America - The Official Thread

[Dennisch]

Sorry but we werent talking about US law but about the healthcare system in the Netherlands.

I don’t know where you're pulling your nonsense from but you can most certainly be jailed for not paying your health insurance in the Netherlands. As soon as the fines start rolling in, and you're not paying, you'll need to watch over your shoulder for the Law. You become the same type of hoodlum as someone with unpaid taxes or traffic violations.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don’t know where you're pulling your nonsense from but you can most certainly be jailed for not paying your health insurance in the Netherlands. As soon as the fines start rolling in, and you're not paying, you'll need to watch over your shoulder for the Law. You become the same type of hoodlum as someone with unpaid taxes or traffic violations.

You are skipping a lot of steps here. You wont be jailed for just not paying your health insurance immediately. The governement will try a lot of ways first to get you to pay. And you are right that someone who refuses to pay their injunctions, fines, taxes, bills etc. can be courtordered to jail. Technically the judge orders you to be held hostage till you pay your dues.
But that wasnt in the context the question was asked. You cant be jailed without injunctions, fines, courtorders etc. A person who cannot pay because he cant afford it wont be jailed for it.

Seeing you are dutch. Do you prefer the american healthcare system over the dutch? And should healthcare be a basic right for a citizen of a certain country?

 

[Dennisch]

You are skipping a lot of steps here. You wont be jailed for just not paying your health insurance immediately. The governement will try a lot of ways first to get you to pay. And you are right that someone who refuses to pay their injunctions, fines, taxes, bills etc. can be courtordered to jail. Technically the judge orders you to be held hostage till you pay your dues.
But that wasnt in the context the question was asked. You cant be jailed without injunctions, fines, courtorders etc. A person who cannot pay because he cant afford it wont be jailed for it.

Ah. Slight misunderstanding. A buddy of mine was taken hostage by the cops for not paying the insurance and then the fines. 30 days locked up and then they forced him into the debt sanitation? Is that a word?

Seeing you are dutch. Do you prefer the american healthcare system over the dutch? And should healthcare be a basic right for a citizen of a certain country.

Both systems have pros and cons, there should be a basic system in place to prevent people from going bankrupt. But there should also be a choice if you want insurance or not.

 

[PocketZeven]

Ah. Slight misunderstanding. A buddy of mine was taken hostage by the cops for not paying the insurance and then the fines. 30 locked up and then they forced him into the debt sanitation? Is that a word?



Both systems have pros and cons, there should be a basic system in place to prevent people from going bankrupt. But there should also be a choice if you want insurance or not.

Was your buddy chosing not to pay or was did he just "forget"? Did he have some addiction or criminal background?

But you do have to admit, that the governement does try it best to make it affordable for everyone and people do have choices in this system. In some circumstances it is basically free and even can get more goverment care allowance then the insurance cost!

I dont see any pro's in the american system. The result of the free market is highly inflated prices that far surpass the prices elsewhere. The idea that healthcare should be a for profit industry without regulation just doenst fly with me. There should be at least some regulation in place to prevent inflated prices. Healthcare in the US just has all the characteristics of an Oligopoly. People are forced to pay these high costs, because there are no other choices.

edit: added some corrections and anwer to first statement

 

[Imari]

...if you dont want to pay taxes you always have the freedom to migrate to another country.

Don't be asinine. Not everyone has the financial independence to just move to another country, and that's before we even get into the difficulties of immigration law.

I would say that in reality only a minority of people have complete freedom to migrate to another country. You'll note that only the very rich claim residence in tax havens like Monaco. If it was so easy, you'd have everyone who disagreed with tax law doing it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Don't be asinine. Not everyone has the financial independence to just move to another country, and that's before we even get into the difficulties of immigration law.

I would say that in reality only a minority of people have complete freedom to migrate to another country. You'll note that only the very rich claim residence in tax havens like Monaco. If it was so easy, you'd have everyone who disagreed with tax law doing it.

Like i stated above. One can apply for government care allowance if you cant afford it, which almost makes it free. And if you are financial independant and still chose not to pay taxes then you are choosing not to abide with the countries laws.

As an european citizen or american it shouldnt be that hard to migrate to a large number of countries without breaking the bank. It is a matter of which countries taxes you want to pay and lifestyle you want. Immigrants go to the USA without being wealthy for years.

Monaco is a taxhaven is because the country is small and casino's are goverment owned.

 

[Famine]

rights only exist through law

Rights and laws are not the same thing. Rights exist regardless of laws, and laws can either recognise (and protect) them, or deny them. A right denied by law is still a right, and a right denied but the perpetrator is punished by law is no more of a right.

