• 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 have the right to point out that overly vague, obviously baited poll questions are pretty useless.

Seems like a trap thread to me. He won't clarify what he is looking for, so it is very hard to discuss whatever topic he want's to discuss.
 
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.

Nope, the method isn't important since that wasn't what I asked in the original post. I asked about the principle of the matter not the method.
 
Nope, the method isn't important since that wasn't what I asked in the original post. I asked about the principle of the matter not the method.

Well, in principal, no. But again since government does not spend other people's money on me, but its own, it does not apply.
 
If it is necessary for the preservation and continuation of an orderly society.

Therein lies the problem with socialism.

Who gets to decide the what and when of, "necessary for the preservation and the continuation of an orderly society."?
 
Seems like a trap thread to me. He won't clarify what he is looking for, so it is very hard to discuss whatever topic he want's to discuss.

Yeah, the "I don't want to talk about what I want to talk about" thing makes it pretty obvious.
 
Seems like a trap thread to me. He won't clarify what he is looking for, so it is very hard to discuss whatever topic he want's to discuss.

I actually did clarify what ways the government takes property at the behest of the majority in post 33.
 
Therein lies the problem with socialism.

Who gets to decide the what and when of, "necessary for the preservation and the continuation of an orderly society."?

All of us.
 
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.

No. Look, you know and I know this is a "trap thread". If you actually meant, literally, "do you have the right to other people's property", the question could be easily answered... but that's NOT what you mean. You're trying to be cute and it ain't working. But, you said, and I quote, "it's up to me how I want to reply to the question", so I will take you up on that.

Taxation is not slavery, nor is it stealing. If you think it is the former, sue the government or someone else based on 13th Amendment violations. If you think it is the latter, call a cop, and have the government or someone else arrested for theft. Let's see how far you get with either of those lawsuits.

So, how do you like my answer?
 
Yeah, the "I don't want to talk about what I want to talk about" thing makes it pretty obvious.

Actually, in post #1 I did posit my thoughts on the matter. Hence, I did talk about what I asked about.
 
Therein lies the problem with socialism.

Taxation occurs in plenty of societies... not just socialist ones.

Who gets to decide the what and when of, "necessary for the preservation and the continuation of an orderly society."?

I suppose the people do.
 
No. Look, you know and I know this is a "trap thread". If you actually meant, literally, "do you have the right to other people's property", the question could be easily answered... but that's NOT what you mean. You're trying to be cute and it ain't working. But, you said, and I quote, "it's up to me how I want to reply to the question", so I will take you up on that.

Taxation is not slavery, nor is it stealing. If you think it is the former, sue the government or someone else based on 13th Amendment violations. If you think it is the latter, call a cop, and have the government or someone else arrested for theft. Let's see how far you get with either of those lawsuits.

So, how do you like my answer?

How do you know what I meant it as that? I did answer the question in the first post where the question resides at.

I never mentioned that taxes was slavery in this thread. I believe you are confusing this thread with Are Taxes Slavery? I also never posited that taxes was stealing. The rest of your reply is hyperbole.
 
Then why not start a poll actually asking about those specifically?

Could you be so kind as to change the poll question then? I thank you in advance for doing that.
 
I actually did clarify what ways the government takes property at the behest of the majority in post 33.

OK. And I gave an example of a trial situation and asked if that was what you meant. Instead of responding, "yes" or "no", you said what else... what about seizures. What kinds of seizures are you wanting to talk about. You mentioned it, so don't try to tell us you don't have an agenda; we know you do. Just say it.
 
OK. And I gave an example of a trial situation and asked if that was what you meant. Instead of responding, "yes" or "no", you said what else... what about seizures. What kinds of seizures are you wanting to talk about. You mentioned it, so don't try to tell us you don't have an agenda; we know you do. Just say it.

No, I do not have an agenda. I just wanted to see what everyone's opinion of the question is and to let a discussion occur naturally. When I asked you about what else I wanted to hear your thoughts about the other types of seizures the government does. It is an honest question to start a discussion.
 
How do you know what I meant it as that? I did answer the question in the first post where the question resides at.

You said it was up to me as to how I reply to the question. Check your quote. Since you are not telling me what you meant, I am following what you said, and replying to the question in the way that I want. Now, if you would like a different kind of response, perhaps clarifying what you want would be in order.

I never mentioned that taxes was slavery in this thread. I believe you are confusing this thread with Are Taxes Slavery? I also never posited that taxes was stealing. The rest of your reply is hyperbole.

Your position on taxation is pretty clear. But this is moot. You said I could answer the question how I wanted. That's how I answered. If you want something different, clarify.
 
No, I do not have an agenda. I just wanted to see what everyone's opinion of the question is and to let a discussion occur naturally. When I asked you about what else I wanted to hear your thoughts about the other types of seizures the government does. It is an honest question to start a discussion.

Come on, The_Patriot. You're changing the goalposts. NOW you want Redress to change the question to an issue about the government taking property from some to others via siezures, trials, eminent domain, etc... This is REAL different that can one person take another's property.

Why don't you make this simple. Ask what you want to ask. Otherwise, we can just keep going round and round like this.
 
You said it was up to me as to how I reply to the question. Check your quote. Since you are not telling me what you meant, I am following what you said, and replying to the question in the way that I want. Now, if you would like a different kind of response, perhaps clarifying what you want would be in order.

I asked you what you honestly thought about the other types in order to encourage a dialoge. I guess you have an agenda then. I asked Redress to change the question to be the one in the first post to avoid confusion and since he raised issue with it.

Your position on taxation is pretty clear. But this is moot. You said I could answer the question how I wanted. That's how I answered. If you want something different, clarify.

Is it? Would mind telling me what my opinion is on taxation?
 
Last edited:
I asked you what you honestly thought about the other types in order to encourage a dialoge. I guess you have an agenda then.

If you were encouraging dialogue, you would have responded to my requests for clarification, and responded to the example I gave. You did neither.



Is it? Would mind telling me what my opinion is on taxation?

I think I already did. If it is different, please clarify.
 
If you were encouraging dialogue, you would have responded to my requests for clarification, and responded to the example I gave. You did neither.

I did clarify on what the question was. You didn't like the clarification. I responded to your example by asking for more examples. That is encouraging a dialogue.

The rest of your reply I put into the proper thread and answered it there.
 
Last edited:
I did clarify on what the question was. You didn't like the clarification. I responded to your example by asking for more examples. That is encouraging a dialogue.

At which point I asked for clarification on your clarification... you then said I could answer as I wanted. Which I did... and which you didn't like. So, if you did not like my answer, clarify so I can resond in the context that you would like.

The rest of your reply I put into the proper thread and answered it there.

And I replied.
 
At which point I asked for clarification on your clarification... you then said I could answer as I wanted. Which I did... and which you didn't like. So, if you did not like my answer, clarify so I can resond in the context that you would like.

So you do have an agenda of not actually discussing anything? I got it. I didn't say I didn't like your first answer to the question. In fact, I thought it was a good one and I did ask you for more. That is encouraging a dialogue.
 
So you do have an agenda of not actually discussing anything? I got it. I didn't say I didn't like your first answer to the question. In fact, I thought it was a good one and I did ask you for more. That is encouraging a dialogue.

Post where you said that you liked my first answer.
 
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?

For myself, I will say no because it is your property and you can do with it as you see fit as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others or harm them. I will state that property includes money, real property, and personal property.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom