Who has a RIGHT to the work of others?

I'd like an explaination of how one can have the 'right' of others to do work for them for free, or how you could have right to others paying for that work (via taxes, etc). Where in the US Constitution, or in any reasonable human dialog, does that come into reality. Help me understand it. Obviously, this dips deep into the notion of "free" healthcare. The problem is in all of my constitutional and libertarian wisdom I cant figure out how it is any individual has rights over the work and needed materials / products of others. Really, do we have a "right" to the fruits of taxes? This is a serious question.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Really, do we have a "right" to the fruits of taxes? This is a serious question.

are you insisting that the government doesn't give us anything in exchange for taxes?

It comes from living in a "democracy", where we agree to abide by the decisions of the majority - even when we disagree with those decisions.

All of us pay taxes for things we don't want, can't use, even vehemently oppose. Conscientious objectors' taxes are used to pay for wars. People without cars pay for roads. People without kids pay for schools. Greedy barstids who wouldn't give a nickel to their starving children, wind up having some of their taxes used for welfare. That's life in a democracy.

reply to post by chiron613


For one thing we dont live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. Secondly, taxes are a way of life, but no one has the right to pay taxes for someone else entirely to use. The opposing argument is "Well, you'd be using their taxes too". If that is the case, then why dont we all just keep the extra tax money we'd be dealing out for healthcare in the first place.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by radarloveguy]

reply to post by kingoftheworld


For one thing it's a DEMOCRATIC republic. (not the party)

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
reply to post by chiron613

 

For one thing we dont live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

For one thing republic is american english for democracy. Democracy is american english for "direct democracy", a concept that can only work in very small groups, and is not used in *any* democratic country in the world, including the US.

In the rest of the world "Republic" means that the head of state is elected, i.e. not a king, no more.

And to answer the question: Everybody who pays. A lot of people have come to the conclusion that it is a good idea to pool some money for services and goods they might need sometime, but not all the time. So while it's pretty impractical to pool money for ... say bread and buy bread for the whole town, it seems like a rather good idea to pool money to pay for the fire department.
Further questions?

[edit on 6-11-2009 by debunky]

Lord have mercy.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. It IS NOT a democracy. Below is one definition of the difference. Copied from one yahoo search and it was the first link www.c4cg.org...

DEMOCRACY:

* A government of the masses.
* Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
* Results in mobocracy.
* Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
* Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
* Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


REPUBLIC:

* Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
* Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
* A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
* Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
* Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
* Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Hugues de Payens]

You can argue definitions all day long but the fact is that our country has too many parasites.

Over 28% of the private income in this country comes from government handouts.

That's too damn much.

This country has lost the ability to discern the difference in what's right and what's legal.

A large portion of the occupants of the US are useless and a drain on every one elses livelihood.........most of them because they choose to be that way.

Nobody deserves to intentionally live as a parasite on society.

Understood and agreed 100%.


Keep progressives in power...of either party, and it will just get worse for the working person. There is no difference between a rep or dem anymore.

Originally posted by badgerprints
This country has lost the ability to discern the difference in what's right and what's legal.

A large portion of the occupants of the US are useless and a drain on every one elses livelihood.........most of them because they choose to be that way.

Nobody deserves to intentionally live as a parasite on society.

HERE HERE! HERE HERE!

The bill of no rights!

Fracking A

# ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.

More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

# ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended.

This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

# ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm.

If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

# ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing.

Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

# ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care.

That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government run health care.

# ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people.

If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

# ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others.

If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.

# ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.

We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

# ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job.

All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

# ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness.

Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

[edit on 11/6/2009 by endisnighe]

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


Well I guess we're going right for the concept of taxes themselves right up front.

Are you insisting that the government has the RIGHT to tax us however they see fit?

What percentage of the money they take actually comes back to us? Add up the national debt and it should become clear.

So back on point, how do you have the RIGHT to the work of others, and related tangible equipment?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


So then you're suggesting all of the following:

• No more highways
  
• No more city streets -- All roads will have to now be privately funded. This will mean you will be paying companies, like Proctor & Gamble, or some other Juggernaut of a business to use a road
  
• Police and Fire service go privatized. Lets hope you have a good credit record, else the cops will never show up at your house.
  
