So, is the right to vote, a right or a privilege?

Posted by  $  nickursis 2 years, 9 months ago to Government
93 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Watching a program called "Electoral Dysfunction" which claims you have no defined "right to vote" but that it is a privilege granted by each state, thus the reason for the electoral college as a compromise. Might be something to bring up if we ever get the Convention of States off the ground...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 years, 9 months ago
    Well, in the opinion of the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    That certainly implies that governments grant no rights whatsoever and have only the powers the voters give them. I've always felt that the Electoral College the the solution to the impossibility of running a meaningful campaign in the era of transportation via horseback. Now that we have instantaneous electronic communications that isn't an issue, although one could certainly argue with the phrase "meaningful campaign".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by blackswan 2 years, 9 months ago
      Are "the governed" anyone with a pulse, or only those with skin in the game, like people with property, businesses, skills, etc.? The definition is important.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 years, 9 months ago
        I think it has to be "the governed", i.e. if the government is given power over you, you have a right to consent. It doesn't matter whether you are propertied.

        Of course, the issue becomes do the 'governed' have the power to grant the government unlimited power over others or are there limitations to mob rule? One would hope it is limited and that they can't simply vote to take others assets.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbroberg 2 years, 9 months ago
        At a minimum, "no taxation without representation" should be sufficient to allow the payer to participate in an election. Our current tax system would be even less legitimate without voting. We should at the very least get to draw lines across a ballot at the price of a luxury compact sedan... each year.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 years, 9 months ago
      It's that "consent" bit that way long ago gave old dino the perhaps quaint notion that it is his DUTY to vote.
      No one will do anything if I don't vote. I just plain don't feel right about it
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      That is interesting. It seems there is a lot of assumed things that have been thrown into the mix here, and the Electoral College was just the one documented way for a President to be selected. However, all the rest has been a lash up, so would it mean it can be overhauled? It appears all the Constitutional ammendments have dealt with specific things (sex, color) but not overall voting rights. Maybe the assumption would be since there are defined "you can'ts" that everything else is "you can".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 9 months ago
        I think you know that the Constitution is not a document that allows, but a document that restricts. That's why it is so hated by the Progressives. They cannot abide the restrictions put upon them by the Constitution. The brilliance of the Founders is brightly displayed in that document which if obeyed would keep the state on track. Unfortunately, that's a very big "if."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 9 months ago
    A resident of the United States not born here does not have a right to citizenship, and even the natural born citizen can have that citizenship revoked for serious felonies against the nation, so it is a privilege. Since one must be a citizen to vote, the act of voting must also be a privilege.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
      The fact that it can be revoked doesn't make it a privilege. Actual rights can be revoked for criminal activity - such rights are forfeited by the criminal when he/she commits the crime

