Article 17 of UDHR in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Pliny]

Money is indeed property, Bonam.

Taxation should be on consumption alone and the person's choice of what he consumes is how taxes are determined. Life essentials such as food, air, water and clothing should be exempt from taxation. Government should not be expensive it is only when they decide to give us things and relieve us of the burden of our responsibilities as individuals to ourselves and to others in a common society of mutual interaction to better the whole that it becomes expensive.

There is no economic stability, economic activity will not occur above board, in a society that does not protect the property rights of individuals. It is individuals that need property rights protections.

Communes, corporations, families should be considered as individuals and the individuals the only ones determining among themselves how the property is used.

Machjo is right that I, in primarily being a libertarian, would not support positive rights as they are entitlements necessary to be provided by government and government cannot provide something to someone without first taking it from someone else. It has no wealth of it's own to give something to someone.

[Bonam]

Money is indeed property, Bonam.

Taxation should be on consumption alone and the person's choice of what he consumes is how taxes are determined.

If money is property, and property rights are intrinsic and important, then what gives the government the right to confiscate some portion of your property every time you carry out an economic transaction? And, if government has this right, what prevents them from taking some other manifestation of your property besides your money? Maybe they'd like to "tax" you by appropriating your house?

I think the distinction between property and currency is a useful one. By clearly establishing that government is entitled to take only your currency in taxes (or otherwise), not your property, it limits the power of government.

[Saipan]

And, if government has this right, what prevents them from taking some other manifestation of your property besides your money?

Liberals invented confiscation.

[pinko]

Liberals invented confiscation.

When?

[bloodyminded]

Liberals invented confiscation.

Sure. It never happened before the fabled liberals came along.

[pinko]

Sure. It never happened before the fabled liberals came along.

You will have to excuse Saipan. He brought his fascism with him from the old country when he moved here from Europe.

[bloodyminded]

You will have to excuse Saipan. He brought his fascism with him from the old country when he moved here from Europe.

I will not excuse Saipan. But I accept the presence of evil as part of the human condition.

[pinko]

I will not excuse Saipan. But I accept the presence of evil as part of the human condition.

I am with you on your point about evil.

[AngusThermopyle]

We can't have property rights in Canada until we have dealt with lands claims and aboriginal rights first.

As has been clearly pointed out previously in this thread property refers to far more than land and encompasses...well...property. So by your statement am I to believe that my ownership of my computer or European built car or home theater are subject to the resolution of Native land claims! What a total crock of smelly waste matter.

[charter.rights]

As has been clearly pointed out previously in this thread property refers to far more than land and encompasses...well...property. So by your statement am I to believe that my ownership of my computer or European built car or home theater are subject to the resolution of Native land claims! What a total crock of smelly waste matter.

Property rights INCLUDES land and so the original statement stands.

[AngusThermopyle]

Property rights INCLUDES land and so the original statement stands.

You made an absolute statement that in itself is false. In Canada we do indeed have property rights. Your statement directly implies that in Canada we have NO property rights, this is a false statement. Whether by design or error, the statement is false. Or do you honestly not understand that property encompasses far more than land?

[g_bambino]

Money is indeed property, Bonam.

If you take a moment to glance at some Canadian currency, you'll note that it is issued - either via the Bank of Canada or the Royal Canadian Mint - by (and thus is property of) the Queen in Right of Canada. If it was your property, why isn't it your face and your coat of arms on there?

[Remiel]

If you take a moment to glance at some Canadian currency, you'll note that it is issued - either via the Bank of Canada or the Royal Canadian Mint - by (and thus is property of) the Queen in Right of Canada. If it was your property, why isn't it your face and your coat of arms on there?

That is excessively legalistic in a way that does not really constructively inform this debate. And even if it were, your point does not necessarily mean what you think it does, bambino. After all, modern money is explictly made so that the face value exceeds the material value. If money is the property of the Queen, it is the physical money, the material value. The face value, however, is the concern of the people using it at a medium for trade.

[g_bambino]

The face value, however, is the concern of the people using it at a medium for trade.

