so what do *you* consider a *right*?

[Mrs Mungo]

Fundamentally, yes, to an extent. I don't like it, but how do I register than I don't consent to be so governed? I could move somewhere else, but there's nowhere better so far as I can tell (and I've lived in a lot of places around the world), on top of which I'd still be paying US taxes for 10 years after I renounced my citizenship, if I ever wanted to come back to visit without being thrown in jail. I could pick up a gun and start shooting government agents, but that's pointless and premature. I could refuse to vote, but that is seen as consent rather than non-consent, because we only require a plurality of voters, not of citizens, for an election to be valid; there's no "none of the above" choice.

 

I am not saying that there are no things which government should do. However, were government limited to those things it should do, or even those things that are Constitutionally permitted, given the plain meaning of the words at the time that they were written, direct taxation would not be necessary. If only indirect taxes were allowed, as was originally the case, then people could avoid those taxes whose uses they disapproved, though it might require extraordinary effort to do so. But that's not the case in the US today; income taxes are unavoidable unless you become a ward of the state.

 

Even the founders did not believe the Constitution to be a never-changing, all-encompassing document. Hence, the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the Constitution. If we didn't have income tax, we'd have an excise tax and you would be taxed each and every time that money changed hands. It would be a lot more complicated and expensive but it would be legal, according to you. We have an excise tax here in Hawaii, it's a huge pain, even with my insurance I have to pay about $50 or so in taxes every time we go to the dentist for a cleaning.

 

For the record, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the phrase "direct tax."

 

 

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes . . ." that includes taxing you.

 

In Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, it states "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Therefore, there are only two general categories of taxes, direct and indirect.

 

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.” Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

 

In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”

 

In United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994), the court states, "[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)"

 

"by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged..."

STANTON V. BALTIC MINING CO. 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

Edited January 4, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Tammyla]

:lurk5:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You completely missed my point.

 

His intellectual contemporaries did not view his life as ideal at. all. They viewed him as a complete, utter loser and wanted nothing to do with him. He was the Hester Prynne of his environment.

 

The point is that not everyone wants the same things, aspires to the same things, nor, honestly, gives a rats @ss about the same things.

 

 

a

 

This is true. I also believe that it is true that there are many who do not have many choices anymore when it comes to jobs and education in many instances. I believe that there are many who are stuck so to speak in their situations. It is also true that people are not handed the same deck of cards when they are born IMHO. I also believe that the American dream is much harder to reach today than it was for my Grandfather who had the American dream come true.

 

In response to some of the other posts... I think that some people get so focused on entitlements and those who abuse the system. I aggravates me as well to see abuses in the system, but I do not let it consume me. IMHO I believe that they are not the majority. I do not believe in punishing the whole class for a few bad apples. I think instead we should ensure that abuses are rare which from my understanding has been curtailed somewhat from welfare reform in the 1990's. I think there are many more hard working people who are sinking under the current system despite their best efforts. I think there are many who cannot get or find living wage jobs with adequate health insurance since many manufacturing jobs are now gone.

 

In regards to healthcare choices such as alternative medicine, that is great for those who choose it, but I will take good healthcare insurance any day. Let's put it this way, I believe that most would choose traditional health care especially if the chips are down and they are facing a severe illness. Healthcare reform will not take away your choice to alternative care. You may have to pay for it as in most cases currently. It is not usually a covered item currently anyway.

 

I believe that pooling our resources together will allow for great health care for everyone. I also believe that by doing so that it will actually be cheaper especially if we ever have a single payer health care such as Medicare for all. I also do not believe we will turn our nation into a bunch of lazy people who are looking for a hand out by enacting health care reform. I think that most Americans are good, hard working people and will continue to to be so.

 

My 2 cents;)

Edited January 4, 2010 by priscilla
Major clarification;) since I had a typing attack.

