Privileges vs. Rights.

[Bill of Rights]

Sure it is. The Constitution establishes the collective as the United States of America. That makes the collective, the United States of America a legal person. Not a natural person, but a legal person.

So then, if the collective is a "person", does that mean it has rights?

FIFY

Whoops. Thanks, my error. It's the legislatures, not the individual citizens.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So then, if the collective is a "person", does that mean it has rights?

Absolutely. One example is the right to own property. It has many rights. It also has responsibilities and liabilities.

Remember though there is a difference between the collective United States of America and the government established to administer it. The government is not a legal person (although sometimes those that work for it mistakenly think it is).

 

[machete]

Travel can occur with any type of conveyance.

The act of travelling is independent of the type of conveyance.

Therefore the type of conveyance is not an essential element of travel.

You just contradicted yourself since you left out the necessary first premise -- travel must occur with some form of conveyance...

If travel must occur with some form of conveyance,,,the type of conveyance is an essential element of travel since you cant travel without one...

You then say The act of travelling is independent of the type of conveyance, but this premise makes no sense - no offense - as I cannot separate myself from my conveyance while travelling unless I want to throw myself off the train and strop travelling...

A concept of travelling doesnt need a specific type of conveyance I suppose but any act of travelling necessarily does....

You tie it all by saying that Therefore the type of conveyance is not an essential element of travel. After what I just pointed out we dont even need to go there--we just proved the exact opposite. Again,,,This is just the first part of your argument... If we cant get this resolved the argument is DIW...

Just sayin...

 

[dross]

You just contradicted yourself since you left out the necessary first premise -- travel must occur with some form of conveyance...

If travel must occur with some form of conveyance,,,the type of conveyance is an essential element of travel since you cant travel without one...

You then say The act of travelling is independent of the type of conveyance, but this premise makes no sense - no offense - as I cannot separate myself from my conveyance while travelling unless I want to throw myself off the train and strop travelling...

A concept of travelling doesnt need a specific type of conveyance I suppose but any act of travelling necessarily does....

You tie it all by saying that Therefore the type of conveyance is not an essential element of travel. After what I just pointed out we dont even need to go there--we just proved the exact opposite. Again,,,This is just the first part of your argument... If we cant get this resolved the argument is DIW...

Just sayin...

You may travel by foot.
You may travel by boat.
You may travel by car.
You may travel by horse.
You may travel by airplane.
You may travel by Llama.

You have no right to shoes.
You have no right to a boat.
You have no right to a car.
You have no right to a horse.
You have no right to an airplane.
You have no right to a Llama.

You have no right to walk across my land.
You have no right to float across my water.
You have no right to drive across my land.
You have no right to ride across my land.
You have no right to fly just anywhere you choose.
You have no right to ride your Llama across my land.

If my neighbors and I band together in an organization we call "the government," and then set aside some of that land for travel, you do indeed have a right to use that land to travel freely throughout the country.

Since that land belongs to everyone, however, we must set up rules that you must follow if you wish to take advantage of that free use. This allows everyone to get the maximum benefit of that travelway.

The same goes for the airspace.

So, while you do have a right to travel, you do not have a right to travel in any way you wish without regard for the other people who also have a right to travel.

 

[machete]

Absolutely. One example is the right to own property. It has many rights. It also has responsibilities and liabilities.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This just stands the entire body of rights philosophy on its head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the most basic bedrock ideas of rights is that rights can only reside in individuals... If a country has rights,,,where did these rights come from??? If a country has rights,,,its not a servant of the PEOPLE but an equal to the PEOPLE!!! Rights dont require consent to exist so this thing we call a country is walking around with rights??? Can it vote??? Is it entitled to Life, Liberty and Happiness???

A man cannot add to his store of rights,,,nor can his rights be destroyed,,,so if a country is merely created by man,,,man would have to have additional rights that he could give away to a country but this clearly makes no sense... Also a holder of rights cannot be voted out of existence but if we form a new country the old country and all of its rights are destroyed....again making no sense.

Countries have only powers,,,not rights.... Jefferson said that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed...he never said that governments have rights... If governments have rights the most basic right of all is to be free from the aggression of another but since we can all form a new government and vote ours out of existence,,,government does not even hold this most basic of all rights...