      I don't think there is any Objectivist consensus on what a privilege actually is. In an Objectivist society, would it be proper for a government to grant privileges, or would government be restricted to recognizing and defending rights?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 9 months ago
        You are not correct that a criminal revokes his rights upon commission of a crime. The whole purpose of the 4th and 5th amendments is to prevent hasty conviction. An individual under indictment still can't be subject to unjustified search and seizure, nor can they be forced to testify against themselves. The whole purpose of a search warrant is to establish that legal search is justified. I don't think you can name one amendment in the Bill of Rights that is revoked, for any criminal act. Privileges can be revoked. Rights cannot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
          Okay, let me amend that to say that rights can be revoked upon conviction of a crime. For example, once such a person is in prison, he is denied many protections of the Bill of Rights. He cannot have access to a gun. No protection against warrantless search and seizure. No privacy. A person who violates the rights of others forfeits certain rights – morally upon commission of the crime, and legally upon conviction for that crime.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 years, 9 months ago
            Technically, I like to make this distinction: our constitutional government accepts that it's obligated to honor our rights so long as we refrain from criminal acts; but it may grant privileges at its discretion, and revoke them if necessary. The system doesn't work perfectly, with government muddying the water between rights and privileges (hence the incorrect comparison between ownership of arms and drivers licenses).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
              I don't think a proper constitutional government can "grant privileges at its discretion" except in very limited and well-defined circumstances. And it depends in part on how the term "privileges" is employed.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
              Exactly, and that is what leads us down the road to oppression, as privileges become the province of those who can pay, most of the time with others money.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      So, good train of logic. It seems to derail when various states play with the voting requirements and allow people to vote with a slip of paper from a neighbor saying they are a citizen (well, slight exaggeration, but along those lines). If citizenship is a codified mandate from the Federal government, one would think then voting rules would be, and not left up to each crazy state...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 2 years, 9 months ago
    Voting is a privilege granted to citizens and it should be regarded as an obligation. The greatest threats to a free society are ignorance and apathy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 9 months ago
      What if one comes to the conclusion that it's all a fraud? I know a guy who thinks that...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 2 years, 9 months ago
        It is clearly the intent of the liberal-progressive movement to create the illusion that democracy is real. It is just a sham necessary for their ultimate goal of the establishment of a new aristocracy ruled buy a self appointed "intellectual elite". The MSM is the official propaganda arm of this movement.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
          I wonder how the liberal-progressive establishment will regard democracy if Trump is elected. I doubt that they will accept the "will of the people." The next couple of months should be interesting if that happens.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 9 months ago
            For the past three years I have been placing bets with people that Hillary Clinton would be the next President. I have predicted 100% of the presidential elections for the past 20 years. When I first started trying to place this bet people were confused because, of course, she was nowhere near declaring her run. But, I knew. Now, the past year, it's gotten very hard for any takers for my bet. I get the impression that, deep down, most people know the fix is in. If she goes into a coma today she'll still win the election. I am that convinced it's rigged. If I'm wrong I stand to lose a little money. But, I'm still betting I'm right. This will result in AT LEAST 28 years of Clinton/Bush and the stupid Americans LOVE it. I have a good friend who says this will be the last presidential election. There will be no more after this. I'm not placing that bet...yet.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
              On an even-money bet I would put my money on Trump.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
                Look at the video they dug up today, anyone who does not realize all these people have their little chit chats, jokes, etc, has failed to follow any news the last 20 years after the hundreds of scandals. Trump was not a public figure, so it is of no relevancy, yet it will be used (and was probably in their hands for the last year, waiting for the "right" moment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
              Women will elect Hitlery, just as they elected Obama, and Bill Clinton (which also gave Al Gore his platform to destroy the world's economy with his witch doctor rubbish global warming.)
              Women have a history of voting for the greater of two evils.
              Men on the other hand have a history of voting in fear of that evil for the so-called lesser evil encouraged by GOP propaganda.
              Sometimes I think universal suffrage is the greatest evil.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
          Does that include a conspiracy of huge proportions that is a giant fraud, where all this is theater for the masses? That does go back to a whole lot of the "crazy" conspiracies that don't seem all that crazy. Too many things today are so discordant and illogical, that they make no sense, unless intentional. The election we are presented is a perfect example, there are several suitable, honorable candidates that could have run, and we ended up with religious zealots, perfectly sensible black men who then go off the rails about God and creationism, a socialist/communist with patently unworkable ideas that was railroaded in plain sight, and a political hack who seriously thought he was the chosen one. Where was one, rational, responsible, even semi honest person in that crowd? Fraud does seem to describe this best, as well as the obvious fraud perpetrated in last few years (Hillary, Obamacare, the Iraq war). Almost enough to believe the You Tube videos....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 2 years, 9 months ago
            "It's the P word stupid." When a reporter believes the job is to influence rather than inform they have abandoned journalism and have become propagandists. The so called "Main Stream Media" is no longer an objective source of information (assuming that it ever was). It has become (and maybe has been for a long time) the propaganda arm of the liberal-progressive movement. As a result there should be no hesitation in calling them out for what they are. "Propagandists!", They are such in the same sense that Gobbels was for the third Reich. They use the same techniques of misinformation and slanted reporting with the intent to sway the electorate which results in democracy being nothing more than a carefully crafted illusion. When the sheep patiently wait in line to be shorn, or worse yet slaughtered, the tyrant has achieved his goal. Propaganda plays an essential role in establishing this kind of unwitting compliance.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
              Indeed, yet propaganda is usually the purview of the government and their allies, implying (as has been said before) a large chunk of media is in their sphere now, and thus the "rule of immunity" should not apply to them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 2 years, 9 months ago
    In the several amendments to the US Constitution that discuss voting... those protections only apply to US Citizens. In NC the State Constitution requires US Citizenship to vote in a State election. The US Constitution sets up a Federal government for the States (and the people of the States), The US Senate structure and Electoral College structure are to balance the interests of all States not just the most populous ones as in the US House.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 9 months ago
    Here in California the gubnor just signed a law that allows felons in prison to vote.