[Mrs Mungo]

More info on such fallacies:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#constitutional

[lionfamily1999]

This is true. I also believe that it is true that there are many who do not have many choices anymore when it comes to jobs and education in many instances. I believe that there are many who are stuck so to speak in their situations. It is also true that people are not handed the same deck of cards when they are born IMHO. I also believe that the American dream is much harder to reach today than it was for my Grandfather who had the American dream come true.

 

In response to some of the other posts... I think that some people get so focused on entitlements and those who abuse the system. I aggravates me as well to see abuses in the system, but I do not let it consume me. IMHO I believe that they are not the majority. I do not believe in punishing the whole class for a few bad apples. I think instead we should ensure that abuses are rare which from my understanding has been curtailed somewhat from welfare reform in the 1990's. I think there are many more hard working people who are sinking under the current system despite their best efforts. I think there are many who cannot get or find living wage jobs with adequate health insurance since many manufacturing jobs are now gone.

 

In regards to healthcare choices such as alternative medicine, that is great for those who choose it, but I will take good healthcare insurance any day. Let's put it this way, I believe that most would choose traditional health care especially if the chips are down and they are facing a severe illness. I do not believe in traditional medicine, then healthcare reform will not take away your choice to alternative care. You may have to pay for it as in most cases currently. It is not usually a covered item currently anyway.

 

I believe that pooling our resources together will allow for great health care for everyone. I also believe that by doing so that it will actually be cheaper especially if we ever have a single payer health care such as Medicare for all. I also do not believe we will turn our nation into a bunch of lazy people who are looking for a hand out by enacting health care reform. I think that most Americans are good, hard working people and will continue to to be so.

 

My 2 cents;)

So, it simply does not matter that some people do not find what the government is defining as "health care" to be true. It doesn't matter if someone does not want that type of health care. They still have to buy it, thank you mandate, and make it possible for you and others to use it. They have to pay for yet another service they do not use, agree with, or wish to endorse in any way shape or form. That's okay, though, because the majority thinks it's right?

 

Then, as a country we should all start funding our local Christian churches. Why? Well, because the majority believes that church, God and a Christian upbringing is a necessity. If you don't want to go, fine, but you still have to pay for it, because I and the majority say so. It's our right to have fully funded churches. We shouldn't have to shoulder the bill for missions, or preachers, or the rest of those necessities.

 

Why is it that the majority's beliefs as far as this goes are absolute? What makes your opinion of what constitutes medical care so much better than mind that I have to fund yours?

[Mama Lynx]

I'm sorry, but can you come up with something that poor girl could do to support herself without government assistance? Manufacturing used to be the place that a person like her could expect to make a living. We no longer have that.

 

I'm just saying that based on the words you gave us here, it's just nothing to go on.

 

I have several times experienced cashiers being unable to count my change. They were not learning disabled; they were never taught how to count change, and had no facility with the math. But learning disabled? Not at all. They were just young, and their basic math education was, um, lacking.

 

That's the evidence you gave - the inability to count change. From where I sit, it's a huge, unbelievable jump from there to a person who has no hope for the future or no medical care.

 

I'm often served, in Starbucks, by a delightful young man who obviously has Downs syndrome. It is obvious that *he* will not be able to rise in the company. But he is happy, and competent, if slow and in need of more help than the average Starbucks worker.

 

The two adults I personally know with profound learning disabilities do their best, what they can, and have families who love them and help them and provide them with their medical care, when they can't get it through a job or a state program. Perhaps this girl also, if she was actually disabled to that degree, had a family?

 

I just don't get from your point A to your point B.

[medcalf]

For the record, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the phrase "direct tax."

 

 

I fail to see how having nine tyrants is better than having one.

[Mrs Mungo]

I fail to see how having nine tyrants is better than having one.

 

Your original argument was based upon the intention of the founding fathers. One of the cases I gave included 2 founding fathers as Supreme Court justices. They are both founding fathers to be revered and tyrants to be reviled? I don't think your argument could get more illogical if you tried.

