . 50+
Robert Haacke
Gail . 50+
Robert Haacke
Gail . 50+
My comment about heading to the mountains was said in jest. The idea is so ludicrous, I thought that you would see that.
Robert Haacke
greg dahlen 20+
Robert Haacke
How is my quality of life increased when I have to pay for government programs I don't want to participate in?
greg dahlen 20+
What programs do you not want to participate in? For example, even if you don't collect food stamps, your quality of life might be increased because hungry people aren't breaking into your house to steal food. Or dying on the street in front of you.
Robert Haacke
If I don't want to pay for food stamps, for example, it means that I have already done the cost/benefit analysis and decided that, for me, the costs outweigh the benefits. It doesn't matter If you or anyone else thinks I'm right. If you say that I must pay for them anyway because you will punish me if I don't, what does that make you?
Gail . 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+