    I thought it was an Onion piece when I first saw it...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      Well, if they allow each state to set their own rules, they can do that, as well as allow undocumented people to vote, so without a national code assigning the rights, privleges and responsibilities, you get the fruit salad we have today. So an enterprising party like the Dumbocraps just has to establish a foothold in the big states and everyone is screwed. Sort of like what we have today... And in Oregon
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 9 months ago
        Are you in Oregon? If so, would love to pick your brain.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
          In fact, was asked to run for State Representative in 1999 for our district, went to a Republicrat confab, was asked if I would support "no abortion", said no, it is an individual choice the individual owns responsibility for, and was promptly asked to leave. My wife and I switched to Independent right after...idiots rule.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
          Yes, I have had the displeasure of living in the Socialist State of Oregon for 20 years. Had 15 before that in semi Socialist (now fully converted) Washington, serving on nuclear engines of destruction in Bangor, Wa.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 9 months ago
            I have lived in Wash a few times. Spent much time on Whidbey Island. It was quite a place back in the 70s for a kid who loved the outdoors. I sure miss it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
      I wonder who the felons in prison will vote for. Since the political establishment in California is solidly Democrat, they might vote Republican (or even Libertarian) to spite the system that put them there..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
    RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS, IMMUNITIES

    . . . Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure.
    . . . Under the republican form of government, Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves.
    . . . By your consent to be governed, you may aspire to public service and govern / rule others who also consented to be governed. But in exchange for the privilege, you waive your endowments and accept mandatory civic duties.
    = = = = <<>> = = = =
    • In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
    • If instead of endowed rights, you have "constitutional rights" (privileges), and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government - by your consent.
    • If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA - again, by your consent.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      Ok, then, how does FICA square with that statement? It was implemented by a President, who then forced a Supreme Court that ruled it unconstitutional to recognize it, with the threat of "packing the court until they did what he wanted"? People seem to miss the point FDR hijacked the country in the 30's as they were too focused on "Happy Days are here again". Indeed, if you take up civic duties, you have a ethical burden to execute them for the good of all, and for the special benefit of none. We seem to have missed that step, and instead have a bunch of manipulative looters who have never stopped since FDR showed them the way to get around all the checks and balances.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
        FICA is 100% voluntary.

        “The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
        - - - The Social Security Administration

        http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Scott...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
          Here is the text from the 1935 act:
          http://constitution.org/tax/us-ss/ss/...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
            Jet, as freedom so eloquently pointed out, it is an "everybody knows" thing, and this opens an interesting line of discussion. First thing that jumps out was this tidbit:

            and (7) provide that, if the State
            or any of its political subdivisions collects from the estate of any
            recipient of old-age assistance any amount with respect to old-age
            assistance furnished him under the plan, one-half of the net amount
            so collected shall be promptly paid to the United States . Any payment
            so made shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the
            appropriation for the purposes of this title .

            There was no provision in any estate settlement for recouping what was paid, but that seems to be what it says.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
              Don't forget that absolute ownership of private property is an endowed right, and constitutionally protected, whereas qualified ownership of estate is a privilege subject to ad valorem taxation.
              Don't confuse the two.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
                That is true, however, I see it seems to indicate a clawback type provision from the estate, I see the "if" meaning they split the booty 50/50, just not sure how that would be implemented, unless they talk of "getting paid while dirt napping".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
                  . . .
                  “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
                  - - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

                  [... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

                  IN SHORT,
                  The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
                  . . . . .
                  ▸ From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

                  HOWEVER - - - -

                  ▸ Amendment V, US Constitution 1789 : “... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

                  "PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
                  - - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.
                  . .
                  Sadly, private property ownership was abolished in 1933... by consent, via FICA.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
                    Pennsylvania Constitution,
                    Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

                    All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

                    Section 10.
                    ...nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.

                    . . .
                    No government has the power to tax or confiscate private property without first paying JUST compensation.

                    However, estate is not protected.

