fastyxx said:
Taxes either ARE or are NOT against human rights, no matter who is imposing them, according to your own argument. And passing an amendment would not change that. You're not answering his statement at all. He's pointing out the illogical nature of your point, and you say nothing. If the Founding Fathers definition of rights is proper, it matters little whether they're state taxes or not. You're speaking out of both sides. It only goes against human rights if the federal government does it? That makes no sense at all (again). And what about life and the pursuit of happiness? Why only liberty? Because life and the pursuit of happiness might include things like health care. So why not just ignore that part? Ugh. |
The pursuit of happiness means you have to go get it. It's not given to you. The important word there is pursuit, not happiness. Anyway that was really going to say property, but John Adams wanted it changed because slaves were property, and he knew if it said that it would be much harder to abolish it.
When the federal constitution was written, it was written to limit federal government. The purpose was so the federal government would not infringe on our human rights. Each state was its own entity to deal with the issue as they saw fit.
So anyway, life means the government can't pass laws to limit your life. It does not mean they have help you live longer. It just means they can't get in the way of your ability to live.
The pursuit of happiness means all Americans have a right to own land, go to school, and work. In all other countries at the time, who you were when you were born dictated what you could do for a living, what land you could own, and what education you were allowed to obtain.
It's the governments job to make sure no one stands in your way of success. Not to provide it for you. That's your job.
