Given that there is such a thing as an inalienable right should such rights be taxed?

Thomas Jefferson said that it was self evident that we all have certain inalienable rights. If a right is inalienable it seems to me that it should be free. Yet, we have a right to life and that life is taxed through income taxes. We must spend part of our lives working so we have what we need to live. We have a right to property yet we have to pay sales and property taxes. If you believe that Jefferson is correct then should such rights be taxed as they are now in pretty much every country on Earth?

Law
Share
0 16

I don't see why not

If someone didn't pay taxes, they wouldn't be able to use roads, get a public education, call 911, use most public facilities, use public water or do many other things tht we currently take advantage of daily. If we didn't pay taxes and each person paid for services individually, hardly anyone would have those luxuries because it would be so expensive.
Should we get what we need to live without working for it? Does any other animal not have to work for life?
Paying sales tax is not nearly as bad as not being able to own property.

@Wunderscore If someone didn't pay taxes, they wouldn't be able to use roads, get a public education, call 911, use most public...

I don't wanna go too far in depth, mostly because I'm not sure what point OP is trying to put across, but if there were none of these public services, it doesn't mean they wouldn't exist. There would be a demand for them and where there's demand for product, there's an entrepreneur eager to meet that demand. I don't believe it would be as expensive as you think either. If there is no government creating barriers to entry, more competition is allowed. Competition means lower prices.

Electric companies are a good example. Of course, it's easier for there to be one company providing electricity for a community, but the government restricts competition and imposes heavy regulation on these electric companies (they're essentially state-owned monopolies). The cost to them is then passed down to the consumer. Thankfully though, we've reached a technological era where it's become possible for houses to be off the grid. Perhaps one day, electric companies will become as obsolete as the US Postal Service.

@StickCaveman I don't wanna go too far in depth, mostly because I'm not sure what point OP is trying to put across, but if there...

That's true, but how would some things, like the use of public facilities, public water, and roads, be regulated? You're making it seem like practicality isn't very important. But imagine what a neighborhood of, say, 15 houses would be like if every house got power from a different source. The prices would be high because each house would require different cables instead of multiples of the same being distributed. Yes, there are certainly many valid reasons to oppose this near monopoly over electricity, but the convenience is much more crucial than I think you're giving credit. Also, electricity in the home is not necessary to exercise the unalienable rights of life, liberty, or property.

This user has been banned.
@1943745

They are, but I was just thinking that there is more than one company, though the companies are powered by the government.

@Wunderscore That's true, but how would some things, like the use of public facilities, public water, and roads, be regulated?...

I didn't mean to suggest it was easy but it's definitely possible. Roads for example would be privately owned. The people who lived on them would be responsible for the upkeep of them. Once again, I'll admit it's more complicated than that and I'm still learning about it. It's more of an anarcho-capitalist idea and I'm more of a libertarian. I actually prefer a minimal amount of government (which could simply consist of a council of people who organize budgets and expenses for roads) to do these daunting tasks.

@StickCaveman I didn't mean to suggest it was easy but it's definitely possible. Roads for example would be privately owned. The...

I was thinking more along the lines of how could you guarantee that other people wouldn't take advantage of your road without your permission.
So basically a small group of people who govern an area in regard to infrastructure?

@Wunderscore I was thinking more along the lines of how could you guarantee that other people wouldn't take advantage of your...

Yeah, that's the problem I see with anarcho-capitalism... my friend suggests that's not a government. It certainly isn't the government most people think of: a bureaucratic system that requires people in suits to go in a big building with big pillars and marble floors to vote on things. But it's still a small form of government.

These are birthrights. We don't pay taxes on rights.

Most taxes are unjust and unconstitutional.

This user has been banned.
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.