                    OWNERSHIP - ... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted.
                    - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

                    LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
                    - - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
          Also, someone should tell TurboTax that little tidbit:

          https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools...

          They call it a tax, and taxes are levied by government, therefore it is not optional. The wording sounds like more government BS babble to confuse people, since you must pay FICA, it IS a tax, and to do that you MUST have an SSN.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
            TurboTax owes their existance to income tax law, as do most accountants. I would not expect them to reveal anything that eliminates customers from their market. I do understand your point of view, nick, but we have been put through a lifetime of propaganda so "everybody knows" that FICA is mandatory under law. But it isn't so. It should be one of the list of great lies, like the check's in the mail, etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
            Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.

            There is no American law compelling participation in FICA, nor is there any law punishing non-participation in FICA.

            Write polite questionnaires to your public servants and ask for a copy of any law that compels participation in FICA.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
          One would have to call that "Bullsh@t", in that since I was 14 and started work, I have had it taken out, not allowed to not have it taken, and it has always been done without consent. You must have an SSN to get a job, it was reuired to join the military and is also mandatory for you to register with selective service, which even with no draft, is also mandatory. All my boys received notices from the Great Leader when they were 17 saying "You must register with selective service when you turn 18" and you had to have an SSN to do it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
            Jetgraphics has done extensive research on the topic, so don't disregard what he says without doing your own due diligence. Legally Jet is correct. FICA is voluntary and that is very important to the fedgov keeping up the facade. Practically, employers are forced by the thugs at the IRS to be their tax collection agents to avoid being audited and prosecuted for things that are left to the IRS "judgement" by the legislation. Legally, they can refuse but Loretta and Company would legally put them through hell and claim the two things were not in any way connected. Not having an SS number is very inconvenient and the banksters have ensured that is true, but it is not against the law. The peons who administer the law at the low levels will tell you that you must have a SS number, but they do not know any better because they are trained that is the case. Do you own research and you will discover that the scam is very well planned, but like the federal reserve, it is not what it appears to be.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
              freedom, indeed, excellent advice. It goes back to all the years of theft that apparently was imposed on me by the thiefs. So, I must now consider this. Is there a way to opt out? I mean, if it is not legally enforceable, why can't I tell them to f-off and stop paying, and still get what I have earned at 65? Jet, any advice? This is worth it's own thread, unless we already thrashed this out...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
                I left SocSec in 1993. The sky didn't fall in on me.
                Coincidentally, I am no longer a "person liable" for any excise tax on a privilege that incurs an income tax. Eye Are Us won't accept unnumbered forms, so I can't be charged with willful failure to file.

                The income tax is not a tax on income, btw.

                “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and PRIVILEGES which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.”
                - - - F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.

                ‘When a court refers to an income tax being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the PRIVILEGE of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.' John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, ‘Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax' (C.R.S. Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)).

                ‘The terms ‘excise tax' and ‘privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably.'
                - - - American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880

                ‘Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupation and upon corporate PRIVILEGES.’ ‘…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of a PRIVILEGE…’
                - - - U.S. Supreme Court, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107

                "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
                - - - Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

                [Always ask which revenue taxable privilege is the reason for the imposing of a tax.]

                Remember, no government instituted to secure rights can tax rights - only government privileges.
                Politely ask which privileges are the basis for any tax imposed.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
                  Jet, so that brings up a few issues, what about the people who failed to file taxes, and you see them surrounded by sheriffs in standoffs? Is that theater to keep the masses in line? Is there a known way to legally remove yourself from SS and still get what you have earned in the great rip off?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
                    "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their RIGHTS and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."
                    - - - Economy Plumbing & Heating v. U.S., 470 F2d. 585 (1972)

                    The KEY is not being a "taxpayer."
                    The Eye Are Us have no jurisdiction over nontaxpayers.

                    One must investigate exactly which privileges are the basis for the excise tax on income.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 9 months ago
                    To the best of my knowledge, you can't withdraw from a contract (soc sec) as legally allowed and still receive the payments that staying under the contract allow. Even if millions all withdrew their consent at the same time it would still fall back to the contract as written. It is not a fund that returns your "contributions" later. (Jet, please correct me if I am in error.) If you are "in" by consent then you have privileges and obligations that limit your liberty under the contract. If you are "out", i.e., withdraw consent, you no longer have privileges and obligations that limit your liberty and you may gain ability to hold "private property" (as opposed to real "estate"), but you no longer qualify for the contracts that the banksters and governments require for modern convenience, e.g., bank account, credit card, state driving license. It is a tangled web.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
            What you may have been led to believe and what is actually in the law seems to be at odds.