• No more disability benefits
  
• No more Post Office, Raid Road, Military, DMV, etc
  

Everything the government touches is paid for by taxes.

So please, before you say "Show me where in the constitution"

try to figure out exactly what it is you're arguing

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Are you insisting that the government has the RIGHT to tax us however they see fit?

That's what governments do.

Every where.

Since days long long ago (they talk about taxing in the bible ...)

Do we "LIKE" it?

no.

But we like our roads, bridges, and protection.


Don't be a hypocrite.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

So back on point, how do you have the RIGHT to the work of others, and related tangible equipment?

You don't. You have a right to life. That means if you're dying, they must help you. Why? Because the law says so.

You're the one who's all about law and the constitution.

The LAW says you do.

You may think you have found a "really good idea" For an argument in opposition of UHC - but if you take 2 seconds to stand back from yourself and look at what you're saying....you'll be laughing too

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Snarf]

My bank, mortgage company, phone company, fed and ex wife...

There are many people who get a good portion (if not all) of the tax money back via tax returns, who therefore, technically, get all the services for free.

For some, it's not such a bad deal. IMO

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."

- Grace Commission Report, Commissioned by Ronald Reagan, 1982, Presented to Congress January 12, 1984.


Income tax pays the interest on the debt the Federal Reserve creates out of thin air.

Roads are paid by fuel taxes.
Schools by property taxes.
Military by corporate income taxes.
Post offices by those stamps you buy to put on letters.




[edit on 7-11-2009 by 30_seconds]

I think this argument is a good one to have, that touches on real issues. As a person that acknowledges the constitution I also acknowledge the General Welfare clause of that constitution. However, our current leaders and past leaders have expanded the meaning of that clause to unprecedented levels. Teapot museums and scenic routes may all very well contribute to the general welfare, I'm quite certain this was not the intent of our founding fathers.

There is so many issues with our constitution being overlooked it is hard to start a debate on this issue alone. The root of all of our issues lies in fiat currency, which is directly against the constitution. If fiat currency was replaced with actual value currency then you can bet the spending would be reigned in immediately. Then as a country we could look at our wealth and decide collectively what we should fund and what we should not, what is considered beneficial to us all and what isn't.

When you can't print money, then you have to be responsible with it. Honestly, we are debating the wrong issue (albeit an important issue). I have a feeling even amongst conservatives that if we had a stable currency, and a budget with more than enough, things like housing, food, medical care might be an okay thing to fund providing everyone paying into it could access it.

reply to post by Hugues de Payens


Hehe. So your argument is that Democracy is Bad and (a) Republic is good?
Sorry mate, one is greek, the other latin, thats all there is. You are right now arguing that Cars don't run on petrol, they run on gas. And gas is a whole lot better than communist petrol!

As for the name:
IIRC one of the goals of the last Iraq War was to bring democracy to Iraq. Full name: "The Republic of Iraq" ... so i take it you guys invaded because Iraq wasn't communist enough? Whodha thunk...

A lot of the things that run under "Republic" in US colloquialisms are actually federalism. Funny enough: you don't even need a republic for federalism. (See European Feudalism)

Edit to add:
Don't get me wrong: You have every right in the world to call petrol gas. But if you claim that your car only runs on gas, and doesnt work with petrol, people will look at you funny. Sorry.

OT: As for the firedepartment: The US actually had that. Your insurance company gave you a badge you put on your house, and if the fire fighters didn't see the right one, they'd let it burn down. Highly highly highly impractical!
Even in rural regions a burning house can set fire to another one, if the wind is right. Old golden rule thing: your freedom ends where mine starts.

And one more edit: Man that site is great Hugues de Payens!

Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims and we need to understand what motivates them

Looks like reality got it wrong again when they founded IRA and ETA ...

[edit on 7-11-2009 by debunky]

[edit on 7-11-2009 by debunky]

Actually no that's not all there is. The constitutional republic is meant to protect those in the minority of any issue against the forced will of the majority. That's the difference, and the founders were smart enough to know that.