A question regarding the fundamental rights of man

[Dissipate]

Most people in the U.S. believe that individuals are born with inalienable rights. Most in the U.S. also believe the right to privacy is one of those inalienable rights in many contexts. Also, most believe that the free exchange of ideas is an inalienable right of man.

What I cannot figure out is why people cease applying the idea of the right to privacy and the right to free & peaceful exchange when it comes to things that are deemed to be items of wealth. If I tell someone a story or teach them a new idea I do not have to report this to the government, if I want to keep this exchange private I may do so as well (although this may be changing under the Patriot Act). However, once I give someone an item or object that supposedly has material value in a peaceful and lawful manner I am required to report this transaction to the government and if the law says, a portion of this exchange must be given to the government, or taxed away. This is an obvious statement by the government that peaceful exchange of items or ideas that are of material wealth are not an inalienable right and that such transactions are not allowed to be private.

Here comes the question: Do you believe that the right to free & peaceful exchange of goods and services is an inalienable right to man in which the government has no right to know about or tax, or do you believe that rights regarding exchange and privacy end when it comes to items or ideas that are considered to be material wealth?

If you do not believe that the free & peaceful exchange of goods and services is an inalienable right and such exchanges are subject to disruption through taxation and are subject to be known by a public entity (the government) please explain your reasons for why this is so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They aren't equivalent.

I can use similar logic. I believe in freedom of expression. Why does the government stop me from expressing myself? Why do you object? Maybe you don't. Maybe if I think freedom of expression extends to beating the crap out of you will let me. The government shouldn't stop me. Neither should you.

Face it, government serves the function that people refuse to do. A society who allows it's wealthy and powerful to gain more and more while the less affluent get less and less is doomed. Ask Marie Antoinette at the next séance. When the poor revolt, suddenly the government will look mighty attractive to the well off.

"Well make more money" is like saying "Let them eat cake". Not everyone is a rocket scientist, and if they were there are and always will be many more Walmart jobs than MD's or CEOs or any well paying job.

Government keeps order and provides for the common welfare. It isn't ideal, however given the propensity of those here to not help others, the need is very real.

Roads, public safety, all depend on govt, and that also calls for taxes. I do not like a great many things my govt. however becoming a Mexico or third world country does not benefit most. In the long run it doesnt even benefit the greedy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Excellent posing of the question and excellent response Winston.

It is unfortunate you both will be chastised as spewing blasphemy by said greedy that visit here.

 

[vi edit]

Taxes are the price you pay to live and play in a country as big and powerful as this.

And compared to many countries that are as developed as us, our taxes(both income and sales) are actually low compared to them.

 

[Siddhartha]

You are trying to rationalize not paying taxes. Someone has to pay for defense, national security, etc.

 

[Spencer278]

It was until the 16th amdentment.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
They aren't equivalent.

I can use similar logic. I believe in freedom of expression. Why does the government stop me from expressing myself? Why do you object? Maybe you don't. Maybe if I think freedom of expression extends to beating the crap out of you will let me. The government shouldn't stop me. Neither should you.

Face it, government serves the function that people refuse to do. A society who allows it's wealthy and powerful to gain more and more while the less affluent get less and less is doomed. Ask Marie Antoinette at the next séance. When the poor revolt, suddenly the government will look mighty attractive to the well off.

"Well make more money" is like saying "Let them eat cake". Not everyone is a rocket scientist, and if they were there are and always will be many more Walmart jobs than MD's or CEOs or any well paying job.

Government keeps order and provides for the common welfare. It isn't ideal, however given the propensity of those here to not help others, the need is very real.

Roads, public safety, all depend on govt, and that also calls for taxes. I do not like a great many things my govt. however becoming a Mexico or third world country does not benefit most. In the long run it doesnt even benefit the greedy.