            Of course, even Congress enacts laws it has not read, so it is reasonable that most 'informed' Americans have never read American law.

            But before you hurl heifer dung, I urge you to visit your county courthouse law library and READ THE LAW for yourself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jetgraphics 2 years, 9 months ago
    The function of the original Electoral College was to prevent partisan politics from entering the executive branch (which was the case in parliamentarian systems). The local civic minded folks or the state legislature would select an ELECTOR (whose judgment they trusted) who would convene with other ELECTORS (in the college) to vote. The most popular would be president, and his next most popular (and rival) would be vice-president.

    If it hadn't been amended into uselessness, the E.C. would eliminate many abuses:
    [] national campaigning and the need for legalized bribery (campaign contributions) would be unnecessary
    [] The result of rivals holding high office was to insure that there would be someone watching in the wings, with an axe to grind if the CiC was doing something improper. That was why the VP was not given specific duties, in the USCON... His original job was to be “Fly on the Wall” - not a part of a “team”.

    Unfortunately, it worked too well, and George Washington disliked John Adams, (his V.P.) immensely and urged amending the operation of the Electoral College. Bad move.

    "Democracy? We don' wan no stinkin' democracy!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 years, 9 months ago
    A right for those invested in the American idea would be my hope but you are correct, ever since we allowed governments small and large to exist it became a privilege. Ideally, if one was invested, behaved themselves, then they could take advantage of that right. The advent of demonocracy made it a right for the unprivileged.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 9 months ago
    Voters are defined by government, else all persons within a geographical area under the government, despite the functionality of the their minds or citizenship, would be able to vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 years, 9 months ago
    Voting is doubtless a privilege, and given the way of the world, real voting for genuine candidates and causes is a rare privilege. Like all privileges it must be earned through citizenship and honesty. In other words, no illegal immigrants or felons. Of course, I would take it further and require a test to determine if the voter knows anything about our country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 2 years, 9 months ago
    Both. It is a right of ownership (of one's self and one's self-actualization) exercised through freedom of expression, but it also carries with it the privilege of self-determination which if not exercised and vigorously defended may be subject to infringement by tyrants and usurpers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 2 years, 9 months ago
    Neither. Voting isn’t a right in the sense of natural rights. And it isn’t a privilege that proper governments can hand out arbitrarily, such as an aristocratic title. In a government formed to protect individual rights, voting is a voluntary means of participating in the process of determining what specific functions a government performs, how it performs them, and who performs them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
      Well, this documentary (made in 2008 or so I guess, as the Obamanation won his first election) seemed to want to say it is a privilege granted by each state, subject to their rules. I don't know, so I was asking the group on their opinion, if there is anywhere where it is defined, by something that is not controlled by whoever is in office (i.e. government through law or regulation). I always thought it was a right (how often do they quote the statement "Right to vote" used to justify anyone they want to add to their gang?) I am not even sure if there are "natural rights defined as such...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 2 years, 9 months ago
    People are going to start thinking I can't quote anything but Starship Troopers, but... Voting is authorizing political force. You only have a natural right to vote in as much as that right doesn't violate the rights of others.

    I.E. You don't have a right as the majority to vote to take away anyone else's rights or properties.

    The founders never granted a universal right to vote. And they didn't intend to. And, if you read the constitution, you do NOT have a guaranteed right to vote (in there).

    The founders always intended for those that vote to have some skin in the game. The easiest way they could quantify that during those times was to be a Landowner, which was the surest guarantor of paying taxes. These days with computerized accounting platforms, you could easily set it so that only those that have a net positive contribution to society get to vote.

    I.E. All the taxes you pay (voluntarily or involuntarily) MINUS all the benefits you get from the Government (welfare, social security, govt. contracts, salary). If it's above 0, you get to vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  2 years, 9 months ago
    Interesting responses, seems to be a widely variable interpretation, and falls in line with what they got when they did the "man on the street" part. Maybe testament to a lot of what we have come to accept as "the standard" when it is "what they want us to accept".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo