Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is not an objective definition, and is wholly based upon subjectivity. Subjectivity cannot be reasonably used to "objectively" define anything.
It is an objective definition. If you asked every single ATS member to define ''freedom'', then every single member's answer would fall into the definition which I mentioned above.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
1. a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
In fact, ask any single human being, and their answer would still fall within the strict, objective parameters which I've outlined above.
Name one enumeration of power listed in the Constitution for the United States of America that grants government the authority to bar freedom.
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises etc.."
This grants the government the authority to restrict your freedom to own rightfully acquired property. Basically, it the power to steal (thats what taxes are).
Originally posted by Leftist
With this thread I would like to make two points:
1) "Freedom" as an ideological value is usually very poorly defined in any given argument that pushes for it.
2) When it is defined, it is usually given excessive, almost mystical importance.
edit on 5/30/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)
Taxation is not theft. Insisting on having a government and refusing to pay for it would be theft.
Taking the property of others against their will is theft, denial of their right to property (or freedom to own). Period.
Your argument is like claiming stealing property of others is not theft as long as the thief substitutes it with something (does not matter that they dont want it). If I stole a car, and left the owner a bicycle, am I not a thief? How is stealing their money, and leaving them the government they may not want different?
If someone wants government, they can voluntarily pay for it, that would respect freedom and property rights. Taxes are not voluntary.
Taxation limits the "unalienable" right to property.
Taxing property is not taking property.
Stealing property is theft, your reification that taxation is theft is a lie. Taxing property is not stealing property.
All indirect taxes are voluntary
Anyone who wants to own property can, and further Congress very rarely taxes property anyway. I asked you to show me an enumerated power with in the federal Constitution that denies freedom. This is the best you can do?
Then from where the tax revenue comes from, if not from the property of the taxed? Let me guess, "nature". Of course all taxes by definition take property from the taxed.
The court, fully recognizing in the passage which we have previously quoted the all embracing character of the two great classifications, including, on the one hand, direct taxes subject to apportionment, and on the other, excises, duties, and imposts subject to uniformity
This is clearly incorrect. Try to refuse to pay indirect taxes, and see what happens. There is nothing voluntary in coercion.
Besides, Constitution allows also for direct (income) tax. Not that there is any important difference between the two when it comes to whether they are voluntary and their effect on freedom. All taxes are involuntary, otherwise they would not be called taxes.
Its enough to show that Constitution indeed denies freedom and natural rights. If you cannot prove it incorrect, why go further?
Government no more takes property as theft than a grocery store takes property from you at the cash register, or a contractor takes property from you at the completion of a job and handing of a bill.
If a tax has been lawfully imposed, that tax is not theft.
If a tax is laid upon the manufacture of a yacht, and the manufacture passes that tax onto the buyer, the buyer has two options; purchase the yacht and pay the tax, or not purchase the yacht. If the buyer declines to purchase the yacht the tax was defeated. The same applies to tobacco, alcohol or any other indirect tax.
Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? What is your point with this remark?
The only thing you've shown is your vast ignorance of law, nothing more.
Originally posted by Maslo
The only system that fully respects natural rights completely is voluntary society (anarcho-capitalism).
In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.
The federal estate tax is collected on the transfer of a person's assets to his or her loved ones after death, and the total tax due is calculated by adding up the fair market values of all of the decedent's assets on the date of death and then applying estate tax credits and subtracting out allowable estate tax deductions.
Both direct and indirect taxes restrict freedom and natural rights. The only system that fully respects natural rights completely is voluntary society (anarcho-capitalism). If you are not an anarcho-capitalist, you already agree with some disparagement of rights.
You are still making excuses for the inexcusable. Trying to prove that taxation does not disparage property rights or economic freedoms is like squaring the circle, because thats the sole purpose of taxation.
Besides, why is there "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, instead of "property"?
The inheritors of property have a choice, and can decline the inheritance, just the same as you can decline to eat, or choose the grocery store of which you will eat at. No freedom has been denied by this or any other tax.
Which is it, Maslo? Are property rights disparaged, or are they not even a right? What is your point about the Declaration of Independence.
Your freedom to inherit property from your family has not been denied, simply taxed.
You have the choice to not pay that tax by simply declining the inheritance.
Your point about the Declaration of Independence does not disprove a damn thing I have said and it is only just more muddled nonsense from you. I have all ready stated that unalienable rights do not need to be enumerated by statute or constitution in order to exist.