Official Discord for 1stAmender - Click to Join Us!

If Government Can Take Inalienable Rights How is it Inalienable?

Loves to blog and debate

Tags: inalienable rights  libertarian philosophy  inalienable  

Loves to blog and debate

If Government Can Take Inalienable Rights How is it Inalienable? published by The 1st Amender
Writer Rating: 2.0000
Posted on 2019-05-24
Writer Description: Loves to blog and debate
This writer has written 210 articles.

The magistrate of United States yore would request unto its people to "...attend church every day, so lest to bring the ire of God and government down upon your stead." For in olden days, it was up to the magistrate to arbitrarily lay rule upon the town or even the colony itself. Behold! Those who seek to avoid going to church that Sunday would indeed face force and ire of the legislative power of the magistrate. To come to the home of the heathen, relinquish their property, and cut the ear off of the very body that seek to threaten God.

Indeed rules that would be considered as irrational were in fact obligatory during the early settlement of the United States. Those that challenge the magistrate, for instance, the Quakers, would seek to keep on their hats when entering in the church on Sunday. The quakers favored to not participate the church to begin with, for they believed to worship in the silence of their home. Nay, behest to the power of the magistrate, would be forced to go to church. Additionally, to remove their hats when entering God's house. Regardless, many Quakers would find their homes and property damaged, often Quakers flogged and run out of town for their constant affection to that of liberty, seen as trends created by heathens.

How then, for with the powers of John Locke, the father of Liberalism, behold the inalienable rights which are not to be infringed under any circumstance? If government can simply revoke them, how are they inalienable? And for that matter; what constitutes an inalienable right?

Under the pretense of John Locke, it is labeled unto the ardent and sacred belief:

  1. The inalienable right, to never be revoked by those that grant it, to your own body. For what world would you live in where the ruler, chosen or unchosen, have a right to the body of those that live on the land? Even at the highest beholder of power, the President has no right to revoke right to your body, until you yourself revoke the right to the body of another individual could it be justified.
  2. Being that you have a right to your body, it is safe to assume you have a right to your own labor. To lay ownership of your labor, or to sell your labor to whoever it is you please. For, how could you own your own body without the right to your own labor? In order to maintain the ownership of your own body, it is an absolute pretense to then have the ownership to the work you choose.
  3. Understanding if you have a right to your own body. This extends into labor, and finally, to property. The inalienable right of ownership of not only hammer but land as well. Through the ownership of your body, it is extended to the fact you have a right to own the property which is required to maintain ownership of your own body. But what if someone is to own the property you lay on? Certainly then, their inalienable rights to property superscede yours. And with enough toil, can lay into your own ownership to property that is NOT to be infringed.
  4. When the above 3 are met is only when the final doctrine of inalienable right kicks in. Of Liberty. Liberty means to effectively have the ability to do as one pleases. To never be revoked lest you decide to revoke the inalienable rights of another unjustly. Truly only then can liberty be revoked.

These inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are a radical scheme cooked up by the father of Liberalism. Even today, without the requirement to mention a magistrate, exist many instances of revocation of these fundamental inalienable rights. For what is property taxes, other than a forceful seizure and coersion of property by the power of the state? Imagine for a moment, the owner of hammer must pay a rent to the government every month lest they lose the very hammer they use for their livelihood. This of course, is a vital breach of contract to that of what was intended to the existence of the United States.

Then, when the government comes to destroy your right to your life, liberty, and property that which you own; you therefore have a right to defend it. A right to show those that it is not on their land they infringe. Not on the whim of the magistrate or the tax collector. It is unto the individual to make the rights just that, inalienable. Meaning, if the government would so risk to revoke these rights, the people have never lost them. This is because the people have ownership of their body, and ability to defend themselves in the advent of aggression on their body, and therefore property.

For whatever fact, whim, edict, dictation, governor, statist would point to revoking these inalienable rights is in fact an aggression on your body. Just because the government can "attempt" and very well "succeed" in revoking it, if you are willing to defend your inalienable right with your life, then what exactly can the government revoke?



Article Rating: 1.0000

You have the right to stay anonymous in your comments, share at your own discretion.

Anonymous: 2019-05-24 08:32:26 ID:3188

Property taxes in the United States originated during colonial times. By 1796, state and local governments in fourteen of the fifteen states taxed land, but only four taxed inventory (stock in trade). Delaware did not tax property, but rather the income from it. In some states, "all property, with a few exceptions, was taxed; in others, specific objects were named. Land was taxed in one state according to quantity, in another according to quality, and in a third not at all. Responsibility for the assessment and collection of taxes in some cases attached to the state itself; in others, to the counties or townships." Vermont and North Carolina taxed land based on quantity, while New York and Rhode Island taxed land based on value. Connecticut taxed land based on type of use. Procedures varied widely.

During the period from 1796 until the Civil War, a unifying principle developed: "the taxation of all property, movable and immovable, visible and invisible, or real and personal, as we say in America, at one uniform rate." During this period, property taxes came to be assessed based on value. This was introduced as a requirement in many state constitutions.

After the Civil War, intangible property, including corporate stock, took on far greater importance. Taxing jurisdictions found it difficult to find and tax this sort of property. This trend led to the introduction of alternatives to the property tax (such as income and sales taxes) at the state level. Property taxes remained a major source of government revenue below the state level. Connecticut taxed land based on type of use. Procedures varied widely.

Hard times during the Great Depression led to high delinquency rates and reduced property tax revenues. Also during the 1900s, many jurisdictions began exempting certain property from taxes. Many jurisdictions exempted homes of war veterans. After World War II, some states replaced exemptions with "circuit breaker" provisions lim

Anonymous: 2019-05-24 08:36:18 ID:3189

limiting increases in value for residences. Various economic factors have led to taxpayer initiatives in various states to limit property tax. California Proposition 13 (1978) amended the California Constitution to limit aggregate property taxes to 1% of the "full cash value of such property." It also limited the increase in assessed value of real property to an inflation factor that was limited to 2% per year.

Anonymous: 2019-09-20 03:07:37 ID:3394

You're ending paragraph summarizes the problem. What exactly can the government revoke? Everything. They can take everything. If you are in a cell, or dead just because you believe they never had the right to take your property doesn't change the fact your house was taken from you.

This is just meaningless ideological drivel that doesn't exist in the real world. Tell the people on the border who are on the border getting their land eminent domain'd for some stupid fucking wall that philosophically, as long as they are fighting its never been taken from them.

It's like owning a boat but not having access to the marina and someone else can access the marina and is using your boat. In what sense do you even own that boat? In some abstract sense perhaps, but in no concrete, meaningful way.

Anonymous: 2019-09-20 03:09:47 ID:3395

To followup, my main issue with your article is that without acknowledging these rights can be collectively taken because we can individually defend them seems to undermine the value of fighting for collective good or well being of a community, society, or country.

The 1st Amender: 2019-09-24 12:38:31 ID:3396

Yes, so the people who have their property taken have a right to defend their property with whatever tool necessary to do so. As people will aggress on your body on a constant basis, you have a right to defend.