You know that rights and laws aren't the same thing, because they're not called the same thing - but also because laws contradict each other both across jurisdictions and within them. Slavery is an appalling breach of human rights, but legal in some places.

However, if you want to discuss human rights, here is the place.

Would you give up your healthcare in favor of paying no taxes, no more use of public roads and facilities? The idea that taxes are equal to stealing is just absurd.

You're avoiding the question.

If you choose not to make the "contribution", you are pursued through the law and the courts until you have your money taken from you (plus fines and legal costs for being pursued) or have your freedom taken from you. Your "contribution" is literally taken from you with the threat of force and loss of other rights as a consequence. What word would you use to describe that?

The country you live in has a certain standard of living because of those taxes, if you dont want to pay taxes you always have the freedom to migrate to another country.

Emigration is commonly a very expensive and legally very tricky challenge, although it depends on where you want to emigrate to. It's also a lot harder to afford when the money you earn in the country you're leaving is taken from you by force...

Aside from being a rather facile way of looking at it, surely a better way to improve your own country is to remain and fight for the recognition of rights rather than accepting that they're being bypassed for some unspoken "social contract"?

I am a business owner and would benefit from less taxes, but that would have negative results on the standards of living in my country.

They why not overpay, to improve the standards of living? And if taxes are reduced, keep paying what you have to pay now to keep the standards of living as they are now? The amount of tax you pay is only the bare minimum that you have to contribute (on threat of force); you can pay more if you like.

 

[Imari]

As an european citizen or american it shouldnt be that hard to migrate to a large number of countries without breaking the bank. It is a matter of which countries taxes you want to pay and lifestyle you want. Immigrants go to the USA without being wealthy for years.

Immigrants are also give up everything to hike through territory with known human traffickers and murderers. They often do so because they fear violence or death where they're from, or are willing to risk their lives to provide for their children. If you think that's a valid option for someone who simply disagrees with tax law then you've lost your marbles. Just how wealthy are you? You clearly have no concept of what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck.

As a European, perhaps it's easy to move from country to country for work. I wouldn't know. Freedom of movement goes a long way, I suppose.

As an American, I think you'll find that it's harder and more expensive than you'd think. Despite the US being on good relations with a lot of the world, most countries don't hand out work visas. Even if you were to choose to move to somewhere that's a solid US ally like, say, Japan (who relies on the US for military protection), an American will have quite a tough time getting a work visa outside of a few niches like teaching English.

Most countries won't give you a permanent work visa unless your skills are demonstrably in short supply. Which is as it should be, they don't want people coming in from overseas just because they can and taking jobs that could be given to citizens. The government's first responsibility is to it's own citizens, not some foreigner who thinks that the tax breaks are better.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're avoiding the question.

If you choose not to make the "contribution", you are pursued through the law and the courts until you have your money taken from you (plus fines and legal costs for being pursued) or have your freedom taken from you. Your "contribution" is literally taken from you with the threat of force and loss of other rights as a consequence. What word would you use to describe that?

Emigration is commonly a very expensive and legally very tricky challenge, although it depends on where you want to emigrate to. It's also a lot harder to afford when the money you earn in the country you're leaving is taken from you by force...

Aside from being a rather facile way of looking at it, surely a better way to improve your own country is to remain and fight for the recognition of rights rather than accepting that they're being bypassed for some unspoken "social contract"?

They why not overpay, to improve the standards of living? And if taxes are reduced, keep paying what you have to pay now to keep the standards of living as they are now? The amount of tax you pay is only the bare minimum that you have to contribute (on threat of force); you can pay more if you like.

I call it enforcing the law.

Emigration itself is not very expensive and perhaps legally tricky in certain countries. Are there specific countries you are referring to? I dont understand why you think it is so expensive and legally difficult to migrate? My family migrated from China to the Netherlands in the 70's. I have worked and studied in China for 3 years without breaking the bank or any legal difficulties. We were talking about someone not agreeing with the countries law (contributing to health insurance) and not for economic or life threatening reasons. and not al immigrants are asylum seekers.

I can influence the standards of living by voting. I am a business owner and want profit. If i can pay less I will earn more. I would not vote for lower taxes if that means too many sacrifices on healthcare. But I would also not vote to give people, who make no effort to contribute to society, a wellfare check.

edit: added personal experience

 

[Danoff]

I can influence the standards of living by voting.