Ok, so you are saying that free & peaceful exchange is not an unfettered right because government must exist, and government cannot exist without taxation. The problem with this thinking to me is that it is saying that our rights must be taken away in order to support a "greater good", and that in order to perpetuate this greater good our individual rights must be surpressed. I do not agree with this idea because I believe that government can exist in a form that would not make us go back to third world status, without having to surpress our right to free exchange and privacy. I wrote an essay about this before regarding a head tax.

Also, you talk about how government provides protection of private property and that we must pay for this protection. I agree that protection of private property is a vital role of government and it is one of the few things it can do to increase the wealth of the nation. Also, not just protection of private property but a medium of representation of that property, for instance deeds to houses and property etc. without the legal documents to indicate ownership of property economic exchange becomes difficult. Third world countries lack these two vital roles of government and that is why they are third world nations. In fact a man whose name escapes me at the moment wrote a book about this problem with developing countries.

However, the problem is that the government has not taxed an amount equal to that necessary to provide this protection and representation, it has taxed far far more. To me this is no different than a mafia boss going to someone's business and charging them for protection at gunpoint and taking more than the protection costs. Why must citizens pay an exorbitant amount for protection of private property? Why are citizens working for the government when the government should be working for them?

In any event the idea that good government can only exist as a product of the supression of free trade is false. Unfortunately, it could take centuries for us to realize this.

 

[SuperTool]

We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

Wrong, it is not that I do not want to pay taxes, it is that I question the fundamental philoshopical morality of the current tax system. If you wish to call my arguments lame, go ahead but please indicate the area in which my arguments break down for this is the ultimate way to truly show how lame they are. Simply stating that they are lame without showing exactly why or how serves no purpose.

Furthermore, I am currently not obligated to pay taxes since my current income is below the taxation threshold (except for FICA of course). I am exploring these issues because they apply to everyone.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

Wrong, it is not that I do not want to pay taxes, it is that I question the fundamental philoshopical morality of the current tax system. If you wish to call my arguments lame, go ahead but please indicate the area in which my arguments break down for this is the ultimate way to truly show how lame they are. Simply stating that they are lame without showing exactly why or how serves no purpose.

Furthermore, I am currently not obligated to pay taxes since my current income is below the taxation threshold (except for FICA of course). I am exploring these issues because they apply to everyone.

OK, what do you want? Do you want a consumption tax? Because I thought rightwingers were against consumption taxes with these gas tax ads they've been running against Kerry.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: SuperTool
We get it, you don't want to pay taxes. You don't have to keep coming up with these lame arguements.

Wrong, it is not that I do not want to pay taxes, it is that I question the fundamental philoshopical morality of the current tax system. If you wish to call my arguments lame, go ahead but please indicate the area in which my arguments break down for this is the ultimate way to truly show how lame they are. Simply stating that they are lame without showing exactly why or how serves no purpose.

Furthermore, I am currently not obligated to pay taxes since my current income is below the taxation threshold (except for FICA of course). I am exploring these issues because they apply to everyone.

OK, what do you want? Do you want a consumption tax? Because I thought rightwingers were against consumption taxes with these gas tax ads they've been running against Kerry.

No, I want a head tax. I used to be a proponent of the consumption tax until I realized that the consumption tax is supression of the right to free trade, just as an income tax is. I'm not a right winger, a right winger is someone who is an extreme conservative. This includes surpression of freedoms relating to social issues, which I'm against.

 

[MAW1082]

Some people don't believe in free markets, which is essentially what you are talking about here. Some people might even argue that one does not have a right to exchange anything of material value, because their basic economic principles prevent one person from signle-handedly posessing anything of value.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Some people don't believe in free markets, which is essentially what you are talking about here. Some people might even argue that one does not have a right to exchange anything of material value, because their basic economic principles prevent one person from signle-handedly posessing anything of value.

I understand that. However, this concept is absurd because it is in fact individuals themselves that make property have value. To say that no one can own something that has value is to deny them the right to own their own creation.

There are instances in which people should not have the right to their own creation and these include instances where that creation impedes upon the liberty of others. For instance if I created a toxic chemical in my home that harms the health of people in my surrounding neighborhood. However, to say that one cannot own their own creation which does not impede upon others' liberty is quite ridiculous. Also, this is not to say that people should be allowed to "own" other human beings including their offspring because humans are individuals with rights of their own and ownership of a person impedes upon their rights.

 

[MAW1082]

I agree with you on the fact that one should not be allowed to harm other individuals . . . classic liberal ideas. As long as "it" does not hurt another person in any way, there should be nothing prohibiting "it."

However, where one might disagree with you is this:
In a deal made between two people in a free market, doesn't one of the two people usually get the better of the deal. In order for a deal to occur, one participant must make a profit. So in response to your comment on how one individual may not impede the upon the rights of another, I ask you to expand that theory into the realm of economics.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
I agree with you on the fact that one should not be allowed to harm other individuals . . . classic liberal ideas. As long as "it" does not hurt another person in any way, there should be nothing prohibiting "it."

However, where one might disagree with you is this:
In a deal made between two people in a free market, doesn't one of the two people usually get the better of the deal. In order for a deal to occur, one participant must make a profit. So in response to your comment on how one individual may not impede the upon the rights of another, I ask you to expand that theory into the realm of economics.

Ok, I will. Trade is mutually beneficial, the idea that one profits at another's expense in free trade is simply untrue, and I will explain why. It has to do with a very important concept in economics known as the Law of Marginal Utility. People have ends or desires and they seek means to attain those ends. If I have a high marginal utility for a horse and you have a high marginal utility for fish and we both trade, me giving you fish and you giving me a horse we have enabled each other to obtain means to ends that we were not able to attain otherwise. I will quote a part of an essay that I am working on regarding taxation. In free markets and voluntary exchange one may make a profit but it certainly is not at the expense of those who they traded with, because they are profiting themselves.

The reason why the free markets for goods are so efficient is because they are in direct relationship with the rankings of ends of individuals whom desire those goods as means to ends. Since free markets are merely the expressions of individuals? rankings of ends those markets will always reflect the rankings of those ends as closely as possible. It is through the rankings of these ends that equilibrium prices are formed and trade commences. When individuals in a free market trade they are merely giving up goods that have lower marginal utility for goods that have higher marginal utility. When they trade with someone else that individual is doing the same and this is why trade is mutually beneficial. When individuals trade, they obtain means to ends that have a higher marginal utility than the means that they gave up, this generates wealth, and since every individual involved in this trade does this at the same time wealth is constantly being created through free trade. This shatters the myth that the economy is a fixed pie that is divided up amongst individuals most able to grab a slice.1

1. The shattering of the ?fixed pie? myth does not preclude the fact that individuals have varying degrees of abilities to obtain means to ends in the free market. However, the fact that the economy is not a ?fixed pie? means that an individual can increase their own wealth without decreasing another individual?s total wealth or means to acquire wealth.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Most people in the U.S. believe that individuals are born with inaliable rights

First off, i don't know what "inaliable rights" are. I tried to look it up in the dictionary, and it's not in there. If you meant inalienable rights, that just means rights that can't be taken away from you. The only "rights" you are born with in the U.S. are those innumerated by the Constitution, and it's amendments, and the laws derived from it by the congress, as interpreted by the courts, at this time. If that doesn't make you nervous...it should. By the way, that's also the answer to your question.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Here comes the question: Do you believe that the right to free & peaceful exchange of goods and services is an inalienable right to man in which the government has no right to know about or tax, or do you believe that rights regarding exchange and privacy end when it comes to items or ideas that are considered to be material wealth?

