Hi johnpe1,
In the land of Ten Thousand lakes you can't rent a canoe with out a license, but according to the enablers you are a bigot if you think an ID to prove identity and eligibility at the voting booth is needed. The so called reason is all the poor folks don't have the ability to travel to get an ID and apparently they the poor are of a different race all according to the libretards.
Regards,
DOB

Wouldn't a value for value exchange involve contractual rights rather than privileges? If I pay for a candy bar at a convenience store, neither myself nor the store is receiving any privileges.

Every citizen from ages 18 to 50 should be on the Militia Rolls? Does this include women?

I don't know if privilege is the result of personal effort, and thus is value for value?

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..

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.

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?

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

. . .
“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.

I agree with your point, but Jet is proof it can be done, he says he bailed in 93. Maybe there is more behind the curtain than we believe...

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".

Wow, I was already looking at Playboy from my older brothers stash...I knew it would hurt...I just could not figure out the physics of the statement...

when I was ten, I had no idea what the word tits meant. -- j
.

"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.

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!"

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?

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.

That is exactly what "they" want you to believe.

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.

Exactly, I read the book at 10 years old, had to ask my mom what a mangle was, and she had one in the 50's. She didn't like the reference...

yowwwwwie! -- j
.

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".

Acknowledged. Over, Under, Out....

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...

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.