Powers,,,not rights

 

[machete]

So, while you do have a right to travel, you do not have a right to travel in any way you wish without regard for the other people who also have a right to travel.

Thats very true...very good...

If we change your sentence around--completely legally--using only the statements made within it,,,we get---

As long as you give regard for the other people who also wish to travel, you have the right to travel in any way you wish.

I skipped the double reference to the right to travel since you said it twice...so I only needed to use it once...

I think,,,we can all live with that. SavageEagle??? Rambone??? Mrjarrelll????

In fact,,,I'm cool with that for most things in life...

Im gonna try it this way,,,

As long as you give regard for other people, you have the right to live in any way you wish.

I like this,,,too....

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You may travel by foot.
You may travel by boat.
You may travel by car.
You may travel by horse.
You may travel by airplane.
You may travel by Llama.

You have no right to shoes.
You have no right to a boat.
You have no right to a car.
You have no right to a horse.
You have no right to an airplane.
You have no right to a Llama.

You have no right to walk across my land.
You have no right to float across my water.
You have no right to drive across my land.
You have no right to ride across my land.
You have no right to fly just anywhere you choose.
You have no right to ride your Llama across my land.

If my neighbors and I band together in an organization we call "the government," and then set aside some of that land for travel, you do indeed have a right to use that land to travel freely throughout the country.

Since that land belongs to everyone, however, we must set up rules that you must follow if you wish to take advantage of that free use. This allows everyone to get the maximum benefit of that travelway.

The same goes for the airspace.

So, while you do have a right to travel, you do not have a right to travel in any way you wish without regard for the other people who also have a right to travel.

+1 and repped.

As always my friend dross breaks it down and explains it in understandable terms as only he can.

 

[SavageEagle]

You're confusing moral, legal, and Constitutional. He said it was Constitutional (meaning only that it's part of the document), not that it was right (that is, moral). Hell, the 3/5 compromise is still a part of the Constitution, albeit an inoperative part, thanks to the slavery amendments.

So, I'm pretty sure we can agree that Income Tax is forceful theft. Going back to what I asked SFUSMC, would you then agree that forceful theft by government is now Constitutional? Considering that government can tax 100% of your income if they so chose because there are no restrictions set forth in the 16th Amendment, by calling this Constitutional, you are essentially calling theft Constitutional.

The problem is that theft is NOT Constitutional because it infringes upon our Natural Rights. If Theft is not Constitutional, then how can the 16th Amendment BE Constitutional? Just because it's in the Document doesn't mean that it IS Constitutional. Just as an Amendment to the Constitution that would make Slavery lawful would not be Constitutional.

Further, who is the "they" you refer to passing this hypothetical new slavery amendment? The process of amendment only begins in the Congress. It requires a supermajority of the People to be ratified.

I included the People in the whole thing because I'm pretty sure we all know how our government works with regards to Constitutional Amendments. The problem here is that even if 80% of the Country agreed that Slavery is ok and voted to add it to the Constitution, it is against people's Natural Rights. Natural Rights are protected via the Bill of Rights(the actual document, not you ) and anything that contradicts the BoRs becomes unConstitutional.

The theft to which you refer is a function of government, and part of the reason I've recently quoted the fact that government is not reason or persuasion, but force. I don't like it, I don't support it, I just recognize it as a fact of our form of government. Again, work to repeal it, you'll find no argument here.

If a function of government that is, essentially, theft is accepted as legal, then government has defined itself as tyrannical. If our elected officials refuse to reverse this decade after decade, working to repeal it through legal channels is useless. As has been proven, decade after decade.

If we can all agree that the 16th Amendment is wrong and that government has no right to do what they do, why are we arguing?

And since SemperFiUSMC has refused to have a less-than-lawyer-level conversation with me, I just have one last question for him.

Do you believe we have other Natural Rights than those enumerated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So, I'm pretty sure we can agree that Income Tax is forceful theft. Going back to what I asked SFUSMC, would you then agree that forceful theft by government is now Constitutional? Considering that government can tax 100% of your income if they so chose because there are no restrictions set forth in the 16th Amendment, by calling this Constitutional, you are essentially calling theft Constitutional.

The problem is that theft is NOT Constitutional because it infringes upon our Natural Rights. If Theft is not Constitutional, then how can the 16th Amendment BE Constitutional? Just because it's in the Document doesn't mean that it IS Constitutional. Just as an Amendment to the Constitution that would make Slavery lawful would not be Constitutional.



I included the People in the whole thing because I'm pretty sure we all know how our government works with regards to Constitutional Amendments. The problem here is that even if 80% of the Country agreed that Slavery is ok and voted to add it to the Constitution, it is against people's Natural Rights. Natural Rights are protected via the Bill of Rights(the actual document, not you ) and anything that contradicts the BoRs becomes unConstitutional.



If a function of government that is, essentially, theft is accepted as legal, then government has defined itself as tyrannical. If our elected officials refuse to reverse this decade after decade, working to repeal it through legal channels is useless. As has been proven, decade after decade.

If we can all agree that the 16th Amendment is wrong and that government has no right to do what they do, why are we arguing?

And since SemperFiUSMC has refused to have a less-than-lawyer-level conversation with me, I just have one last question for him.

Do you believe we have other Natural Rights than those enumerated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence?

I've not had a lawyer-like conversation with you. I have tried to help demonstrate the flaw in your logic that leads to the chasm not only between our beliefs but what we are saying to each other. For whatever reason you refuse to engage in a reasoned analysis. Maybe it's because we are speaking past each other. I am interested in what you think of dross' post, because he concisely communicated in 1 post what I've tried in 30.

Irregardless, you have thousands of unenumerated natural rights. I hope you don't want me to list them.

 

[Garb]

You may travel by foot.
You may travel by boat.
You may travel by car.
You may travel by horse.
You may travel by airplane.
You may travel by Llama.

We agree on this.

You have no right to shoes.
You have no right to a boat.
You have no right to a car.
You have no right to a horse.
You have no right to an airplane.
You have no right to a Llama.

We do not agree on this. I have just as much right to those things as I do to my guns. That doesn't mean the government gives them to me, or that I deserve them, just that it is my right to purchase, own, and use them how I choose as long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else.

You have no right to walk across my land.
You have no right to float across my water.
You have no right to drive across my land.
You have no right to ride across my land.
You have no right to fly just anywhere you choose.
You have no right to ride your Llama across my land.

We agree on this also.

If my neighbors and I band together in an organization we call "the government," and then set aside some of that land for travel, you do indeed have a right to use that land to travel freely throughout the country.

Since that land belongs to everyone, however, we must set up rules that you must follow if you wish to take advantage of that free use. This allows everyone to get the maximum benefit of that travelway.

The same goes for the airspace.

So, while you do have a right to travel, you do not have a right to travel in any way you wish without regard for the other people who also have a right to travel.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I mean, we agree here, but what does a license have to do with it? As long as I exercise my rights responsibly, it shouldn't matter if I'm licensed or not. We should be punishing the actions, not the innocent people who happen to not be "qualified" to drive the the governments standards.

 

[Garb]

Irregardless, you have thousands of unenumerated natural rights. I hope you don't want me to list them.

Go for it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You may travel by foot.
You may travel by boat.
You may travel by car.
You may travel by horse.
You may travel by airplane.
You may travel by Llama.

We agree on this.

You have no right to shoes.
You have no right to a boat.
You have no right to a car.
You have no right to a horse.
You have no right to an airplane.
You have no right to a Llama.

We do not agree on this. I have just as much right to those things as I do to my guns. That doesn't mean the government gives them to me, or that I deserve them, just that it is my right to purchase, own, and use them how I choose as long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else.

You have no right to walk across my land.
You have no right to float across my water.
You have no right to drive across my land.
You have no right to ride across my land.
You have no right to fly just anywhere you choose.
You have no right to ride your Llama across my land.

We agree on this also.

If my neighbors and I band together in an organization we call "the government," and then set aside some of that land for travel, you do indeed have a right to use that land to travel freely throughout the country.

