Privileges vs. Rights.

[dross]

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?

Here's the flaw in your logic. The 16th Amendment made institutionalized theft a part of the Constitution. Theft through income tax is now, by definition, Constitutional.

If you drive the roads without following the rules we all created for the use of those roads, you lose your privelege to use those roads.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Point 2

The Constitution was created to form a collective.

The Constitution establishes, among other things, the representatives of the collective, the form of governance, the roles and responsibilities of the government and the collective, and methods for amending the Constitution.

The Constitution established a representative legislature to pass laws, a Chief Executive to implement and administer the laws passed by the legislature, and a judiciary who's duties include interpreting laws passed by the legislature and determining if a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
The judiciary is the only entity empowered by the Constitution to determine a law constitutional or unconstitutional.

If an amendment follows the process delineated in the Constitution for amending the Constitution and is ratified it becomes part of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was ratified according to the rules for amending the Constitution as delineated in the Constitution.

By virtue of its ratification the 16th Amendment is Constitutional.

So there are my suppositions. Fire away.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Constitution was created to limit the Governments powers against the people. Just like the 2nd amendment says, SHALL NOT

 

[Garb]

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.

I get what you're saying, but I'm confused as to what isn't Constitutional by definition then. If an amendment is passed stating you have to wear assless chaps everywhere you go, would you do it? I'm pretty sure you would think that's a violation of your rights. Just because the sixteenth amendment is slightly more agreeable than the example above doesn't make it Constitutional.

 

[SavageEagle]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Constitution was created to limit the Governments powers against the people. Just like the 2nd amendment says, SHALL NOT

I would agree with you, but apparently the Amendments GRANT powers, like theft. Next will be rape and murder. Oh wait. TSA, Health Care Bill. Nevermind.

 

[machete]

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.

Nobodys arguing with that... They got the guns so they can force us all to do whatever they say... what were trying to get it is whether that arrangement is right... Where does anyone get off telling me i need a license to use my road??? Many of us never consented to that arrangement so this is just pushing us around at the barrel of a gun...

Aint nothing sophisticated about brute force...been done since Adam and Eve had kids...

And that road aint owned by no collective--its owned in common...me and mine got title to it same as you and yours... It aint owned by some separate company that we own... Big difference in how you look at it...

You do not have a right to not be inconvenienced.

Maybe not,,,but where did anyone else get the right to inconvenience me????

 

[dross]

I get what you're saying, but I'm confused as to what isn't Constitutional by definition then. If an amendment is passed stating you have to wear assless chaps everywhere you go, would you do it? I'm pretty sure you would think that's a violation of your rights. Just because the sixteenth amendment is slightly more agreeable than the example above doesn't make it Constitutional.

You're assuming the Constitution can never violate someone's rights.

Something can be Constitutional, and at the same time violate someone's rights. Two prominent examples are slavery and prohibition.

And, in terms of oppression, I'd argue that the assless chaps are less so than the progressive income tax.

 

[machete]

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.

I aint never consented to that arrangement... Thats just two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner... Yall just take from me to build something with my money then think yourselves fit to tell me how i can use it??? Youve got to be kidding... You had it right a few posts back... I gave you props for that... What happened to that argument you made??? It was great... I would have given you rep for it,,,but I spent it all last night

Heres what you said,,,just changing the words up a little

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.

What the heck is wrong with that??? I'll give due regard to others but Im going to use my land -- and that includes my public land-- for my greatest use... I aint interested in giving up my rights so someone else can get a little more...

Ill consent to the government doing a very few powers--but telling me how to use my right to my road aint on that list...

I thought we all voted for limited government a few weeks back... Hear tell here weve kicked open a door so big the government can do durn near anything someone wants it to in order to make someone feel safe...

Ill gladly feel less safe in order to get more freedom...

 

[rambone]

You're assuming the Constitution can never violate someone's rights.

Something can be Constitutional, and at the same time violate someone's rights. Two prominent examples are slavery and prohibition.

And, in terms of oppression, I'd argue that the assless chaps are less so than the progressive income tax.

+

 

[Garb]

You're assuming the Constitution can never violate someone's rights.

