How do you delegate a right which you do not have?

0 votes

Do you have the 'right' or the authority to tax your neighbors? No. Then how can you claim to delegate that 'right' to government?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is not rocket science.

This is not rocket science. The constitution was the vehicle that delegated that power. Even before that, the states created their own constitutions. And local governments had similar provisions I imagine. More than that, the British government was taxing. So do i have the right to tax another individual? No. But do I and a collection of other people logically think through and agree for the existence of an entity to maintain order and thus unavoidably agree that that entity needs funding? Yes. So the power is delegated to government through the consent of the people. The constitution was created. It was then ratified by the states and thus by the people of thus states. That is how.

Now you wanna get into an issue of whether people actually ratified it because of the way it actually was, that's a different story. To the origin of taxation and whether it should have been created in the first place is another issue as well. But technically the answer is in this country through the creation of the constitution (both federal and state), the power to tax was created and agreed upon.

You're right, it's not rocket science. So why don't you get it?

YOU do not have the right to tax anyone. How do YOU claim a right to consent to delegate the 'right' which YOU do not have to government?

You are completely and utterly wrong and woefully

ignorant. If you have not read "The Creature...", please do so. Please know that taxation of income, i.e., theft of property, is not a right. The Constitution is clear on what the government may tax and how...and it does not include income--property derived from the free exercise of labor...

As you know, the passage of the Fed in 1913--possible only through the vote of three senators--was the vehicle by which the government illegally turned over the sovereignty of this nation and its citizens to a banking cabal. And, as I am sure you know, the 17th Amendment passed in April of 1913 represented the means by which the states abdicated their responsibility to keep an eye on the federal government. That the people in the states permitted their legislatures to undermine republican government in this way reflects their ignorance and laziness and abdication of their responsibility as citizens in this republic.

You are completely wrong that a right to the theft of individual property exists anywhere in any form--whether people "vote" on it directly or indirectly!

VERY good i'm with you..AS I

VERY good i'm with you..AS I said before Socialism is forced taxation , Capitalism is shared voluntary taxation, if you think it through.
The perverted USE of taxation is the problem.
YES, good people do good things.. The rest are liars.

You have no idea what I'm

You have no idea what I'm saying. You are perverting my comments with bullshit. I could care less about this right or that right. The issue is taxation exists. And taxation exists because government exists and it thus needs to be funded. That's it. You can jerk off all you want on the subject. The issue is government needs funding and thus we have taxes. Go rant and scream all you want. Nobody is going to agree with this because it is wrong. Taxes NEED to exist. Unless you are going to magically create a government run purely by volunteers, you are going to need taxes. And aside from part time reps and what not, that aint gonna happen, and it definitely aint gonna happen anytime soon.

And as for the constitution, the original document says direct taxes are allowed so i don't know what you're talking about. And I don't mean the dreaded 16th amendment.

Most of us disagree with taxes. How many people do you.....

.......know that beg to be taxed? This is what we are against, taxation without representation. So who is this you are complaining about delegating a 'right' to government? Our government used to get money from duties on imports, but we had a much smaller government back then. This is what many of us who support Dr. Paul stand for. Why do you accuse us of things no one has done?
Don't you have anything better to do? What are you going to falsely accuse people of next?

How do you delegate the 'right' to tax imports?

When you don't have it yourself?

And you're not standing against the issues I raise, you're promoting them. Don't you have anything better to do than promote and perpetuate a lie?

none, I share your frustration

If we have a citizenry confused or virtually ignorant of what constitutes a right (see below), we're screwed and we have been...

I had this very discussion with a friend recently who leans left (I know, you're shocked...I live in MA...someone who leans left...?) Anyway, I asked the question in the context of theft...always a good one...which led to taxation. She thought that we could delegate that "right" to theft (tax) to the government...but if I don't have the right to take your property from you, how can I transfer a right that I do not have to the government or anyone else? Because the mind of a liberal is so clogged with illogic and excuse-making for the use of force, she then went on to describe how we have an army to protect us and we delegate that to others...I let her go and on...and then simply said that since WE have a right to individual self-defense, we also have a right to form groups that can do the same for groups of individuals...etc., etc.

