• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have The Right To Other People's Property?

Do You Have The Right To Other People's Property?

  • Yes (Explain)

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • No (Explain)

    Votes: 18 60.0%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 5 16.7%

  • Total voters
    30
I believe if someone takes your property by force you have a duty to give them another piece of your property

delivered at 3200 FPS

That's pretty funny. :lamo
 
Here is the best way to answer this

Morally no one has a just claim to your property merely because they exist within the same geo-political boundary as you do unless you are somehow responsible for their existence (such as a paternity matter) or their condition (such as injurying someone due to negligence)

in some cases, you have a legitimate duty to provide for someone else if that person has become disabled due to service to a group you are a member of--such as a police officer in your municipality who is injured on the job

legally of course-the situation is different. Liberal realize that they can win the votes of the many by promising them the wealth of the few. but it certainly is not morally just or proper
 
Here is the best way to answer this

Morally no one has a just claim to your property merely because they exist within the same geo-political boundary as you do unless you are somehow responsible for their existence (such as a paternity matter) or their condition (such as injurying someone due to negligence)

in some cases, you have a legitimate duty to provide for someone else if that person has become disabled due to service to a group you are a member of--such as a police officer in your municipality who is injured on the job

legally of course-the situation is different. Liberal realize that they can win the votes of the many by promising them the wealth of the few. but it certainly is not morally just or proper

I really enjoyed reading your answer. It makes perfect and logical sense.
 
:lamo: You quoted it.

No. If you are claiming that you encourged discussion by telling me that you thought you my first answer was a good one, it would have happened in your response to my first answer... not here, many posts later. I've told you I'm not a mind reader. How did I know, THEN?
 
Democrats believe they have right to anyones property.
 
No. If you are claiming that you encourged discussion by telling me that you thought you my first answer was a good one, it would have happened in your response to my first answer... not here, many posts later. I've told you I'm not a mind reader. How did I know, THEN?

Did you see me say I disagreed with your answer? Nope, so that should give an idea that I liked it.
 
Did you see me say I disagreed with your answer? Nope, so that should give an idea that I liked it.

You did not react to it at all. I'm not a mind reader.
 
DAMN IT JIM, I'M A DOCTOR NOT A MAGICIAN!!

"bones" in Star Trek

"I'm just an old country doctor."

I saw DeForrest Kelly at a Star Trek convention many years ago. Good guy.
 
Ye gods, did I really just read through nine pages of certain people saying "No, you say your opinion first"? Any chance I can have those two minutes of my life back?

My answer to the OP: The only time that I have the right to someone else's property is if it is owed to me by law. Ultimately, such an enforcement of legality would indeed be a job for the government.

With regards to the rest of the thread: Taxation doesn't really fit into this poll, because property isn't going from someone else to me; it's going from someone else to the government, who are them providing me with a service. The only way it would fit in is if the "I" in the question referred to the government; in which case, yes, the government has the right to whatever the law allows it to take from other people - just as I have the right to whatever the law says I can take.

/thread
 
Last edited:
"I'm just an old country doctor."

I saw DeForrest Kelly at a Star Trek convention many years ago. Good guy.

yeah so is Shatner-he is big into horses and was once a big archery fan-one of my best friends is probably the best target archer in history and said Shatner used to show up at the big Vegas Pro archery shoot
 
yeah so is Shatner-he is big into horses and was once a big archery fan-one of my best friends is probably the best target archer in history and said Shatner used to show up at the big Vegas Pro archery shoot

I knew he was big into horses, but I didn't know about archery. Always regretted not getting more into that sport when I was younger.
 
I knew he was big into horses, but I didn't know about archery. Always regretted not getting more into that sport when I was younger.

we have US target nationals 20 minutes from my house starting wednesday. friends of mine are running the tournament-members of my family compete
 
we have US target nationals 20 minutes from my house starting wednesday. friends of mine are running the tournament-members of my family compete

I was into it as a kid, but didn't stay with it. There's a small target range about 20 minutes from my house. I've been thinking...
 
I was into it as a kid, but didn't stay with it. There's a small target range about 20 minutes from my house. I've been thinking...

we have an 80 year old guy who shoots with our club-does OK. doesn't miss the bale at 60Meters and most of them are in the center.

I had a student that took it up at 45 and got up to top 15 in the USA by the time she was 48 and won a couple national age group events.
 
Misattribution of the original position I posited in that thread. I asked if being taxed at 90% was slavery. To date no one has been able to reply to that. Again you have nothing of substance to bring forth so I'll ignore your statements regarding the actual point of the thread, but will pay attention to your comments as moderator.
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.

If you tax someone who makes say 50k or less 90%, obviously you have a starving citizen; 'slave' if you will.

But since we've Already (Ooops!) Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 50 Years as the Top marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... 'No'.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000

1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400

1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 50 of the above 90 years without 'slavery'. Including rates of 84%-94% for 22 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.

EDIT : The below of course is Not an answer.
An Answer as I just gave to 'The Patriot' refuting his assertion.
 
Last edited:
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.

If you tax someone who makes say 50k or less 90%, obviously you have a starving citizen; 'slave' if you will.

But since we've ALREADY Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 45 Years as the TOP marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... No.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 45 years without slavery. Including rates of 84%-94% for 21 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.

we had slavery too in the past

also many economists note that next year the effective top rate will be the highest in history

but we do understand you are mad you aren't rich and you want to stick it to those who are.

does anyone think the 16th amendment would have passed if those who voted for it saw that crap that goes on today?
 
