Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaineShark]

Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

You are conflating the right, with the power to exercise that right.  They are two different things.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Try again.  Road maintenance is not paid for by registrations.  That's already been established.

I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.

You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Joe

[rossby]

You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Huh?

I asked you to show me the statements that you're saying I've made exactly.
But your response is to assert that I believe a certain something? Because I've established it?
Show me where I made the statement.
I don't think you'll find one.

[J’raxis 270145]

If 199,000 friends and you owned a property... even if I was one of the friends I would have limits to my usage dependent on agreement within the group. The original agreement to control would set the level of agreement... and selection of agents in our proxy.

You’re ignoring that when those 199,000 people begin to have children, the contract wouldn’t apply to them. Even assuming that every single original founder of New Hampshire signed the original New Hampshire Constitution, their children didn’t, so it doesn’t apply to them, or their children, or anyone else.

or that they were party to the original... as the agreement can be amended.

And this is what makes the “social contract” concept a load of bollocks: No real contract can be inherited just because it includes an amendments clause.


[Edit: typo]

[J’raxis 270145]

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

[John Edward Mercier]

Privilege was granted by the monarchy to individual or groups; where as rights are withheld by the individual from the society.

My right to life means the society can not just kill me... my right to liberty means the society can not just imprison me... and my right to property means the society can not just take it from me.

Society's might is greater than my might... so without some agreement to these principles they would simply take them.
The Quiet Enjoyment is one such issue... society trying to overcome the rights of liberty and property where no threat to others life/liberty/property exists.

[John Edward Mercier]

Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

You are conflating the right, with the power to exercise that right.  They are two different things.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Try again.  Road maintenance is not paid for by registrations.  That's already been established.

I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.

You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Joe

So how is road maintenance paid for?

[rossby]

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.

[J’raxis 270145]

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.

I was speaking of the word rights, not privileges.

[rossby]

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.

I was speaking of the word rights, not privileges.

Ah, my bad there.

[MaineShark]

I asked you to show me the statements that you're saying I've made exactly.
But your response is to assert that I believe a certain something? Because I've established it?
Show me where I made the statement.
I don't think you'll find one.

I've already done so.  I don't intend to waste my time repeatedly quoting the same passages.

So how is road maintenance paid for?

A variety of other taxes.  Not registration and licensing fees.

Joe

[Dreepa]

So how is road maintenance paid for?

gas tax and toll tax

[margomaps]

So how is road maintenance paid for?

gas tax and toll tax

And in my town, property tax (on homes -- not the car registration/property tax).  At the town meeting we (they) voted to spend $x00,000 to repair some town roads that are in bad shape.

[John Edward Mercier]

Margomaps,
You'll find the town rolls the registration (property tax) into the budget... generally under other revenue.
Its delayed one year (revenue was from the previous fiscal year). This is purely managerial in nature, as the town could make it a separate fund.

Tolls go to the turnpike system. A portion of the gas tax goes to State highway and municipal road grants. To my knowledge, no other in-State revenues go to NH DOT. NH, unlike other States, is highly departmentalized with dedicated revenue sources.

The other portion of the gas tax goes to DOS, DES, the courts...

[margomaps]

Margomaps,
You'll find the town rolls the registration (property tax) into the budget... generally under other revenue.
Its delayed one year (revenue was from the previous fiscal year). This is purely managerial in nature, as the town could make it a separate fund.

I don't doubt that the vehicle registration/property tax gets added into the budget.  But I also don't believe that the amount apportioned to spend on road maintenance is in any way limited by the amount from the registration/property tax.  The town needed X dollars to repair some roads, and the town voted to approve that in competition with other proposed expenditures.  I just think it might be inaccurate to state that the monies collected from registration/property tax on vehicles is what's used for road maintenance.  It may be partly true, but it certainly is not the entire story.

[John Edward Mercier]

Its dependent on the management of the town.
In some municipalities it may be that the registrations pay for more than the expenditure on road maintenance, in others its less (usually this varies year to year).
I would guess in most cases that registrations and State gas tax municipal grants do not cover the entire cost of road maintenance in most municipalities.
But that would mean that the entire revenue from registrations, and then some, are being used for road maintenance in these city/towns.