If you do not believe that the free & peaceful exchange of goods and services is an inalienable right and such exchanges are subject to disruption through taxation and are subject to be known by a public entity (the government) please explain your reasons for why this is so.

many here advocate the redistribution of wealth in the name of "fairness". it sounds like a good idea the only problem is it never works.

they are in favor of siezing the "wealth" of those who dared make successes of themselves and give it to those who the goverment deem to "need" it...idealogically they refer to the poor, in reality it winds up in the hands of the government...or more accurately those who control the government.

the reason being is that in order for the government to be able to sieze and redistribute the "wealth" it must control/own the sources of wealth, this is why socialism/communism advocates the absolution of private property, government ownership of major industries, banking and credit institutions. you will not find a more intrusive(and obusive) government that disdains the right of the individual as is found in socialistic governments.

many harp on "the rich" who oppress the poor and point to socialism as a better way than individualism. and there are some of the "rich" that behave this way, however when it comes to objective reality(and yes reality is objective) a government controls all the wealth, all the industry, has all the power and those in government soon realize the control they have...and use it. when government becomes this powerful the individual only has rights that the government chooses to give them, thus rights are no longer inalienable but a tool of government control...mostly to curb opposition to it.

taxes...here are some historical quotes on them plus other things showing just how out of touch the left really is.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -Thomas Jefferson

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."-Thomas Jefferson

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-Thomas Jefferson


"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income."-Benjamin Franklin

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."-Benjamin Franklin

"Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it."-George Washinton

"The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience" -- Albert Camus

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."-Alexander Tyler


"For in a Republic, who is "the country?" Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant--merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." --Mark Twain


"The point to remember is that what the government gives, it must first take away." --John S. Coleman

Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so. --Frank Chodorov

The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery. --Winston Churchill

 

[MAW1082]

First off, I suggest that you provide a reference for that quotation. (i.e the source)

In response, you provide an interesting analysis of free trade; however, it is extremely simplified in relation to today's economy. I've taken college economics courses, so I understand these most basic concepts of trade of certain types of capital.

Obviously the "fixed pie" theory can be disputed on many more grounds than simply by your narrow analysis, which I actually find to be quite incorrect.

Wealth cannot be created during trade. Wealth can only be created through the use of capital. The idea of Marginal Utility being compared to the creation of wealth is ridiculous. Sure I have more use for a shovel than a bikini, but trading a bikini for a shovel doesn't create anything. It is simply the movement of capital, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is . . .

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Most people in the U.S. believe that individuals are born with inaliable rights

First off, i don't know what "inaliable rights" are. I tried to look it up in the dictionary, and it's not in there. If you meant inalienable rights, that just means rights that can't be taken away from you. The only "rights" you are born with in the U.S. are those innumerated by the Constitution, and it's amendments, and the laws derived from it by the congress, as interpreted by the courts, at this time. If that doesn't make you nervous...it should. By the way, that's also the answer to your question.

You can put any law on the books that you want, this does not necessarily mean that what you put in law dictates what my rights are. Rights are beyond laws, even while laws are often modeled after rights. This is not the answer to my question because my question is in fact whether or not free exchange is a fundamental right. In other words you are saying the constitution has already laid out our rights, but the very issue here is whether or not the right to free exchange is included in the rights of man. Clearly as it is now the right to free exchange has been surpressed, thus, I am exploring whether or not the laws as they are now are violating our rights.

Edit: I got half the spellings of inalienable correct in my original post, now they are all fixed.

 

[MAW1082]

shod0hawk, interesting analysis on the pitfalls of socialism. I do believe, however, that you lack an actual understanding of how socialism is intended to work. The idea that a large government controls the entire means of production within a socialist state is something Stalin would support; however, more important socialist thinkers like Lenin actually advocate control of property on a much smaller scale. The term soviet actually meant elected workers coucil, which meant that the means of production was directly controlled by those who directly participated in the means.

 

[ElFenix]

the social contract allows the gov't to tax us. there aren't many inalienable rights under the social contract.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
First off, I suggest that you provide a reference for that quotation. (i.e the source)

In response, you provide an interesting analysis of free trade; however, it is extremely simplified in relation to today's economy. I've taken college economics courses, so I understand these most basic concepts of trade of certain types of capital.

Obviously the "fixed pie" theory can be disputed on many more grounds than simply by your narrow analysis, which I actually find to be quite incorrect.