[Peek a Boo]

Your original argument was based upon the intention of the founding fathers. One of the cases I gave included 2 founding fathers as Supreme Court justices. They are both founding fathers to be revered and tyrants to be reviled? I don't think your argument could get more illogical if you tried.

 

just a clarification to try to keep the thread on its intended course:

 

I wasn't asking about AMERICAN rights or the Constitution [which allowed slavery], but something that applies to every single person as a BASIC human right. [and the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were 3/5 of a person, so their legal opinion doesn't offer much credibility in the "basic rights" dept unless everyone agrees that slavery is perfectly ok. The Supreme Court is designed to rule about the U.S.Constitution, not determine basic rights]

 

what is perceived as a "right"-- even in the Hopi community? in Australia? among the tribes in Africa? The jungles of South America? If one person decides to kill another, is there no "right" recognized for the victim? If one person takes more than their fair share of something and doesn't offer restitution of some sort, do they have a "right" to do that?

 

I guess the deeper question that I'm looking to see is: when do you penalize [even minimally] another person for breaking a "basic" human right? In any culture?

 

maybe it would be easier to make a list between rights and [as medcalf mentioned] privileges?

 

[please pass the duct tape again. thanks!]

[Mrs Mungo]

just a clarification to try to keep the thread on its intended course:

 

Just to clarify, since you used my post, it wasn't directed at you but at Trolly McTrollykins up there.

 

I wasn't asking about AMERICAN rights or the Constitution [which allowed slavery], but something that applies to every single person as a BASIC human right. [and the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were 3/5 of a person, so their legal opinion doesn't offer much credibility in the "basic rights" dept unless everyone agrees that slavery is perfectly ok. The Supreme Court is designed to rule about the U.S.Constitution, not determine basic rights]

American "rights," as defined by the Constitution, are inalienable, they are basic human rights than cannot be taken away. You cannot separate them if you actually believe in the idea of the Constitution.

 

Did you want to have a discussion about slavery at the time of the founding of the US or no? I can't tell.

 

what is perceived as a "right"-- even in the Hopi community? in Australia? among the tribes in Africa? The jungles of South America? If one person decides to kill another, is there no "right" recognized for the victim? If one person takes more than their fair share of something and doesn't offer restitution of some sort, do they have a "right" to do that?

 

I guess the deeper question that I'm looking to see is: when do you penalize [even minimally] another person for breaking a "basic" human right? In any culture?

Most cultures have taboos (even where are there are no "laws") about stealing, about murdering someone and so forth. There is punishment of one form or another for breaking taboos in most cultures. Cultures without Western influence don't necessarily have the concept of "rights" but that doesn't mean that they don't have rights or that taboos protecting person or property do not exist.

 

maybe it would be easier to make a list between rights and [as medcalf mentioned] privileges?

No, I don't...or at least not in the manner suggested. There is a hint there that we shouldn't have to extend certain "privileges" to some groups, depending upon our own bias against said groups. Edited January 5, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[asta]

:iagree:

[Mama Lynx]

 

maybe it would be easier to make a list between rights and [as medcalf mentioned] privileges?

 

[please pass the duct tape again. thanks!]

 

 

That's what he was getting at, defining rights vs. privileges, or I would add items of public good.

 

Too many people throw the terminology around without clear, thoughtful definitions. It's hard to have a debate under those circumstances. And it is what the OP asked.

 

His definition is that a right is something that the government cannot *give* us, and that cannot rest on infringing someone else's right.

 

So whatever you want to do with what you think is *good* for the public, and *ought* to be done ... well, those might be rights, but they might not. Must health care be a right? Can some system of universal health care not be gained, unless we call healthcare a *right*?

[lionfamily1999]

How much of a "right" is a mandate anyway?

 

I have the right to vote. Doesn't mean I have to. I have the right to own a gun, but I don't have to.

 

What other right are we required to exercise?

 

How much of a "right" is it, if it is required? Do we consider paying taxes a "right?"

[Peek a Boo]

Just to clarify, since you used my post, it wasn't directed at you but at Trolly McTrollykins up there.

 

ftr, i know for a fact that medcalf is not a troll. In fact, they seem to be the only one actually attempting to answer the question. ;)

 

American "rights," as defined by the Constitution, are inalienable, they are basic human rights than cannot be taken away. You cannot separate them if you actually believe in the idea of the Constitution.

 

sure. and this is a board where not everyone agrees with our Constitution. :)

which is why i directed the discussion about RIGHTS, not just the Constitution, altho some are perfectly fine sharing that they agree with that definition. I'm not looking for a minion-fest: I'm trying to see what people consider a BASIC HUMAN right, since the term seems to be applied to many different things these days.

Did you want to have a discussion about slavery at the time of the founding of the US or no? I can't tell.

nope. I'm trying to see what people consider basic rights, regardless of specific issues. I personally do not consider the Constitution or Supreme Court to be a reputable basis for defining rights since they both have crossed lines and refused to acknowledge what I would consider BASIC HUMAN rights. But others disagree. Thus the OP.

Most cultures have taboos (even where are there are no "laws") about stealing, about murdering someone and so forth. There is punishment of one form or another for breaking taboos in most cultures. Cultures without Western influence don't necessarily have the concept of "rights" but that doesn't mean that they don't have rights or that taboos protecting person or property do not exist.

YES!! THIS!! that's the type of BASIC rights discussion I'm looking for! even if they aren't TERMED "rights," the concept is recognized as such [almost?] universally.

No, I don't...or at least not in the manner suggested. There is a hint there that we shouldn't have to extend certain "privileges" to some groups, depending upon our own bias against said groups.

 

but that's just it: we aren't talking about what one group does or does not consider a privilege, and we are not talking about whether certain privileges should be granted [completely different discussion], but boiling the perspective down to what is a BASIC HUMAN right. Discussing what we consider a right does not exclude the granting of privileges, but it does put things in a rational light and offers that defining of terms mentioned above.

 

and it is precisely because some people try to take one issue and form a definition of "basic rights" around IT that I'm trying to get a feel for what some consider BASIC rights, regardless the issue. THAT's why I won't even discuss slavery, because it's a single issue that deals with the APPLICATION OF basic rights, not a matter of rights in and of itself.

 

hope that helps clarify the scope and intent of the thread. :)

[lionfamily1999]

Peek, it's a difficult question. I mean, I think we all have the basic right to live our lives as we wish, as long as it does not intrude on other people's lives. But, isn't that a problem? How specific can you get? The more specific you get the more examples you can come up with of where that right does not exist.

 

The right to live. Well, unless you use your life to destroy other lives, or you're incapable of speaking for yourself, or you're not really living by the scientific definition of it, or....

 

Well then, the right to live your life as you wish. Unless that includes any other person, or even ignoring other people.

 

The right to worship as you see fit... unless it includes sacrifices of anything other than yourself, and even then if the sacrifice of yourself affects others...

 

I don't know that we have any basic human rights that are on an individual level. It all hinges too much on everyone else.

 

Or maybe that is just me :p

[Mrs Mungo]

but that's just it: we aren't talking about what one group does or does not consider a privilege, and we are not talking about whether certain privileges should be granted [completely different discussion], but boiling the perspective down to what is a BASIC HUMAN right. Discussing what we consider a right does not exclude the granting of privileges, but it does put things in a rational light and offers that defining of terms mentioned above.

 

and it is precisely because some people try to take one issue and form a definition of "basic rights" around IT that I'm trying to get a feel for what some consider BASIC rights, regardless the issue. THAT's why I won't even discuss slavery, because it's a single issue that deals with the APPLICATION OF basic rights, not a matter of rights in and of itself.

 

hope that helps clarify the scope and intent of the thread. :)

 

I think the most basic human right is the right to do whatever you want, as long as you aren't hurting anyone else. Other than that, rights and duties will vary according to what type of society you live in.