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.

If you tax someone who makes say 50k or less 90%, obviously you have a starving citizen; 'slave' if you will.

But since we've Already/Ooops Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 50 Years as the Top marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... No.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 50 of the above 90 years without 'slavery'. Including rates of 84%-94% for 21 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.

EDIT : The below of course is Not an answer.
An Answer as I just gave to 'The Patriot' refuting his assertion.

I believe firmly that a person has the right to the gains of their own industry regardless if they are wealthy or poor. I'm just as much against income taxes as I am against the hidden tax that is inflation, consumption taxes, property taxes, and death taxes.
 
But since we've Already (Ooops!) Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 50 Years as the Top marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... 'No'.

EDIT : The below of course is Not an answer.
An Answer as I just gave to 'The Patriot' refuting his assertion. [/b]



What seems to be missing here is that in the years when top marginal rates skyrocketed, the percentage of the population who were paying exhorbitant rates was a very select few. What we currently have is people like my husband and I, who both make barely above median income, paying high rates. Instead of the rich becoming richer, the median are now considered rich.

The top rate of 77% during WWI was those who made the equivalent of $16 million (in 2007 dollars). The 75% top rate in WWII was for those making the equivalent of $75 million (in 2007 dollars). The 1913 top rate of 7% was for those making the equivalent of $10 million (in 2007 dollars).
 
Last edited:
It's what communists and socialists think.
 
I'm curious. What do you mean by someone taking another person's property though the use of government? How could that happen?

An example I can think of is child-support related: when someone owes arreas/support (if the government is garnishing pay) and the government retains the person's property with a lean (whatever the real name is) or their pay (including tax returns and any type of money-winnings like the lottery). . . until you've been paid.

Example:
My ex husband is still suppose to pay arrears eventhough he doesn't owe current child support.
Until he pays what he owes he cannot sell his property and get money for it . . . if he does then the government will garnish his profit and put it towards the arreas.

Now - is this right? No, not for us in our situation but it might be more 'right' in someone else's situation. I don't agree with this legal-arrangement and am trying to end it - but that's how it stands.

According to the government my children are entitled to his paycheck, tax returns and any and all other monies.
 
A simple question. Do you have the right to other people's property and to enforce the taking of it through the use of the government?

This ability to answer this depends entirely on what the social contract one engages in is.

First, we have to denote here that this question exists within a vacuum that there IS a government of sorts, which immedietely demands a social contract. It is not a situation "in the wild" where one person is taking from another person and there is no law or legality of any sort, nor civilization or society.

So, with that in mind, it depends on what the terms of the contract is that the individual has entered into by being a member of that society.

For example if you're within a governmental structure where there is a King and the societal understanding is that the King can have his men take anything from anyone at anytime for any reason then yes, in that case the King could have the "right" to have the government take from another to give to him he wishes.

In another example, if you have a foundational bit of law that vests the ability for the government to levy taxes upon the citizenry then it is the governments "right" to do such.

In a final example if one is living in a relatively anarchistic government that does have rules in any way for the government to tax, fine, or demand property from the citizenry then they would NOT have a "right" to do such.

All those are situations where its the government in question having the right or no right to take.

There can be situations in regards to the social contract that your scenario could happen. For example, if through the law it is understood that if you default on rightful payment to another that the government can forcefully take an item of equal value and give it to the individual you've cheated, then someone would have a narrowly defined "right" to take from someone else by way of the government.

You can also have situations where people abstractly talk about "taking" where you combine a governments ability to tax with their ability to grant entitlements. In such cases ones "right" would rely on the law. For example, if there was a law that said the government would pay for one drink a day for all individuals aged 21 years old then its their legal "right" to have that drink paid for. The pay would come out of the government funds, which was generated by taxes which in this case was the "right" of the government to levy. As such one could abstractly state that the individual getting the drink "took" the money from someone else, and if we are to buy that line of reasoning then yes it would be their "Right" based on the laws of the government that both sides have entered into and agree to live under. In reality though the more reasonable suggestion is that the person is "taking" from the government, not from any specific individual. If however there was no right to say, hiring a prostitute, then someone could not go force your money to come from the government to pay for your prostitute as a "right" because there's no law dedicating that such is a right and because of this the taking of the money would be wrongful or fraudulent.

So in essense, it depends on the social contract in which one has entered. In the specific case of the United States, one could say it is "wrong", but one could not say in most cases that it is not the legal "Right" of individuals who are entitled to entitlements to be able to abstractly "take" from other citizens through the government taxing them and giving them the entitlements. However, said right could be changed and if you disagree with it you should fight for it to be changed.

Note, you did not specific the kind of "right" you speak of. There is a difference between say fundamental or natural rights, constitutional rights, and legal rights.

Even if we are to believe that the "Right" not to have your property taken is a fundamental one, individuals are able to give up fundamental rights in exchange for entering into a social contract
 
Another absurdity and no vote.
of course not, providing the property is actually yours.
Land, I question...
Excess money, I question...
 
Another absurdity and no vote.
of course not, providing the property is actually yours.
Land, I question...
Excess money, I question...

Hmm - land - we might see eye to eye on that.

But 'excess money' - just becomes someone's a savvy business person means they aren't really in ownership of their 'excess' ??
 
Back
Top Bottom