Whether or not a majority agree with something doesn't change whether it is moral (check my signature). Human rights (such as property rights) cannot be voted away by a majority.

 

[PocketZeven]

Whether or not a majority agree with something doesn't change whether it is moral (check my signature). Human rights (such as property rights) cannot be voted away by a majority.

It was in response to @Famine. I was not referring to either human rights or any moral rights. You are taking my post out of context.

Edit: added out of context

 

[Famine]

I call it enforcing the law.

You call the act of taking things from people, with the threat of force and loss of other rights as a consequence, "enforcing the law"?

Strange.

Emigration itself is not very expensive and perhaps legally tricky in certain countries. Are there specific countries you are referring to? I dont understand why you think it is so expensive and legally difficult to migrate?

Largely because it is.

Moving to other countries to live and work usually requires visas that give you permission to do these things. Some countries also require proof of wealth (moving from the UK to Canada, for example, requires proof that you have $25,000 of liquidity), proof of language competency (IELTS certificate, again in the case of Canada), and some won't allow you to have a work visa unless you already have a job offer (good old USA; and work visas are limited to people with specific abilities and talents - they don't import bricklayers). You also sometimes have to meet certain health, wellbeing and age requirements (I can't emigrate to Japan to work; I'm too old).

And that doesn't include merely travelling to the new place, finding a place to live (and all the fun of moving house that goes with it, only across borders; UK estate agents and solicitors are dreadful even when you are able to go into their office to shout at them).

Although we have freedom of movement and employment in much of Europe these days, emigration just isn't a viable option for most people. It's quite facile then to say "if you don't like how your country does "x", move to another country".

I have worked and studied in China for 3 years without breaking the bank or any legal difficulties.

No visa required?

We were talking about someone not agreeing with the countries law (contributing to health insurance) and not for economic or life threatening reasons. and not al immigrants are asylum seekers.

Who said anything about asylum seekers?

I can influence the standards of living by voting. I am a business owner and want profit. If i can pay less I will earn more. I would not vote for lower taxes if that means too many sacrifices on healthcare.

You didn't answer the question there.

You don't have to pay only the minimum. You can pay more. If taxes are lowered, you can continue to pay what you already do to maintain those standards so that there aren't too many sacrifices on healthcare. That wouldn't impact your profit - it would stay the same as it is now. So why wouldn't you, if standards of living are so important to you that you think other people should be forced to "contribute" to them?

 

[PocketZeven]

You call the act of taking things from people, with the threat of force and loss of other rights as a consequence, "enforcing the law"?

Strange.

So do you chose not to pay taxes?

Moving to other countries to live and work usually requires visas that give you permission to do these things. Some countries also require proof of wealth (moving from the UK to Canada, for example, requires proof that you have $25,000 of liquidity), proof of language competency (IELTS certificate, again in the case of Canada), and some won't allow you to have a work visa unless you already have a job offer (good old USA; and work visas are limited to people with specific abilities and talents - they don't import bricklayers). You also sometimes have to meet certain health, wellbeing and age requirements (I can't emigrate to Japan to work; I'm too old).

And that doesn't include merely travelling to the new place, finding a place to live (and all the fun of moving house that goes with it, only across borders; UK estate agents and solicitors are dreadful even when you are able to go into their office to shout at them).

Although we have freedom of movement and employment in much of Europe these days, emigration just isn't a viable option for most people. It's quite facile then to say "if you don't like how your country does "x", move to another country".

No visa required?

Correct but you are cherrypicking countries. Not all countries have strict laws like USA and/or Canada. You are making out immigration far more difficult then it is. I have lived for years with other expats, who have eventually permanently migrated.

I was there on a student visa and later work permit. These were not expensive and/or legally difficult to obtain.

 

[Famine]

So do you chose not to pay taxes?

Steady on there. You've not actually answered the questions put to you yet:

It isnt theft, but a contribution to the greater good.

I know the answer, but remind me... what happens if you choose not to make that contribution?

It is cut from your wage or you get fined. And no you wont be jailed, in worst case scenario you have to pay a fine + backfees of the insurance.

Just to recap on that then, if you don't want to "contribute", it is taken from you regardless (sometimes with a little extra for your refusal).

Now, remind me. What do we call the act of taking something that belongs to someone, against their wishes, with intent to permanently deprive them of it?

It can't be "enforcing the law", because otherwise you'd think that a bank robbery and a mugging would be "enforcing the law". So... what is it?