Since that land belongs to everyone, however, we must set up rules that you must follow if you wish to take advantage of that free use. This allows everyone to get the maximum benefit of that travelway.

The same goes for the airspace.

So, while you do have a right to travel, you do not have a right to travel in any way you wish without regard for the other people who also have a right to travel.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I mean, we agree here, but what does a license have to do with it? As long as I exercise my rights responsibly, it shouldn't matter if I'm licensed or not. We should be punishing the actions, not the innocent people who happen to not be "qualified" to drive the the governments standards.

You may have a right to purchase an item without having a right to the item itself. You do not need to purchase rights, they are already yours. Unless you were born with shoes, a boat, a llama, etc. (meaning they came out when you did), you have no right to them.

The condition set by the (collective) owner of the road for its use is that those doing so must obtain a license if they use certain types of vehicles. You might set a condition that those who cross your land must be wearing a pink cowboy hat and rainbow sunglasses, and forbid entry to all who do not comply, on grounds of trespassing. Alternatively, if you own a bridge, you might demand that those crossing must pay a toll. If they refuse, they may not use your bridge. The fees for your license (to drive) constitute a portion of the toll. If you do not wish to pay the toll, you are not compelled to obtain a license. That life will be very inconvenient to you is the price you will pay for that, but it is your right to choose. You do not have a right to not be inconvenienced.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

You have no right to shoes.
You have no right to a boat.
You have no right to a car.
You have no right to a horse.
You have no right to an airplane.
You have no right to a Llama.

We do not agree on this. I have just as much right to those things as I do to my guns. That doesn't mean the government gives them to me, or that I deserve them, just that it is my right to purchase, own, and use them how I choose as long as I don't violate the rights of anyone else.

You have the right to purchase them and to own them. If, however, you choose to use them on someone else's property you must follow the rules laid out. So, if you wish to ride your Llama on my property, I may require a license and a tail light.

If you wish to ride your Llama on the land that belongs to everyone, you may also have to follow the rules they we all decided that everyone must follow to use that collective land.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I mean, we agree here, but what does a license have to do with it? As long as I exercise my rights responsibly, it shouldn't matter if I'm licensed or not. We should be punishing the actions, not the innocent people who happen to not be "qualified" to drive the the governments standards.

A license is what we all agreed collectively is required to use our common land for the purpose of driving an automobile.

 

[Duncan]

A right is granted by society to its members in order for it to function; a privilege is granted by a group or individual as either a reward for, or conditional upon, good behavior

watched the channel 8 pieces on what the tsa said today. they said that flying is a privilege not a right. why is that. the goverment didnt invent flying. i have dealt with the "it is a privilege not a right" crap a bunch with it comes to transportation. the many place wont accept a state id. they want a drivers license. public transport doesnt even reach all of indianapolis let alone out liying countys.(its a $45cab ride from 8 seconds to my place) you need transportation to get a job. the goverment didnt invent the wheel, nor a automoblie. going to school is a privilege, yet you can get arrested for not going.the goverment didnt invent education(yet they control it). the goverment didnt event health and believe it to be a privilege. but yet they are forcing it on us. a cell phone or phone in general is a privilege. forget the fact that if you have no phone you need a psychical address for 911 to know where your are at. or the fact that the goverment has the right to listen in on our phone calls.

flying, driving, education are all needed to make this society function.

there are many other privileges that are really right that a free country should acknowledge but they are not. and they are trying to take away our right which many here have more thoughtful threads on here you could read.

(i guess you could call this a rant)

A right is granted by society to its members "

With all due respect I disagree .
Rights come from God .
If rights come from society .
What is a society ? Men .
Then man would be creator of Rights .
Even if a person does not believe in God the founders did and our system is based on that premise .

A Right is a freedom to act morally without asking permission ;
A Privilege is a freedom to act morally but only after permission has been granted by some government entity .

Ralph Eperson
The Unseen hand
Page 14

Thanks
Duncan

 

[SavageEagle]

I've not had a lawyer-like conversation with you. I have tried to help demonstrate the flaw in your logic that leads to the chasm not only between our beliefs but what we are saying to each other. For whatever reason you refuse to engage in a reasoned analysis. Maybe it's because we are speaking past each other. I am interested in what you think of dross' post, because he concisely communicated in 1 post what I've tried in 30.