Wealth cannot be created during trade. Wealth can only be created through the use of capital. The idea of Marginal Utility being compared to the creation of wealth is ridiculous. Sure I have more use for a shovel than a bikini, but trading a bikini for a shovel doesn't create anything. It is simply the movement of capital, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is . . .

I cannot provide a reference for it. It is from an essay that I am writing myself which is not published. In any event it depends on what you define to be wealth. I define wealth to be one's ability to attain desired ends. In the case of trade one is improving their means to attain ends(which improves their ability to attain the ends) and in turn they are increasing their wealth. You are approaching economics from the top down, I am approching it from the bottom up, sort of through Praxeology which is the study of human action.

If I have an end that I wish to attain which is the consumption of fish and you have an end you wish to attain which is horseback riding and I trade you my horse for your fish, you now have increased your ability to attain your end and I have increased my ability to attain my end. Through this process we have both increased our wealth under my definition of it. By constantly trading means to ends that have lower value to us for means to ends that have higher value to us we create wealth.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
shod0hawk, interesting analysis on the pitfalls of socialism. I do believe, however, that you lack an actual understanding of how socialism is intended to work. The idea that a large government controls the entire means of production within a socialist state is something Stalin would support; however, more important socialist thinkers like Lenin actually advocate control of property on a much smaller scale. The term soviet actually meant elected workers coucil, which meant that the means of production was directly controlled by those who directly participated in the means.

i understand how socialism is intendeded to work, the only problem is it never works how it is intended to. it never makes it past nationalization because once the government has total power, those in control of government keep that power. that is why socialism is the source for almost every despotic dictator in the 20th (and so far) the 21st century. the latest example being baath socialism ,which gave us saddam.

for socialism to work everyone would have to be totally honest. however if everyone were totally honest we would not need the political dogma of socialism/communism as it would instead be a natural behavior.

 

[Moonbeam]

I cannot provide a reference for it. It is from an essay that I am writing myself which is not published. In any event it depends on what you define to be wealth. I define wealth to be one's ability to attain desired ends. In the case of trade one is improving their means to attain ends(which improves their ability to attain the ends) and in turn they are increasing their wealth. You are approaching economics from the top down, I am approching it from the bottom up, sort of through Praxeology which is the study of human action.

If I have an end that I wish to attain which is the consumption of fish and you have an end you wish to attain which is horseback riding and I trade you my horse for your fish, you now have increased your ability to attain your end and I have increased my ability to attain my end. Through this process we have both increased our wealth under my definition of it. By constantly trading means to ends that have lower value to us for means to ends that have higher value to us we create wealth.
============
Clearly then, he is rich who has dominion over desire, for he who wants nothing is rich beyond measure. So a man who prefers to walk is a king compared to a man who desires a horse, but a man requires (needs) fish or some source for amino acids the body cannot self-manufacture. So if by competitive acumen I acquire the oceans of the world, what right have you to complain if I trade fish for your land. Isn't capitalism the means by which some acquire control over the resources required for life.

Suppose the work of government was to see to people's needs by creating technology that supports human life from solar energy, a machine that each person has a right to from birth that uses electricity created from sun shine to create all the chemicals required for life and insures that the number of humans alive does not exceed the reasonable carrying capacity of the planet. Then each person could have wealth beyond measure by the control of desire. So clearly that government is best which provides for everybody's needs.

 

[heartsurgeon]

rights of man

this is getting into the religious realm now.
the definition of "rights" as you are using it is "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

tradition in our sense typically means English "common law",
nature, typically means "natural laws"
govermental body means the constitution, the laws congress passes, and the how the courts interpret these laws.
you left out "the law of God"

now the problem with each of these concepts is that they are fluid, and not fixed in meaning.

english common law may not be in the tradition of a immigrant from asia
natural laws would clearly differ between cultures
laws passed by congress?? don't even get me started
law of God? who's definition of "God's laws" do you want to use? Jews? Christians?, Muslims?, Hindus? .....

inalienable rights are not innumerable or identifiable.
your argument is based upon a false assumption.