However, to answer your question:

Most of us do not, because the threat of force is a deterrent (or because we haven't thought about it). Some of us rely on the movement of cash rather than other forms of payment, to evade it. Some of us have accountants and advisers who help minimise our tax burden and avoid it. Surprisingly few of us, even those who think everyone should pay more tax, pay more than the bare minimum that we have to by threat of force...

I'm in there somewhere. From your statements above, so are you.

 

[PocketZeven]

Steady on there. You've not actually answered the questions put to you yet:




It can't be "enforcing the law", because otherwise you'd think that a bank robbery and a mugging would be "enforcing the law". So... what is it?


However, to answer your question:
I'm in there somewhere. From your statements above, so are you.

What are you referring to? I was referring to someone not paying their taxes/ contribution is not adhering to the law of hist country. As a citizen arent you required to pay taxes? What does mugging and bank robbery got do with it?

You can chose to vote for a party that favors to cut spending on healthcare in exchange for lower taxes or a party to raise taxes for perhaps reduction in deductables. That is a choice we can make. I am not going to pay more taxes then required, but I can incluence the way it is spent or high it is by voting.

 

[Joey D]

I dont see any pro's in the american system. The result of the free market is highly inflated prices that far surpass the prices elsewhere. The idea that healthcare should be a for profit industry without regulation just doenst fly with me. There should be at least some regulation in place to prevent inflated prices. Healthcare in the US just has all the characteristics of an Oligopoly. People are forced to pay these high costs, because there are no other choices.

There are very few for-profit healthcare systems in the US, a vast majority are either non-profit or not-for-profit. I refuse to work for a for-profit healthcare system since I don't agree with the practice, and they are typically always hurting for money in one way or another. There are several for-profit independent clinics though, but they're mostly chiropractors, plastic surgeons, and other cosmetic services.

Healthcare in the US costs so much due to high operating costs, which is mainly caused by government interference. The biggest reimburser for many healthcare systems is Medicare/Medicaid (our socialized medicine) and it has the most asinine rules I've ever seen. Most insurance companies also follow these guidelines too. For example, if you need X test, you typically need to have Y & Z test performed first, which triples the cost of your initial diagnosis.

I have very good insurance, mainly because I work for a healthcare system, and it's really inexpensive. I think I pay $40 a paycheck for it and if I use the healthcare system I work for, the copays are relatively cheap too.

As an european citizen or american it shouldnt be that hard to migrate to a large number of countries without breaking the bank. It is a matter of which countries taxes you want to pay and lifestyle you want. Immigrants go to the USA without being wealthy for years.

It's actually fairly difficult for an American to go elsewhere to work. I've tried to get a job in Canada since they are switching over to the system I work on, but it's pretty much impossible for me to do so. Essentially, you need to work for a multinational company and get transferred in order to work somewhere else. The only exception to this I've seen is the UAE, I could get a job there tomorrow with almost zero effort on my part, but living in the Middle East sounds terrible for someone like me and my family.

You also need to pay US taxes if you're working abroad as well, except under a handful of circumstances.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are very few for-profit healthcare systems in the US, a vast majority are either non-profit or not-for-profit. I refuse to work for a for-profit healthcare system since I don't agree with the practice, and they are typically always hurting for money in one way or another. There are several for-profit independent clinics though, but they're mostly chiropractors, plastic surgeons, and other cosmetic services.

Healthcare in the US costs so much due to high operating costs, which is mainly caused by government interference. The biggest reimburser for many healthcare systems is Medicare/Medicaid (our socialized medicine) and it has the most asinine rules I've ever seen. Most insurance companies also follow these guidelines too. For example, if you need X test, you typically need to have Y & Z test performed first, which triples the cost of your initial diagnosis.

I have very good insurance, mainly because I work for a healthcare system, and it's really inexpensive. I think I pay $40 a paycheck for it and if I use the healthcare system I work for, the copays are relatively cheap too.



It's actually fairly difficult for an American to go elsewhere to work. I've tried to get a job in Canada since they are switching over to the system I work on, but it's pretty much impossible for me to do so. Essentially, you need to work for a multinational company and get transferred in order to work somewhere else. The only exception to this I've seen is the UAE, I could get a job there tomorrow with almost zero effort on my part, but living in the Middle East sounds terrible for someone like me and my family.

You also need to pay US taxes if you're working abroad as well, except under a handful of circumstances.

Thank you for making a bit less ignorant about the details of the US healthcare system. How did the operating cost get so expensive by governement interference? T

 

[Famine]

What are you referring to?

The question I asked you. I even quoted the entire chain of posts for you.