[Mama Lynx]

How much of a "right" is a mandate anyway?

 

I have the right to vote. Doesn't mean I have to. I have the right to own a gun, but I don't have to.

 

What other right are we required to exercise?

 

How much of a "right" is it, if it is required? Do we consider paying taxes a "right?"

 

 

Voting is a privilege, I would say.

 

I"d say that you're never required to exercise a right. I'm not required to live. I'm not required to defend myself and my property. BUt I have the right to do so.

[Mama Lynx]

ftr, i know for a fact that medcalf is not a troll. In fact, they seem to be the only one actually attempting to answer the question. ;)

 

 

 

 

LOL, he's just a poor homeschooling dad who managed to get sucked into this question his first time on the boards, and it's a pet interest of his.

 

Not a troll. He'll be back.

[HollyinNNV]

I fail to see how having nine tyrants is better than having one.

I totally agree.

[Mrs Mungo]

I totally agree.

 

 

Explain how SCOTUS in any way fits the definition of the word, or even the spirit of the word "tyrant."

[Spy Car]

Explain how SCOTUS in any way fits the definition of the word, or even the spirit of the word "tyrant."

 

Well, there was the coup they pulled off in 2000 :D

 

Bill

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, there was the coup they pulled off in 2000 :D

 

Bill

 

:tongue_smilie:;)

[LibraryLover]

the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were 3/5 of a person, so their legal opinion doesn't offer much credibility in the "basic rights" dept unless everyone agrees that slavery is perfectly ok. The Supreme Court is designed to rule about the U.S.Constitution, not determine basic rights]

 

Not to nitpick (lol) but the Supreme Court did not rule on the 3/5 compromise. It was written into Article 1 of the Constitution, so this was actually all of our Founding Fathers agreeing that slavery was perfectly ok. And let's not get into Thomas Jefferson's sex life!

 

Having said that, the first sentence of the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity..."

 

For all its faults, the rhetoric of the Constitution offers its citizens a level playing field. With so many coming into the world without healthcare, without a home, how can we say the promise of America's *basic* human rights is realized for all of its citizens? We have to perpetuate a system that gives every citizen a real CHANCE to pull him/herself up by their bootstraps. The basic concept behind human rights, imo, is null until everyone gets a fair shot.

Edited January 6, 2010 by LibraryLover

[LibraryLover]

Well, there was the coup they pulled off in 2000 :D

 

Bill

 

Yeah, I love how the justices who were always in favor of states' rights magically ruled in favor of the federal government. :tongue_smilie:

[helena]

basic rights as in born in any time any place, and I could manage from the following.. I would say

 

the right to life, that the people around me honor life and the possibility of the good my life might bring. As in don't sacrifice me, don't rape me for an AIDS cure, don't abort me or suffocate me when you find out I'm a girl.

 

dignity as in where ever when ever I am born, through my self respect I earn the right to be treated with dignity.

 

the right to justice in what ever form that takes according to when and where I happened to have been born.

 

I have the embarrassing feeling I don't understand the question..:blushing:

I don't think even basic rights are as concrete of a thing as we'd like to think they are, in the US for example, your rights might disappear real quick if the country was majorly rocked by say a natural disaster, or attacks on our soil. How much would it take to bring down our concept of respecting each others rights? Think of Katrina.. in a couple of days, people were floating dead in the streets, abandoned to survive on their own and crime left unchecked. I think rights are only as helpful as the collective people around you who are on the same page. What good is written rights if chaos breaks out. Or if you're born in a time or place where people are to ignorant or wicked to care about your human rights. I think it's a concept worth working for (obviously), but I think it's been a luxury in the big picture of human beings.

 

I also honestly don't understand the "I have the right to do what I want as long as it doesn't bother anyone" thinking. Something doesn't work for me there... I keep thinking of all the ways that could be interpreted like "I have loads of sex with loads of people, I'm discreet with willing parties, what's the problem?" I think people walk a slippery slope on that one. I want to work towards excellence as a human being, my life is short, I don't think that's the wisest approach, I think there are better guide lines out there.