Something can be Constitutional, and at the same time violate someone's rights. Two prominent examples are slavery and prohibition.

Ok, I think we actually agree on this lol. When I say Constitutional, I mean what the founding fathers intended, or what preserves the most freedoms for American citizens. You are saying what is Constitutional by legal definition. I agree with you in that sense.

And, in terms of oppression, I'd argue that the assless chaps are less so than the progressive income tax.

To each his own... lol

 

[Bunnykid68]

TAXES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. you got the number you got the tax to go along with it. You pay for privileges.
The income tax is a tax for a privilege.

 

[SavageEagle]

TAXES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. you got the number you got the tax to go along with it. You pay for privileges.
The income tax is a tax for a privilege.

Uh... no. Certain taxes are Constitutional. And, I suppose only because it's listed in the Constitution, the Income Tax is "Constitutional". However, when you put a gun to my head and force me to give you money, that's theft. If government does it, it's called taxes. So then Taxes = theft = violating my rights. But I guess that's ok with some people.

And please, tell me, when did government gain the powers to grant these "privileges" to you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Uh... no. Certain taxes are Constitutional. And, I suppose only because it's listed in the Constitution, the Income Tax is "Constitutional". However, when you put a gun to my head and force me to give you money, that's theft. If government does it, it's called taxes. So then Taxes = theft = violating my rights. But I guess that's ok with some people.

And please, tell me, when did government gain the powers to grant these "privileges" to you?

Social Security Act of 1935. You get a SSN, pay 1% of your income, your employer pays 1% of your income, the government pays 1% of your income to your Social Security account for you to draw at a determined time. Social Security is a privilege and completely voluntary, you do not have to sign up for it, but if you do, you must pay the tax for having said privilege.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 IS VERY EASY TO LOOK UP. NOT POSTING THE LINK FOR YOU. IT IS ALSO A VERY CLEAR CONTRACT. You will not be taught this in school, I certainly was not.

 

[Garb]

Social Security Act of 1935. You get a SSN, pay 1% of your income, your employer pays 1% of your income, the government pays 1% of your income to your Social Security account for you to draw at a determined time. Social Security is a privilege and completely voluntary, you do not have to sign up for it, but if you do, you must pay the tax for having said privilege.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 IS VERY EASY TO LOOK UP. NOT POSTING THE LINK FOR YOU. IT IS ALSO A VERY CLEAR CONTRACT. You will not be taught this in school, I certainly was not.

You can opt out of Social Security? Sign me up!

 

[Bunnykid68]

You can opt out of Social Security? Sign me up!

Not that easy unfortunately. Kinda like making a deal with the Devil. But I have heard of a few successful stories, very few, but they say it is not an easy life. Imagine trying to buy a car or a house or anything without an SSN. Try getting a job without one if you are not American Indian or Amish.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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?

The road is just as much yours as it is mine, yes, which is to say, not at all. It belongs to, as SFUSMC explained, a "legal person" known as "the people of the United States". Again, the condition set by that "person" is that those operating automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and perhaps other assorted vehicles to travel on those roads is that a license will be obtained and maintained, among other requirements.

Yes, you should be able to travel however you wish in that vehicle as long as you do so responsibly, however, that's not the way the law reads. Feel free to work to change it. For that matter, feel free to relinquish your license, if you have one, though I will not advise that you attempt to drive without it, as I won't counsel someone to violate the law.

That's correct, you don't have to purchase rights, you're born with them. You were born with the right of self-defense, but not with a firearm. The gun is only a tool, not the right in and of itself. You have the right to freedom of the press, but you have to buy the printing press. The only exception to the fact that you have a right but not the things you use to exercise it is in court, where you have the right to counsel and if you cannot afford it, an attorney will be provided for you.

You have the right to life. You are born with it. You have the right to liberty. You are born with it. You have the right to (own) property. You are born with it. You have the right to pursue happiness. You are born with it. You may never find it, but you may continue to pursue it. That is your right.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Constitution was created to limit the Governments powers against the people. Just like the 2nd amendment says, SHALL NOT

For the purposes of this discussion the Constitution does three things.

