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

[The_Patriot]

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.

 

[tacomancer]

Sort of, when it is taxed, it is no longer that person's property. I wouldn't say that we have a direct right to people's property, but we do have a right to have a say in government programs and the taxation necessary to support it.

 

[The_Patriot]

Sort of, when it is taxed, it is no longer that person's property. I wouldn't say that we have a direct right to people's property, but we do have a right to have a say in government programs and the taxation necessary to support it.

I'll take that as a yes then. Do you think that if the government wasn't involved that it would be alright for someone to come along and take your property without your consent and it be okay?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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'm curious. What do you mean by someone taking another person's property though the use of government? How could that happen?

 

[tacomancer]

I'll take that as a yes then. Do you think that if the government wasn't involved that it would be alright for someone to come along and take your property without your consent and it be okay?

It depends on the purpose.

 

[The_Patriot]

I'm curious. What do you mean by someone taking another person's property though the use of government? How could that happen?

You want the government to seize a portion or all of a person's property. It's exactly what it says.

 

[The_Patriot]

It depends on the purpose.

You're going to have to be a lot more concrete then that.

 

[tacomancer]

You're going to have to be a lot more concrete then that.

If it is necessary for the preservation and continuation of an orderly society.

 

[The_Patriot]

If it is necessary for the preservation and continuation of an orderly society.

Still you're being a vague, so that means that you have nothing to really add. Thank you for your time.

 

[tacomancer]

Still you're being a vague, so that means that you have nothing to really add. Thank you for your time.

Ok, I guess a hypothetical would be, if there was a flood and a bunch of people were starving and I had more food than I could eat.

 

[The_Patriot]

Ok, I guess a hypothetical would be, if there was a flood and a bunch of people were starving and I had more food than I could eat.

Is that with or without your permission that you would be okay with it?

 

[tacomancer]

Is that with or without your permission that you would be okay with it?

I would have been ok with it as I would have done it anyway. Even if noone asked before hand.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You want the government to seize a portion or all of a person's property. It's exactly what it says.

So, I tell the government that I want it to seize some or all of the guy who live's next door's property. Is that what you are meaning?

 

[digsbe]

You don't have the right to other people's property. However, I think you have the right to receive payment back. If someone owes you money and they refuse to pay, you have a right to their property to pay off their debts (somewhat like repossession). People have the right to their property/money.

 

[The_Patriot]

I would have been ok with it as I would have done it anyway. Even if noone asked before hand.

Do you believe that you can enforce your morality on others and ignore what they have to say?

So, I tell the government that I want it to seize some or all of the guy who live's next door's property. Is that what you are meaning?

The meaning is perfectly clear.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The meaning is perfectly clear.

If it was perfectly clear, I wouldn't be asking. Does my example in post #13 equate to what you are saying? Or are you actually trying to say something else... withouit actually saying it?

 

[tacomancer]

Do you believe that you can enforce your morality on others and ignore what they have to say?

Not being upset by someone taking my excess food in a time of crisis would be enforcing my morality on others?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Do you believe that you can enforce your morality on others and ignore what they have to say?

Doesn't that happen when people deny gays the right to marry because they believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Since you seem to believe that it is not OK to force ones morality on others and ignore what they have to say, I'm SURE that you are pro-GM... to be otherwise would be hypocritical.

 

[tacomancer]

Doesn't that happen when people deny gays the right to marry because they believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Since you seem to believe that it is not OK to force ones morality on others and ignore what they have to say, I'm SURE that you are pro-GM... to be otherwise would be hypocritical.

Technically, if he did not believe in enforcing morality on society, he would also be pro-murder as well. Since objection to murder is a moral issue.

 

[The_Patriot]

If it was perfectly clear, I wouldn't be asking. Does my example in post #13 equate to what you are saying? Or are you actually trying to say something else... withouit actually saying it?

The meaning is perfectly clear and given your track record with me in debates I will not feed you ammunition. It is up to you to come to whatever meaning you think it means and to answer the question.

Not being upset by someone taking my excess food in a time of crisis would be enforcing my morality on others?

You're ignoring the original question in which I stated, "Do you have the right to other people's property and to enforce the taking of it through the use of the government?"

Doesn't that happen when people deny gays the right to marry because they believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Since you seem to believe that it is not OK to force ones morality on others and ignore what they have to say, I'm SURE that you are pro-GM... to be otherwise would be hypocritical.

My reply to that is that I believe that the government should get out of marriage altogether and if not let everyone marry regardless of their orientation or beliefs.

Technically, if he did not believe in enforcing morality on society, he would also be pro-murder as well. Since objection to murder is a moral issue.

Invalid argument since there are many ways to be against murder that isn't based on morality at all. Murder is illegal because everyone has the right to life by default and you have the right to be safe in your person. Murder removes the right to life and the right to be safe in your person. Hence, you have an invalid argument.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The meaning is perfectly clear and given your track record with me in debates I will not feed you ammunition. It is up to you to come to whatever meaning you think it means and to answer the question.

Perfectly clear? OK... I call you out, then. This is just another thread following your silly "tax=slavery" position. I'll pose this to you. If you believe that taxation is slavery, bring suit against someone using the 13th Amendment. See how far you get.

\My reply to that is that I believe that the government should get out of marriage altogether and if not let everyone marry regardless of their orientation or beliefs.

Then I applaud you for your consistency and we are in agreement.

 

[The_Patriot]

Perfectly clear? OK... I call you out, then. This is just another thread following your silly "tax=slavery" position. I'll pose this to you. If you believe that taxation is slavery, bring suit against someone using the 13th Amendment. See how far you get.

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.

Then I applaude you for your consistency and we are in agreement.

My position has always been consistent. Good day.

 

[tacomancer]

You're ignoring the original question in which I stated, "Do you have the right to other people's property and to enforce the taking of it through the use of the government?"

Ahh, we are back to the OP. Are you asking directly or through government? Directly, no, through government, yes.

Invalid argument since there are many ways to be against murder that isn't based on morality at all. Murder is illegal because everyone has the right to life by default and you have the right to be safe in your person. Murder removes the right to life and the right to be safe in your person. Hence, you have an invalid argument.

The belief that people have a right to life is a moral stance. Believing that people have a right to be safe is also a moral stance.

 

[The_Patriot]

Ahh, we are back to the OP. Are you asking directly or through government? Directly, no, through government, yes.

What does my question say?

The belief that people have a right to life is a moral stance. Believing that people have a right to be safe is also a moral stance.

Prove that it is a moral stance.

 

[tacomancer]

What does my question say?

In that case, yes, I do believe that.

Prove that it is a moral stance.

:rofl Thats hilarious.

The whole point of natural law is to create moral laws and a basis for ethics. The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)