Irregardless, you have thousands of unenumerated natural rights. I hope you don't want me to list them.

What flaw in my logic? Is Income Tax not forceful theft? Is theft not a violation of my rights? If I the means to safely travel on the roads without violating someone's rights, do I not have the right to drive my vehicle on said roads?

Go for it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What flaw in my logic? Is Income Tax not forceful theft? Is theft not a violation of my rights? If I the means to safely travel on the roads without violating someone's rights, do I not have the right to drive my vehicle on said roads?

Your argument that income taxes are theft is circular, appeals to emotion, and is irrelevent to whether the 16th Amendment is Constitutional.

Everything else you said about driving is equally irrelevent.

Someone else will have to explain it. I've failed.

 

[Garb]

You may have a right to purchase an item without having a right to the item itself. You do not need to purchase rights, they are already yours. Unless you were born with shoes, a boat, a llama, etc. (meaning they came out when you did), you have no right to them.

The condition set by the (collective) owner of the road for its use is that those doing so must obtain a license if they use certain types of vehicles. You might set a condition that those who cross your land must be wearing a pink cowboy hat and rainbow sunglasses, and forbid entry to all who do not comply, on grounds of trespassing. Alternatively, if you own a bridge, you might demand that those crossing must pay a toll. If they refuse, they may not use your bridge. The fees for your license (to drive) constitute a portion of the toll. If you do not wish to pay the toll, you are not compelled to obtain a license. That life will be very inconvenient to you is the price you will pay for that, but it is your right to choose. You do not have a right to not be inconvenienced.

Blessings,
Bill

Are we assuming this a private or public road? Yes, if I own a bridge, it is my right to charge a toll. However, public roads do not fall under this category. The public road is just as much mine as it is yours. It was constructed for the use of the general public, using the funds of the general public. Again, as long as I act responsibly with said vehicle, it is my right to travel. Also, I never said I need to purchase rights, I was implying that as long as I have access to the means to exercise those rights, I should be free to exercise them. And since when did I only have a right to the things I was born with? Does that mean the second amendment is null and void?

 

[Garb]

[/color]

You have the right to purchase them and to own them. If, however, you choose to use them on someone else's property you must follow the rules laid out. So, if you wish to ride your Llama on my property, I may require a license and a tail light.

Yes, you may. That is your personal property, not the public property.

If you wish to ride your Llama on the land that belongs to everyone, you may also have to follow the rules they we all decided that everyone must follow to use that collective land.

But let's say I do follow the rules to use the collective land. I don't drive recklessly, break the speed limit, throw objects at other vehicles, etc. Again, a license has no bearing on how responsible I am with my vehicle.

 

[dross]

[/color]

You have the right to purchase them and to own them. If, however, you choose to use them on someone else's property you must follow the rules laid out. So, if you wish to ride your Llama on my property, I may require a license and a tail light.

Yes, you may. That is your personal property, not the public property.

If you wish to ride your Llama on the land that belongs to everyone, you may also have to follow the rules they we all decided that everyone must follow to use that collective land.

But let's say I do follow the rules to use the collective land. I don't drive recklessly, break the speed limit, throw objects at other vehicles, etc. Again, a license has no bearing on how responsible I am with my vehicle.

We all get together and create some public land to be used for roadways.

Now we need to ensure that the roadways are used to everyone's benefit. Some of us think one thing is reasonable, some us think it is unreasonable. So we elect representatives who set up a administration to decide how this land that belongs to us all is administred.

That adminstration, set up by a democratic process, decides that licensure is one of the requirements to use that road.

Your opinion about whether a license is reasonable is just one person's opinion. You don't get veto power just because you think it's an unreasonable requirement.

 

[Bunnykid68]

The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified

Just sayin.

Does not matter if it was properly ratified. Government got you by the balls with the SSN. Once you signed up for the PRIVILEGE of having Social Security Insurance you agreed to pay the tax that goes along with it. Just like cigs or alcohol, you pay the tax for the privilege of buying those items.