It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ReelView
What the world needs, most of all, is to claim their Natural Right and Kingly authority and thoroughly embrace the Golden Rule. Natural Law is not a belief or philosophy or idea it is nature and natural. Man has innate natural rights then man creates fictions known as contracts and constitutions to define the rules for fictions known as governments and fictions known as corporations and business and fictional activities between people. But man can not create "Rights" and man's creations such as government can not create "Rights" nor impose restrictions in contradiction to the Natural, "God" given inalienable rights. Man can use rationals to violate the Golden Rule but this is always 100% crime. Fraud i perpetrated by claiming "Government" can grant man rights that dictate to his natural freedom. The Fraud of appearing to "Grant a Right" is the same fraud as appearing to justify taking it away. It is always a criminal act.
Well... please define this natural right you speak of more exactly. I think that natural law, law before governments were created, was simple - "might makes right". Unfortunately, that is not enough in modern times, so we need governments to restrict and regulate this natural right. The question is, how much can we restrict and regulate to not commit injustice.
I believe that gun ownership has to be restricted by some basic conditions, like having your gun registered and having clean crime record. Because I dont think having a gun is a basic right, a right everyone has. So you are right, it is a restriction.
This is analogous to government enforcing that you have a driver license before you are granted a right to drive a car. Do you consider this a criminal act?
The way I see it, if you have a right, you need not pay for it. I.E., license fees, permit fees, taxes and regulations.
"The principle is invoked that one who accepts the benefit of a statute cannot be heard to question its constitutionality. Great Falls Manufacturing Co. v. Attorney General, 124 U.S. 581 , 8 S.Ct. 631; Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co., 244 U.S. 407 , 37 S.Ct. 609; St. Louis, etc., Co., v. George C. Prendergast Const. Co., 260 U.S. 469 , 43 S.Ct. 178."
“A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money.”
“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax’, and the two have been used interchangeable.Foster & C. Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412, 285 S.W. 570, 47 ALR 971. Whether a tax is characterized in a statute imposing it, as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.” .
"An excise tax is...a duty levied upon licenses to pursue certain trades or deal in certain commodities and upon official privileges." [Black v. State, 113 Wis. 205, 89 NW 522.]
“Legislature…cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege [Taxation West Key 53]…The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipt of income, is therefore, not a privilege that can be taxes.”