 

like I said I could be way off understanding what you all are talking about here :leaving:

[asta]

but that's just it: we aren't talking about what one group does or does not consider a privilege, and we are not talking about whether certain privileges should be granted [completely different discussion], but boiling the perspective down to what is a BASIC HUMAN right. Discussing what we consider a right does not exclude the granting of privileges, but it does put things in a rational light and offers that defining of terms mentioned above.

 

 

Air (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.)

Water

Food

Shelter (does not have to be a house: it can be a place giving temporary respite from bad weather)

 

We take the Bear Grylls approach in this house.

 

 

a

[Margaret in GA]

Air (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.)

Water

Food

Shelter (does not have to be a house: it can be a place giving temporary respite from bad weather)

 

We take the Bear Grylls approach in this house.

 

 

a

 

So, should the government provide these for you? Since they are rights? I have to say they are doing a poor job of it.

 

I think 'rights' is too broad a category to define in this thread.

 

Margaret

[asta]

So, should the government provide these for you? Since they are rights? I have to say they are doing a poor job of it.

 

I think 'rights' is too broad a category to define in this thread.

 

Margaret

 

Nope.

[Murphy101]

So, should the government provide these for you? Since they are rights? I have to say they are doing a poor job of it.

 

I think 'rights' is too broad a category to define in this thread.

 

Margaret

 

No. A right does not equal an entitlement from others.

I have a right to freedom, to express that freedom via art, belief, print and speech. I do not have a right to demand another fund or assist me.

I have the right to protect my family. I do not have the right to make others buy me the means to do so.

 

I have the right to live.

 

How I live is dependent on hard work or charity.

I do not believe govt to be a charitible institution.

[Mrs Mungo]

So, should the government provide these for you? Since they are rights? I have to say they are doing a poor job of it.

 

I think 'rights' is too broad a category to define in this thread.

 

Margaret

 

Nope.

 

But can government restrict it and in what ways, if it's a right. I think that's the bigger question.

 

Can you sleep in a tent on public land? Can you sleep in an abandoned building?

[Margaret in GA]

No. A right does not equal an entitlement from others.

I have a right to freedom, to express that freedom via art, belief, print and speech. I do not have a right to demand another fund or assist me.

I have the right to protect my family. I do not have the right to make others buy me the means to do so.

 

I have the right to live.

 

How I live is dependent on hard work or charity.

I do not believe govt to be a charitible institution.

 

 

Do you have a right to be protected by your government? I mean, is having a working local police force a right? Is having The National Guard a right? There are so many degrees of "rights". It's not all a black and white issue.

[Murphy101]

Do you have a right to be protected by your government? I mean, is having a working local police force a right? Is having The National Guard a right? There are so many degrees of "rights". It's not all a black and white issue.

 

No to all of the above for the purpose of this conversation.

 

Now, if I pay for something, that does give me entitlement to it. You buy a car, you have the title to it.

 

But I would not consider it a basic right of everyone.

 

There is an exchange or agreement being mutually made. I am entitled to have that honored.

 

So if I pay taxes for roads, I have a reasonable entitlement to my expectation that roads will in fact be created. I likewise have reasonable entitlement to outrage if instead TPTB decide to spend it in other ways. I am then entitled to decide I won't vote or otherwise give funds for roads until I feel the agreement will be honored.

 

Do I expect my govt to protect our country? To a rather small degree.

 

Rather I expect that if citizens have the right to protect themselves, they will likewise seek to protect their country. And if they cannot or will not, then do they have any reason to feel entitled to keep their country entact?

[Margaret in GA]

No to all of the above for the purpose of this conversation.

 

Now, if I pay for something, that does give me entitlement to it. You buy a car, you have the title to it.

 

But I would not consider it a basic right of everyone.