I was talking about the physical currency, yes. But, are you saying that, while that is (ultimately) the property of only one person, the value of the currency each of us holds is our property?

[c/e]

Edited July 13, 2011 by g_bambino

[Remiel]

I was talking about the physical currency, yes. But, are you saying that, while that is (ultimately) the property of only one person, the value of the currency each of us holds is our property?

[c/e]

Sort of; I have may argued myself into a corner here. But imagine that the government decided to drop the idea of taxes entirely, and instead instituted a tithe that everyone was expected to pay of the value of goods they received, in whatever fashion they pleased. While this would suddenly make everything horrendously complex, I would not believe that anyone would think the tithe on goods was fundamentally different in any relevant way from taxes, and all of the arguments that supported the government's ability to tax would also support the government's ability to tithe. I cannot believe anyone of sound mind who thought taxes were not theft of their property would suddenly believe that tithes were theft of their property. At the end of the day they would still be receiving the same value, and that is what would matter to them.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Remiel

[Jack Weber]

This thread isn't about unions. When did you become such a one trick pony? You are becoming a poster that just endlessly harps on one issue, like dub/bud on Israel or CR on natives or wyly on global warming.

Anyway, having your personal property protected is even more important for the poor. If you've been saving years to finally buy a car or something, it will hurt a lot more when the government confiscates it, compared to if you are rich and can just go and buy a replacement the next day.

You are correct..It's not about unions...

Your obfuscation is duly noted...

It's about the right to own property...

Yet you support legislative means that would make people poorer...Under the guise of "personal freedom"...

The question remains...As the price of property increases,and you support legislative means that demonstrably make people poorer,how are most people going to afford the means of liberty you advoctae for?

Or do you realize the incongruency in your "personal freedom" personal ideology?

The paradox IS interesting,is'nt it?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Your contempt for libertarians, or anyone else who doesn't worship at the altar of organized labor, is well known. Have anything useful to add besides that?

It really does bother you that some of us see through your facile "personal freedom" viewpoint,does'nt it?

[Machjo]

You made an absolute statement that in itself is false. In Canada we do indeed have property rights. Your statement directly implies that in Canada we have NO property rights, this is a false statement. Whether by design or error, the statement is false. Or do you honestly not understand that property encompasses far more than land?

Perhaps. But those rights are protected by law only, and not by the constitution.

[Oleg Bach]

We have a feudal system run by the banks. Who now adays really owns their property - as pertaining to land etc.? Very few - we are tenants for the most part - Mortgage not fully paid is considered a rental. Landlords for the most part rent from the banks than in turn rent to tenants - but most land lords only think they are lording over property - The banks can evict the lord if he is not up on his tribute payments. Personally family land is wonderful and worth holding on to - but all things pass and those with grand properties end up in the projects after a few generations...Nothing is stable because the human condition is not stable but a fleeting thing...just like material property - I don't want to own a Porche` - Just want to drive one..In the end we come with nothing and go with nothing. Still as long as there are governments and money lenders - very few actually really own anything.

[AngusThermopyle]

Perhaps. But those rights are protected by law only, and not by the constitution.

That is a good point and one can't deny its validity. Still, is it really necessary to embed such a concept within the Constitution? After all the existing laws provide enough protection and legal recourses that none of us really have to worry about the men in black hats coming in the middle of the night to confiscate our stuff.

The point you make about your friend who had her computer siezed poses a rather tricky question. On the one hand I do realise the actions the police took were considered to be necessary given that there was reason to believe it had been used in commision of an offence. On the other hand it does also seem to be unfair and given that it contained information she may have required one would think that some sort of compromise position should have been considered by the police. As you pointed out, she should have been given the opportunity to retrieve the information she required, or have an official delegate do so. Under direct police supervision of course. Could it be that the police are becoming less the well liked public servants of the community that they were when I was young? It seems to me that the average cop I meet now is far more authoritarian and far less approachable. Perhaps this is a component of your friends troubles.

Having said all that I really don't see any harm in incorporating such amendments to the constitution. On the other hand I also don't see any pressing need to do so either. I suppose I'm rather ambivalent on the subject.