• 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
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.

Any comment that equates taxation to slavery in ANY way applies to my response. If you think that ANY taxation, 100%, 90%, or 3% is slavery, find someone who is taxed at one of those rates, and have them sue the government... or someone who receives government assistance on 13th Amendment grounds. See how far you get with that.


My position has always been consistent. Good day.

I haven't seen you argue that position before. Good to see.
 
In that case, yes, I do believe that.

It's good to know that you believe that anyone can come and take your property to use as they see fit with and without the government.

megaprogman;1058862921:rofl Thats hilarious. The whole point of natural law is to create moral laws and a basis for ethics. [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ said:
The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)[/url]

Yes, it is used to define ethics and the rightness of behavior. However, the usage of morality in this day and age is one based off of religion. I do concede the point even though I wasn't arguing a natural rights theory.
 
Last edited:
Any comment that equates taxation to slavery in ANY way applies to my response. If you think that ANY taxation, 100%, 90%, or 3% is slavery, find someone who is taxed at one of those rates, and have them sue the government... or someone who receives government assistance on 13th Amendment grounds. See how far you get with that.

Yes, because we all know that your opinion is based upon what the government has to say. Isn't this threadjacking?

I haven't seen you argue that position before. Good to see.

I've always argued on the side of what the Constitution of the United States and the principles of what this country was founded upon.
 
It's good to know that you believe that anyone can come and take your property to use as they see fit with and without the government.

As I said previously, it depends on the circumstance.

Yes, it is used to define ethics and the rightness of behavior. However, the usage of morality in this day and age is one based off of religion. I do concede the point though.

Thank you. How an expansion of my point is that on some level, everyone thinks its ok to enforce their morality on society, no matter what they base that morality on.
 
Yes, because we all know that your opinion is based upon what the government has to say. Isn't this threadjacking?

Are you saying that this thread has nothing to do with taxation?



I've always argued on the side of what the Constitution of the United States and the principles of what this country was founded upon.

Any comment I make will then threadjack, so I will allow this one to slide.
 
Are there any other methods of government taking property?

Yes, there are plenty of methods the government uses to take property. Seizure, loss due to a trial, eminent domain, etc... are all methods of taking property. I never specified which one.
 
Did you see where I mentioned taxation anywhere in this thread?

OK, if you don't mean taxation, then I ask my original question. How could the government force someone to give me their property? Give me an example.
 
OK, if you don't mean taxation, then I ask my original question. How could the government force someone to give me their property? Give me an example.

Since you're well versed in court cases, I'll let you use your own imagination.
 
Yes, there are plenty of methods the government uses to take property. Seizure, loss due to a trial, eminent domain, etc... are all methods of taking property. I never specified which one.

Then the government has the right to do those things two, and in cases such as trials and such, that right extends to people.
 
Then the government has the right to do those things two, and in cases such as trials and such, that right extends to people.

Government do not have rights, but powers delegated as per the Constitution. This is also a non-sequitor since I asked if you had the right to take it and use the government to enforce it not the government alone.
 
Last edited:
Government do not have rights, but powers delegated as per the Constitution. This is also a non-sequitor since I asked if you had the right and not the government.

This is what you asked.

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?

In the case of trial and such, the person winning the trial gains the rights to winnings (if it is a civil trial) enforced by government. Which means the losers property is transferred to the winner. So yes, I do believe we have the right per your original question.
 
Last edited:
Since you're well versed in court cases, I'll let you use your own imagination.

So, your question is, for example, if person A were to kill person B while driving drunk, and as a result of the trial and being found guilty, person A is told by the judge (government) that he is to pay person B's heirs a monetary fine, would I believe that this is acceptable. Is this an example of what you are asking?
 
This is what you asked.



In the case of trial and such, the person winning the trial gains the rights to winnings (if it is a civil trial) enforced by government.

So, your question is, for example, if person A were to kill person B while driving drunk, and as a result of the trial and being found guilty, person A is told by the judge (government) that he is to pay person B's heirs a monetary fine, would I believe that this is acceptable. Is this an example of what you are asking?

What about all of the other types of seizures done by the government?
 
It's your thread. You tell me what you are talking about. I'm not a mind reader.

It's your reply so you come up with other types of seizures that the government does at the behest of the majority. I'm not a mind reader on what you think as an answer.
 
I will go with taxation. I guess I would probably say that people do not have a right to another's property enforced by government in regards to taxation. However, what occurs is that when taxes happen, the amount taxed is no longer that person's property, but governments. Since there is a disconnect there, I guess we can not answer the OP as it is not a method of giving one person's property to another.

I do have a right for government to spend money on my well being however, as all people do.
 
Last edited:
It's your reply so you come up with other types of seizures that the government does at the behest of the majority. I'm not a mind reader on what you think as an answer.

No. I've already told you I have no idea what you are looking for. Clarify what you are looking for.
 
I will go with taxation. I guess I would probably say that people do not have a right to another's property through government in regards to taxation.

The rest of your answer isn't important, but thank you for answering that the majority does not have a right to another's property through the use of the government in regards to taxation. You answered it admirably.
 
Do You Have The Right To Other People's Property?

I have the right to point out that overly vague, obviously baited poll questions are pretty useless.
 
No. I've already told you I have no idea what you are looking for. Clarify what you are looking for.

I did clarify when you asked and the plain meaning of the question is there. It's up to you on how you want to reply to the question.
 
The rest of your answer isn't important, but thank you for answering that the majority does not have a right to another's property through the use of the government in regards to taxation. You answered it admirably.

Actually it is important. The method of what happens is as important as the principal of it as principal applies to method as well as end result.
 
Back
Top Bottom