I was referring to someone not paying their taxes/ contribution is not adhering to the law of hist country. As a citizen arent you required to pay taxes? What does mugging and bank robbery got do with it?

I didn't ask about taxes, contributions or law. I asked what you would call the act of taking something from someone, against their will, by threat of force, with the intent of permanently depriving them of it.

Hopefully you'll see the connection.

I am not going to pay more taxes then required

Why not? If you're drawing a direct line from the amount of tax income by the exchequer to the living standards of your nation, why only pay what you're forced to?

Correct but you are cherrypicking countries.

Not really. I was giving you examples of countries I've looked into emigrating to (you forgot Japan, by the way).

Not all countries have strict laws like USA and/or Canada. You are making out immigration far more difficult then it is.

Not really. Within Europe it's relatively easy, if you're also a European. However emigration to other first world countries, or from other first world countries, is commonly financially and legally awkward. Many nations do indeed have quotas and criteria, simply to ensure that the people going there will fulfil a role in society and contribute to it, rather than being a net loss. China is amongst them, and its work visa requirements are pretty standard fare - age restrictions, accredited employer to sponsor you, certificate of compliance, yadda yadda.

However, that's just a work visa (and a temporary residence permit). To emigrate there is a whole lot more difficult:

For Employment
Foreigners can apply for Permanent Residence for Employment if they satisfy the following conditions:
1. having assumed the posts of deputy general manager or deputy director of plants or higher level posts or posts of associate professors or associate research fellows and similar posts for more than four years in a row, and the period of stay in accumulation being no shorter than three years and having sound taxation record;

2. the units where they work should meet any of the following terms and conditions:
A: institutions subordinate to the various ministries under the State Council or to the provincial level people's governments;
B: major higher learning schools;
C: enterprises or institutions executing major engineering projects or major scientific projects of the State;
D: high-tech enterprises, foreign invested enterprises in encouraged type, foreign invested advanced technology enterprises or foreign invested export-oriented enterprises.

Requirements
1. Completed Application Form of Aliens for Permanent Residence in PRC;
2. Four recent 2-inch color photos (full face without hat) against blue background;
3. Valid foreign passports or identification capable of substituting passports;
4. Certificate of health issued by Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau appointed by the Chinese government or issued by foreign medical agencies accredited by Chinese embassies or consulate offices (the Health Certificate is valid for 6 months since it is issued);
5. Proof of no criminal record abroad recognized by Chinese embassies or consulate offices;
6. Proof of post or title of the persons issued by the units where they work ;
7. Certificates of foreign experts or certificates of employment of aliens;
8. Registration certificate, annual inspection proof and personal tax payment proof of the units where they work;
9. One of the below documents:
(1) units are foreign funded enterprises, the certificate of approval of foreign funded enterprises and proof of combined annual inspection should also be provided;
(2) persons of enterprises or institutions executing major engineering projects or scientific projects of the State should provide testifying documents for the projects issued by the competent authorities of the provincial level people's governments or ministries;
(3) persons working for high-tech enterprises should provide certificates of high-tech enterprises;
(4) persons working for encouraged type foreign funded enterprises should provide letter of confirmation of the encouraged type foreign invested projects;
(5) persons working for foreign invested advanced technology enterprises should provide letter of confirmation of foreign invested advanced technology enterprises;
(6) persons working for foreign invested export-oriented enterprises should provide letter of confirmation of foreign invested export-oriented enterprises.

Again, not really one for the bricklayers, is it?

 

[Danoff]

What are you referring to? I was referring to someone not paying their taxes/ contribution is not adhering to the law of hist country. As a citizen arent you required to pay taxes? What does mugging and bank robbery got do with it?

@Famine is drawing a distinction between law and rights. The law changes from one place to the next, and sometimes includes executing rape victims for the crime of having been raped. The law is not a good standard for what is right. Human rights exist outside and independently of law. It is easy to make laws that enable rights violations, countries do it all of the time. One thing countries do is make it the law to seize some of your property...

 

[PocketZeven]

The question I asked you. I even quoted the entire chain of posts for you.

I didn't ask about taxes, contributions or law. I asked what you would call the act of taking something from someone, against their will, by threat of force, with the intent of permanently depriving them of it.

It depends on context. Such a question needs to be in context. If that person stole someone from you in the first place. Taking that something against their will as an act of revenge can be judged as more justified then if it werent out of revenge. Forcefully taking a weapon out of a childs hand or a mentally unstable person for their own protection?

