Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:58:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
457 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> The democratic majority agreed. You agreed.
> As simple as that.
Poppycock!
Since you are apparently in the Netherlands I guess it might be understood
that you do not entirely understand the questions involved as they might
relate to citizens of the United States, although perhaps you are a U.S
citizen abroad -- I don't know. I would personally have no idea as to what the
laws would say on these issues as pertained to citizens in the Netherlands
myself, so I suppose that makes us equal.
=)
Nothing is quite that simple under the system of government in the United
States. We do not live under a system of democracy, and certainly not under a
pure democracy. We live under a democratic republic -- which is much superior
to my mind. We have, in fact, a system of majority rule with minority
rights.
What are those immutable minority rights? Well, the rights of an individual.
What are the rights of an individual? Well, you could read about them in
partial lists like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Magna
Carta, State Constitutions, Title 42 of the Federal Codes -- but all such
lists are considered partial only. Theoretically, an individual has any
rights they may wish to test in a court of law. For example, let's say you are
a black woman and it is your ambition to ride on the front of a bus even
though laws passed by a majority in your state forbids you to do so -- well,
violate the law, test the law in court, and find out what your rights REALLY
are! Guess what? Blacks are allowed to ride on the front end of a bus despite
what the majority ruled -- thank the gods...
One old law saying analogizes the conflict of rights between two parties, or
perhaps between a majority and a minority, this way: "You have the right to
swing your arm right up to the tip of my nose." Now truly, such a gesture
between individuals might be actionable as a threatening gesture, and there
are old English cases about it that fall under the category of Torts; but the
idea is simple: the majority may do as it sees fit so long as it does not
violate the immutable rights of an individual.
Monies obtained from selling old toys may have less to do with realizing
profits than receiving the inflationary equivalent in Federal Reserve Notes of
what the item was originally worth -- or had this never ocurred to you?
Profits are not sullied when the currency is pure (commodity). When its
printed on paper and backed by nothing -- it IS essentially nothing.
When Grandma used to buy a deli pickle for a dime -- that dime was minted in
silver and had all of the characteristics of U.S. currency as stipulated by
the Constitution. The fact that I might have to spend a dollar to obtain the
same deli pickle has something to do with the fact that money has been
devalued -- not only because that dollar is not minted in precious metal, but
also because they may and DO simply make many more of them than they should.
I was tempted to say "more than they can back with the appropriate weight in
commodities;" but sadly, our money in the U.S. is backed by nothing at all.
Its all a matter of faith now, digital faith in many cases -- like may a
person's directly deposited earnings.
Back in the days of the Articles of Confederation, it was said that people
papered the walls with currency because it wasn't worth anything from one day
to the next...and after all, it was JUST paper...
...I'm not sure why this hasn't happened in the present. Perhaps its similar
to the valuation of internet stocks -- no one wants to see the bottom drop
out, so everyone pretends the stocks have a value.
But to these 35 year old eyes, when the emperor is nude -- the emperor is
wearing no clothes!
-- Richard (calling 'em as I sees 'em...)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) The Universal declaration of Hum.. Oh. Wait. Forget I said that. (...) So how does this relate to taxes? I don't think I've ever heard of a court case where it was ruled that you don't have to pay the taxes defined in the laws of the land. If (...) (25 years ago, 19-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