And the haze started to lift from her eyes...slowly...like, oh, yeah, that makes sense...

I love this thread, BTW, none. But again, to think that as a nation that supposedly represents individual rights and liberty we have to absolutely start at ground zero explaining what a "right" is vs. a privilege, etc., holy crap, are we screwed!

Thanks! I think most people are generally pretty decent.

And I'll agree that it's really difficult to illustrate the truth to most people in a manner that doesn't stimulate some type of programmed emotional response.

Keep seeking the truth, keep seeking liberty. ;-)

Whoever said taxation was the delegation of a right?

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...

If it's not delegated by 'the people' it's simply declared then

If the people don't have that right to delegate to government, then the government simply must have declared it for themselves.

Call it what you like but

Call it what you like but answer the question where does government get the authority/right/power/gumption/cajones/gall/nerve/balls etc. to tax folks?

-----
Get Prepared!
Only dead fish go with the flow...

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Well, when we acquiesce...

to government demands we imply consent. This happens so much and so often that it has become habit and common. The government has the balls to tax because we, the People, have no balls to deny consent. We are not exercising our Liberty, we are derelict in our duty.

That's where it comes from - school yard tactics.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

Giving up your money to a

Giving up your money to a thief does not imply consent. I implies coercion at the threat of violence.

-----
End The Fat
59 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

If you decide to...

defend yourself against the thief then you'd claim self defense. You ALWAYS have a choice, and therefore you always face the need to consent either to circumstance or Liberty. You can resist violent coersion or you can cave into it only by personal choice. Do not tell me that falling into line under threat of violent force makes you a victim. No, falling into line under threat of force is you consenting to keep your physical safety at the expense of your natural Liberty. You constantly pick and choose your battles, and only YOU make that choice. We have a tendency to blame our choices and path on others and on exterior curcumstances when we should look to the mirror to see the individual responsible for all our own choices. You may consent to the thief to salvage our physical safety, but the thief has simply provided a circumstance where in you are free to exercise or hamstring your own Liberty.

How can you blame another for your own choice to renounce your natural rights?

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

coercion makes you free?

You said: "...but the thief has simply provided a circumstance where in you are free to exercise or hamstring your own Liberty.

If you exercise your liberty, as you say, and resist an armed thief, what happens to your liberty when you get shot?

What if you are in a position where you don't have the choice to defend against an aggressor?

What if the aggressor puts you in a cage where you are not able to fight or escape?

Are you still free?

Do your physical and mental/spiritual...

circumstances have to coincide for you to be free? If you resist a thief and are shot, does that lessen your liberty any more than giving in to his coersion? What if you have to suspend your physical freedom but continue your mental and spiritual freedom, what then is truly caged. Liberty is not only an aspect of physical freedom, rather I believe that it finds its first roots in the mind and spirit. What do you lose in physical enslavement if you keep your mental Liberty? What do you keep physically if you lose your mental Liberty? One may suffer the pains of physical confinement and still reap the rewards of mental and spiritual freedom. But, to forefiet your spiritual and mental Liberty for physical gain is indeed the withering of the root of Liberty.
Freedom has many definitions on multiple levels, and all of us here, I suspect, want all of those levels to reflect an equal balance of both physical and mental/spiritual freedom, but this is no ideal world. You may lose a fight for physical freedom; sometimes the opposition is greater than you can ever be and they may simply take your physical Liberty, but only you can surrender your mental and spiritual Liberty.
What is Liberty? Is it an idea? Is it an action? I think that it, like sovereignty must first be recognized to exist before it can be claimed. One must first claim Liberty in mind and soul, before proper action can be taken to exercise it. Those who oppose us may stay the latter exercise (although that is for history to tell), but if we can first plant the mental and spiritual seed of Liberty, the hidden root may grow unhindered until such time as action is both inevitable and unstopable.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

Delegate A Right

The way you delegate a right you do not have, or assume a right that you do not have, is to dumb down the public. This has been done through the public schools and the mass media.

