Rights and Taxes

[wellwisher]

I have often expressed concern about how, what are called rights, are being used as a pretense, to misappropriate taxpayer money. I would like to demonstrate this in reverse, so people can get my point.

The second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Does this right to bear arms, mean that all tax payers need to spend money, on anyone who wishes to own a gun, especially if that person has a boohoo story? As a scenario, someone has an old rusty hand gun, that may be dangerous to them, so they need a new shiny gun to practice their right to bear arms. Should the people of NYC be forced to spend their hard earned taxes dollars to supply that man a new gun? He has the right to own a shiny new gun under the Constitution. There is nothing that says new or shiny is excluded.

The point I am making, is the right to bear arms, does now mean the tax payer has to supply funding. We do not supply funding for guns and gun owners to practice this right . All it means is each person has the right to do something, that cannot be denied or inhibited by big government. However, it is up to each person, to buy their your own gun. if they wish to participate in that right. This is how the second Amendment has been implemented since the beginning. This is the original template for practicing rights.

We have the right to pursue happiness. If having a summer home, next to the Obamas, on Martha's Vineyard would make me happy and make feel better than ever; emotional well being, does the tax payer need to pay my tab, if I cannot pursue my dream under my own sails? Or does the right to pursue happiness simply mean I am free buy such a home, if I choose or can, but I will need to save and do for myself?

I can see a women's right to choose; abortion, but like the right to bear arms, which she also can enjoy, it is up to her to cover her own tab, or find a friend, charity or bank, to help her meet her financial needs. She can't get an abortion and new hunting rifle with scope, all on the same day, at the tax payers expense. This is not how rights work. Rights give us options for choice and paths of behavior, that cannot be taken away; open doors. But with those rights comes adult responsibility to pursue your own dreams. Rights assume adults who wish to pursue a goal under their own sails. Nobody can close the port,, but you need to control the sails on your own; self reliance.

If a state places limits on abortion, or limits gun ownership, this infringes on rights. If we give either abortion or guns tax payer funding, we steal from others, who then are restricted from pursuing their own happiness. I cannot pay for you and me at the same time. My pursuit of happiness will have money road blocks. It is better if you pay for you and I will pay for me, so we both maximize our rights. Or ask those with surplus to help make ends meet; charity. Charity is a choice and right that can maximize the giver; warm feeling.

This topic was designed to clarify what rights actually mean. What will be good for goose; abortion, should also be good for the gander; guns. This is down the middle. I do not think the working husband; pay, and stay at home wife; spend, criteria applies to rights. At least not in this modern era.

 

[AlexanderG]

Are you suggesting that federal tax dollars are spent to support women acquiring abortions? Because they aren't. There is currently a law against it. The Hyde Amendment. States and municipalities can make their own decisions, of course, and they do according to voter preferences.

Living in a democracy means making compromises for the sake of the larger society, and not always getting everything that you want. I hate professional sports, and my city decided to help fund a new stadium instead of passing all the cost onto the billionaire owner of the local sports team. Local sales taxes were slightly raised to fund this project. Did I go out and whine or insult people because I was forced to pay a little bit of money for this? No.

If you don't like how governments are run, then vote. If you don't get what you want, then this means more people want something other than your preferences. You are still free to live your own life, or move somewhere else with other policy priorities.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that there is a distinction between the basic right to do something as opposed to a taxpayer-funded entitlement. People have a right to travel, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to free vacations paid for by the taxpayers.

On the other hand, the government might use tax money which I may not personally approve of or which may not directly benefit me.

However, in the spirit of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, at the very least, government should provide pensions and retirement programs for all citizens which are comparable to the retirement plans they offer their employees, military, and law enforcement personnel.

 

[Yerda]

Hi, @wellwisher. Wouldn't your analysis run into problems when speaking of things like the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech etc?

I could say sure you have the right to vote, but taxpayers don't have to supply the funding. The elections could be funded by Disney and cost you $1000 to cast a vote.

Or, the right not to be murdered in the street is all well and good, but we shouldn't be paying police to prevent that. If you don't want murdered why not pay the people threatening to murder you a protection fee?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This topic was designed to clarify what rights actually mean. What will be good for goose; abortion, should also be good for the gander; guns. This is down the middle. I do not think the working husband; pay, and stay at home wife; spend, criteria applies to rights. At least not in this modern era.

Claiming a right doesn't mean anything unless it is protected. There is no right to life, for example, without it being formally declared a right and that right enforced. Society will incur costs when it grants rights - that of courts to define those rights, and police and prison systems to enforce them.

So, there is a cost to having actual rights as opposed to claimed rights. You asked what a right is. The Constitution claims that we have rights ordained by our Creator, but they didn't actually become rights until they were enumerated and the means for enforcing and defending them provided, meaning they are man-given rights, and those cost money to ensure.

 

[Truth in love]

I have often expressed concern about how, what are called rights, are being used as a pretense, to misappropriate taxpayer money. I would like to demonstrate this in reverse, so people can get my point.

The second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Does this right to bear arms, mean that all tax payers need to spend money, on anyone who wishes to own a gun, especially if that person has a boohoo story? As a scenario, someone has an old rusty hand gun, that may be dangerous to them, so they need a new shiny gun to practice their right to bear arms. Should the people of NYC be forced to spend their hard earned taxes dollars to supply that man a new gun? He has the right to own a shiny new gun under the Constitution. There is nothing that says new or shiny is excluded.

The point I am making, is the right to bear arms, does now mean the tax payer has to supply funding. We do not supply funding for guns and gun owners to practice this right . All it means is each person has the right to do something, that cannot be denied or inhibited by big government. However, it is up to each person, to buy their your own gun. if they wish to participate in that right. This is how the second Amendment has been implemented since the beginning. This is the original template for practicing rights.

We have the right to pursue happiness. If having a summer home, next to the Obamas, on Martha's Vineyard would make me happy and make feel better than ever; emotional well being, does the tax payer need to pay my tab, if I cannot pursue my dream under my own sails? Or does the right to pursue happiness simply mean I am free buy such a home, if I choose or can, but I will need to save and do for myself?

I can see a women's right to choose; abortion, but like the right to bear arms, which she also can enjoy, it is up to her to cover her own tab, or find a friend, charity or bank, to help her meet her financial needs. She can't get an abortion and new hunting rifle with scope, all on the same day, at the tax payers expense. This is not how rights work. Rights give us options for choice and paths of behavior, that cannot be taken away; open doors. But with those rights comes adult responsibility to pursue your own dreams. Rights assume adults who wish to pursue a goal under their own sails. Nobody can close the port,, but you need to control the sails on your own; self reliance.

If a state places limits on abortion, or limits gun ownership, this infringes on rights. If we give either abortion or guns tax payer funding, we steal from others, who then are restricted from pursuing their own happiness. I cannot pay for you and me at the same time. My pursuit of happiness will have money road blocks. It is better if you pay for you and I will pay for me, so we both maximize our rights. Or ask those with surplus to help make ends meet; charity. Charity is a choice and right that can maximize the giver; warm feeling.

This topic was designed to clarify what rights actually mean. What will be good for goose; abortion, should also be good for the gander; guns. This is down the middle. I do not think the working husband; pay, and stay at home wife; spend, criteria applies to rights. At least not in this modern era.

The only entitlements I can find a good argument to involve courts.

everything else is not valid.

 

[wellwisher]

Are you suggesting that federal tax dollars are spent to support women acquiring abortions? Because they aren't. There is currently a law against it. The Hyde Amendment. States and municipalities can make their own decisions, of course, and they do according to voter preferences.

Living in a democracy means making compromises for the sake of the larger society, and not always getting everything that you want. I hate professional sports, and my city decided to help fund a new stadium instead of passing all the cost onto the billionaire owner of the local sports team. Local sales taxes were slightly raised to fund this project. Did I go out and whine or insult people because I was forced to pay a little bit of money for this? No.

If you don't like how governments are run, then vote. If you don't get what you want, then this means more people want something other than your preferences. You are still free to live your own life, or move somewhere else with other policy priorities.

A right is something we all share. God given rights are beyond the laws of man, thereby making them above humans to restrict, for anyone. The right to free speech or the right to pursue happiness applies to all.

A women's right to choose cannot be a right, since it does not apply to all. Can anyone name me a man's rights, for balance, so both women and men have the same number of rights? When it comes to abortion, men no rights, but only liability, which can create an opportunity cost and violate the spirit of equal rights. There is a hidden cost to men; extra enforced tax. Supporting a child may be the right thing to do, but both sexes don't have that choice, to do the right thing or not, in terms of overall justice.