 

There is an exchange or agreement being mutually made. I am entitled to have that honored.

 

So if I pay taxes for roads, I have a reasonable entitlement to my expectation that roads will in fact be created. I likewise have reasonable entitlement to outrage if instead TPTB decide to spend it in other ways. I am then entitled to decide I won't vote or otherwise give funds for roads until I feel the agreement will be honored.

 

Do I expect my govt to protect our country? To a rather small degree.

 

Rather I expect that if citizens have the right to protect themselves, they will likewise seek to protect their country. And if they cannot or will not, then do they have any reason to feel entitled to keep their country entact?

 

It's a slippery slope to start handpicking where your tax dollars go. There are simply some things we must do as a whole nation and cannot accomplish individually. Government protection is one of them. We can't just have Minutemen any more. Not when other countries have intelligence and technology that we'll need to keep up with. Now, personally I'd have liked a vote on whether or not to go to war with Afganistan/Iraq, but that's a whole other discusssion.

[Parrothead]

We can't just have Minutemen any more.

But we do. The modern 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard. There are also various State statutes (Arizona's defines the state militia to include women as well as men).

[lionfamily1999]

Voting is a privilege, I would say.

 

I"d say that you're never required to exercise a right. I'm not required to live. I'm not required to defend myself and my property. BUt I have the right to do so.

Then health care, as the present Pres. of the US sees it, is not a right.

But can government restrict it and in what ways, if it's a right. I think that's the bigger question.

 

Can you sleep in a tent on public land? Can you sleep in an abandoned building?

That's the problem with saying what is a basic human right. There are exceptions to everything considered a right. So, is it really a right? If there's limitations involved, or restrictions, or mandates, is it still a right, or another burden?

[Murphy101]

It's a slippery slope to start handpicking where your tax dollars go. There are simply some things we must do as a whole nation and cannot accomplish individually. Government protection is one of them. We can't just have Minutemen any more. Not when other countries have intelligence and technology that we'll need to keep up with. Now, personally I'd have liked a vote on whether or not to go to war with Afganistan/Iraq, but that's a whole other discusssion.

 

Slippery slope to what?

 

Taxes are an agreement btw the common populace and TPTB for a united goal. Be it roads, communication, or protection from invaders. If at some point the taxes (the money taken) is miss used and the populace no longer feels the institution is either no longer honorable in that taking or benefiting the common person in an area or as a whole, then why would those people continue to permit their funds be taken?

 

If I must pay a man to pave my road and we have an amicable agreement to such, yet my road is not paved - am I unjust in refusing to pay him again fir that? Yes, he might also work as a security guard and be doing very well in that capacity, but I still should expect my road to be paved and he should not expect me to be willing to seek his services for that again.

 

Why is govt different?

 

Taxes are not just about govt meeting common society needs.

 

I do not view minute men and a nat'l military as either or.

In fact I feel strongly that to be truely protected we must have both.

And given that so far our military is voluntary, I don't see a huge difference.

They both seek to protect their country/family/home.

 

Btw I was not saying that my refusal means I see no value to roads.

Obviously I do or I wouldn't have wanted the road to begin with.

But I do think that govt these days is not much different than businesss, you have to speak with your vote/wallet.

[Margaret in GA]

But we do. The modern 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard. There are also various State statutes (Arizona's defines the state militia to include women as well as men).

 

You miss my meaning. What I am saying is that we can't just turn back the clock and use only Minutemen. We need an organized military that can defend us against modern warfare. What I'm saying is that we can't just be individuals like we were when this country was set up. When we might be invaded by guys with muskets. Not full blown air power and goodness knows what else. There are things we can't defend against with just a guy and a gun like Minutemen of the 18th century. This defense requires tanks, jets, whatever. I am using this as an example of why we need taxes. We cannot individually provide for ourselves in many cases. It requires a bigger pool of money. I can't be in charge of paving my own road. This is a modern-era. It requires a pooling of resources. For better or worse.