1. Establishes a collective (the United States of America).
2. Establishes the structure used to administer the the collective (the government).
3. Sets the foundation and parameters by which the collective is governed. There are essentially two parts to this.

a. Establishes the powers granted to the government of the collective.
b. Establishes the limitation of powers available to the government of the collective.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Nobodys arguing with that... They got the guns so they can force us all to do whatever they say... what were trying to get it is whether that arrangement is right... Where does anyone get off telling me i need a license to use my road??? Many of us never consented to that arrangement so this is just pushing us around at the barrel of a gun...

Aint nothing sophisticated about brute force...been done since Adam and Eve had kids...

And that road aint owned by no collective--its owned in common...me and mine got title to it same as you and yours... It aint owned by some separate company that we own... Big difference in how you look at it...



Maybe not,,,but where did anyone else get the right to inconvenience me????

If you do not consent to the rules of that arrangement, you have the ability to violate it. You just cannot do so with impunity. You also have the right to vote with your feet and leave. You should not and do not have to do so, but that is one of your freedoms and rights.

If you wish to lay claim to some specific portion of the roads in this country of over 300 million people, of all of the roads that exist, you probably own about a mile and a half. Feel free to do whatever you want on your mile and a half, but if you lay claim to that section, you have no rights of ownership on any of the rest of it. Obviously, the figure of "a mile and a half" is not meant to be taken absolutely literally. Whatever the figure comes out to be, the rest of that premise holds true. Of course, if you claim partial property rights on all of it, then you concede that the rest of us have equal claim and thus, you are bound by the rules set by the law that is in place for the operation of (most) motorized, wheeled vehicles on our roads. That's what collective ownership means. Put another way, if you own an equal share to everyone else, we could call your share an amount of ownership known as "X". You own X portion of the roads in this country, as do I, as does, say, SemperFiUSMC. (I'm only using three people for this example, but the same could be said of anyone and everyone.) By this, it's fair to say that SFUSMC and I own twice as much of any portion of the road as you do, Given this, if we both agree that the laws in place are to be followed, you have a duty to obey them. The way we'll know that more people agree with you that the laws should be repealed is when the people who write the laws overturn the ones you don't like.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Garb]

The road is just as much yours as it is mine, yes, which is to say, not at all. It belongs to, as SFUSMC explained, a "legal person" known as "the people of the United States". Again, the condition set by that "person" is that those operating automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and perhaps other assorted vehicles to travel on those roads is that a license will be obtained and maintained, among other requirements.

Yes, you should be able to travel however you wish in that vehicle as long as you do so responsibly, however, that's not the way the law reads. Feel free to work to change it. For that matter, feel free to relinquish your license, if you have one, though I will not advise that you attempt to drive without it, as I won't counsel someone to violate the law.

That's correct, you don't have to purchase rights, you're born with them. You were born with the right of self-defense, but not with a firearm. The gun is only a tool, not the right in and of itself. You have the right to freedom of the press, but you have to buy the printing press. The only exception to the fact that you have a right but not the things you use to exercise it is in court, where you have the right to counsel and if you cannot afford it, an attorney will be provided for you.

You have the right to life. You are born with it. You have the right to liberty. You are born with it. You have the right to (own) property. You are born with it. You have the right to pursue happiness. You are born with it. You may never find it, but you may continue to pursue it. That is your right.

Blessings,
Bill

I see where you're coming from, and I don't plan on relinquishing my license anytime soon. I don't agree with it, but I think the country has bigger issues to face than the validity of drivers licenses. I still fail to see how driving a car is different than carrying a gun though. If I walk on the public sidewalk carrying my firearm, would it not be the right of society to decide whether or not I can carry my firearm on said sidewalk? That's what it seems that you are advocating.

 

[Bunnykid68]

For the purposes of this discussion the Constitution does three things.

1. Establishes a collective (the United States of America).
2. Establishes the structure used to administer the the collective (the government).
3. Sets the foundation and parameters by which the collective is governed. There are essentially two parts to this.

a. Establishes the powers granted to the government of the collective.
b. Establishes the limitation of powers available to the government of the collective.

That sounds better than the way you states earlier in the thread.

 

[Garb]

That sounds better than the way you states earlier in the thread.

It's all in the wrist...