Free speech is an important right. When Public schools were teaching Critical Race Theory, for example, they were spending tax payer money to violate the open platform needed for free speech. It was taboo to disagree. All things can be taught in school, as long as all opinions are allowed, without the tex payer's money being used to induce the fear of the boot of big brother, if you exercise free speech. Tax money can be spent in creative ways to violate rights. It is not about being cheap, but about maintaining the spirit of our collective rights.

We have a right to a speedy trial. Many people who were involved in the demonstrations at the Capital, did not get their rights to a speedy trial. Some lingered in prison for over a year. It was part of political payback and old Soviet style reprogramming and legal quid pro quo. This was using tax payer money to violate a basic right. Do those involved have to pay back the tax money they misappropriated since it was used to violate basic rights?

When the FBI buried the Hunter Biden Laptop story, they used tax payer money to help certain people escape justice. We all have the right to equal justice under the law. This was using tax payer money to create a dual justice which violates the spirit of equal rights. If the other side takes over, do those involved in laptop injustice, get double justice to balance off the violation or do the violators have to pay for their own trial to makeup for the misappropriated tax payer dollars.

Here is an interesting one. The mission of the Department of Education is to educate the children. But it appears this Department of Ed, is really there for the politicians, bureaucrats and teachers unions. It is misappropriating tax dollars by ignoring the original mission; as sold. The best education will involved open minded students who have critical thinking skills instilled with the desire learn new things, throughout life. This makes for good citizens and an educated voter. The inversion was done more for the needs of others besides the children such as occurred during COVID and the children falling years behind in development. The Government was spending tax dollars and not promoting the rights implied by the general welfare of the students, as defined by the mission of the Dept of Ed.

 

[AlexanderG]

A right is something we all share. God given rights are beyond the laws of man, thereby making them above humans to restrict, for anyone. The right to free speech or the right to pursue happiness applies to all.

A women's right to choose cannot be a right, since it does not apply to all. Can anyone name me a man's rights, for balance, so both women and men have the same number of rights? When it comes to abortion, men no rights, but only liability, which can create an opportunity cost and violate the spirit of equal rights. There is a hidden cost to men; extra enforced tax. Supporting a child may be the right thing to do, but both sexes don't have that choice, to do the right thing or not, in terms of overall justice.

Free speech is an important right. When Public schools were teaching Critical Race Theory, for example, they were spending tax payer money to violate the open platform needed for free speech. It was taboo to disagree. All things can be taught in school, as long as all opinions are allowed, without the tex payer's money being used to induce the fear of the boot of big brother, if you exercise free speech. Tax money can be spent in creative ways to violate rights. It is not about being cheap, but about maintaining the spirit of our collective rights.

We have a right to a speedy trial. Many people who were involved in the demonstrations at the Capital, did not get their rights to a speedy trial. Some lingered in prison for over a year. It was part of political payback and old Soviet style reprogramming and legal quid pro quo. This was using tax payer money to violate a basic right. Do those involved have to pay back the tax money they misappropriated since it was used to violate basic rights?

When the FBI buried the Hunter Biden Laptop story, they used tax payer money to help certain people escape justice. We all have the right to equal justice under the law. This was using tax payer money to create a dual justice which violates the spirit of equal rights. If the other side takes over, do those involved in laptop injustice, get double justice to balance off the violation or do the violators have to pay for their own trial to makeup for the misappropriated tax payer dollars.

Here is an interesting one. The mission of the Department of Education is to educate the children. But it appears this Department of Ed, is really there for the politicians, bureaucrats and teachers unions. It is misappropriating tax dollars by ignoring the original mission; as sold. The best education will involved open minded students who have critical thinking skills instilled with the desire learn new things, throughout life. This makes for good citizens and an educated voter. The inversion was done more for the needs of others besides the children such as occurred during COVID and the children falling years behind in development. The Government was spending tax dollars and not promoting the rights implied by the general welfare of the students, as defined by the mission of the Dept of Ed.

I'm with @It Aint Necessarily So on this one. Rights exist only because we all agree that they do, and when we follow that up with enforcement. Abortion is a right if we say it is. I'm not convinced any gods exist, so appealing to a god just seems like you're trying to make yourself feel like your own opinion is more authoritative.

Your arguments read like Fox News talking points, and I'm not really interested in that kind of propaganda. Oh, and a magic pixie council that structures all of space-time told me in a dream that I'm right and you're wrong.