For example, when politicians wanted to discourage the use and possession of certain types of firearms in the Thirties, it was widely known that the federal government did not have the authority to ban them outright. All Washington could do was to tax them. And that is the reason for a transfer tax on automatic weapons.

Today, most Americans have little understanding of the Constitution. Most think that government can do whatever it wants. And so they submit to usurpations of power.

Washington creates agencies and department that deal in areas that are prohibited by the Constitution, for example energy and education. Then these departments and agencies write regulation which is supposed to be law, even though the Constitution says that ALL legislative power is in the hands of Congress.

So there you have it. We are being enslaved by our own ignorance.

What Are Rights?

Maybe we should define them before we try to delegate them.

Try answering the question I posed

I'm not in the mood to play in the mud.

How can you allow government to do something on your behalf which you can not do legally yourself?

you cant!! BUT! Congress

you cant!!

BUT! Congress DOES have the authority to tax "income" from the District of Columbia. This is often from the performance of the functions of a public office. If you ACTUALLY read Title 26 of the USC, you will see that there is nothing unconstitutional about it. It ONLY allows a tax on "INCOME" which is money from being engaged in a "trade or business"
What is a "trade or business"?
[remember "include" means only when used in law]
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0...
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

who is a taxpayer? Surely the definition of "Taxpayer" says "All Americans who earn money" right?
(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

So that means ONLY people who are subject to a tax are taxpayers....

Then why do they treat us as if we reside in the District of Columbia?/??
Is it because we claim to be "citizens of the United States"?
(39) Persons residing outside United States
If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

http://www.sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/WhyAN...

None's question?

Clarify: What's your question? Is it "Can people delegate authority to government?"

Anarchist Answer: Sure, so long as that government authority is only exercised upon those that delegated it.

Objectivist Answer: Only so long as that government power does not infringe on anyone's valid rights (rights that place no claim on another).

Libertarian Answer: Only so long as that government authority pertains to the enforcement of voluntary contracts and property rights.

Utilitarian Answer: Yes if that authority increases the general welfare.

Darwinist answer: Yes, if that government is strong enough to pull it off.

I choose the Libertarian Answer.

Theft is wrong no matter what hat or badge the thief is wearing.

Here's a video I shared on a similar thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAY_hHGKL4M

I believe people that don't want their money to be stolen should be able to opt out of the services they are supposed to be paying for, and the government monopoly of services should be shared with free market competition.

REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce

Jay Helfeld rocks!

I began me down a path towards Murray Rothbard, Von Mises and Lew Rockwell with that video, it caused me to question so many preconceived notions, I reluctantly associate myself with the AC's because it's such a misconceived notion, it's the kind of group that the taxers love to demonize, of course, if there were more Rothbards, then we would all realize we really don't need taxers.

Great post, glad you made the front page, I've been trying to chime in on this topic as it seems that there are many in this group that would like to rinse away the any idea that there is no legitimate function of government by force.

REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce

And to think Richardson ran for president...

I swear Democrats as a whole simply do not know right from wrong.

And they always end the conversations as soon as they are presented with facts and logic.

Notice how he said "I have to go now" when he was hit with the truth.

Truth and logic simply can't be argued against.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

If wise men decline [public service]...

others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not." - Jon Adams

REP Freedom Force
http://www.youtube.com/user/repfreedomforce

Democracy IS Socialism

The majority defines "rights" and "morality" in a mob rule...er uh...democracy.

Taxation was not considered

Taxation was not considered a right to be given ,.. It was a means to fulfill a responsibility....Your responsibility has been compromised by others wanting more than is reasonable to expect.
you-no

My fortune cookie says....

....taxation was a 'right' claimed by the government, for the government, to be carried out by the government. I have no responsibility to support thieves and murderers.

Your skillz are weak, oh writer of confectionery amusements.