In this case it is in context of forcing someone to adhere to the countries law. You are trying to catch me on a certain answer but you cant compare the situation with a random situation where a stranger steales someones property.

@Famine is drawing a distinction between law and rights. The law changes from one place to the next, and sometimes includes executing rape victims for the crime of having been raped. The law is not a good standard for what is right. Human rights exist outside and independently of law. It is easy to make laws that enable rights violations, countries do it all of the time. One thing countries do is make it the law to seize some of your property...

The law does try to interpet these human rights to its best of its ability and I agree can be flawed. But without laws there ust is no written document that enforces certain human rights you refer to. Also I believe an individual is inherently selfish, only in a community or with family does his social nature come out. I understand that Famine is trying to compare 2 situations with eachother without context of the law, but that is comparing apples with pears.

edit: added response to danoff

 

[ryzno]

they don't import bricklayers

Nope, they come here illegally.

 

[Northstar]

you cant compare the situation with a random situation where a stranger steales someones property.

So when the president does it, that means it's not illegal?

 

[PocketZeven]

So when the president does it, that means it's not illegal?

If the government demanding you pay your taxes forcefully according to the law.... Then yes it is legal.

 

[Dotini]

Whether or not a majority agree with something doesn't change whether it is moral (check my signature). Human rights (such as property rights) cannot be voted away by a majority.

I like property rights, since I own a lot of property. But what about in the thousands of years before America was conquered and repopulated by Europeans? The natives did not seem to have property rights in their system like we do. Property such as the land itself seemed to have been held and enjoyed in common, not by individuals. If anyone owned the land, to them if might have been the Great Spirit or the bear and the buffalo. Are you saying that property rights existed there and then, and the people just didn't know about it? Did Europeans already have property rights in America before they conquered it? Were they granted by Isabella, the King or God, or was the land just inherently open to right by conquest?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rights exist regardless of laws

Nope, without any social construction there are no rights, only actions. It takes the recognition of a right for it to exist. You may think you have a right but you need an agreement that it's observed.

However, if you want to discuss human rights, here is the place.

Indeed, and sorry for going off the topic. However, I note that there continues to be much discussion after our exchange in which you continue to take the position that removal of property (including currency) as being against one's rights... the point remains that rights only exist through law therefore taxation (when it is part of the legislation) is not a breach of the social contract.

Edited for heinous, unintentional misspell!

 

[Dotini]

Nope, without any social construction there are no rights, only actions. It takes the recognition of a right for it to exist. You may think you have a right but you need an agreement that it's observed.



Indeed, and sorry for going off the topic. However, I note that there continues to be much discussion after our exchange in which you continue to take the position that removal of property (including currency) as being against one's rights... the point remains that rights only exist through law therefore taxation (when it is part of the legislation) is not a breach of the social contract.

Edited for heinous, unintentional misspell!

There are some libertarians who have read too much Ayn Rand.

 

[Danoff]

I like property rights, since I own a lot of property. But what about in the thousands of years before America was conquered and repopulated by Europeans? The natives did not seem to have property rights in their system like we do. Property such as the land itself seemed to have been held and enjoyed in common, not by individuals. If anyone owned the land, to them if might have been the Great Spirit or the bear and the buffalo. Are you saying that property rights existed there and then, and the people just didn't know about it? Did Europeans already have property rights in America before they conquered it? Were they granted by Isabella, the King or God, or was the land just inherently open to right by conquest?

Property rights come from labor - it all boils down to force. The natives had property rights that they didn't observe. There's a lot on this in the human rights thread.

Nope, without any social construction there are no rights, only actions. It takes the recognition of a right for it to exist. You may think you have a right but you need an agreement that it's observed.

Rights don't matter if they're observed. They only matter when they're not observed. There is no need for an agreement. It is precisely the moment when someone is unaware of or unwilling to observe the rights of others that they are important.

 

[Dotini]

Property rights come from labor - it all boils down to force. The natives had property rights that they didn't observe.

Oh I do love this! Might makes right, and the ends justify the means.

 

[Danoff]

Oh I do love this! Might makes right, and the ends justify the means.

Exactly the opposite. A clay pot belongs to a native that made it because of labor. If it gets taken by another native and not returned because they don't believe in rights, that's property rights that exist not being observed.

 

[Dotini]

Exactly the opposite. A clay pot belongs to a native that made it because of labor. If it gets taken by another native and not returned because they don't believe in rights, that's property rights that exist not being observed.

If the land is made by The Great Spirit and given to the native peoples and animals, and the Euro-Man comes and steals it by force, how does that sit with the Great Spirit?