Does the government have the right to tell you what you are allowed to own?

Does the government have the right to come into your house and tell you what you are allowed to own? What you are not allowed to own? How much of something you are allowed to own? If it's your property, how much right does the government have to determine what you can do? Really, any and every object can theoretically be made. So is the government saying individuals are not allowed to put together perfectly legal objects together in such a way as to make an illegal object?

How much control is the government really trying to exert in the private domain?

How do we define what a "potential danger" actually is? After all, anything can potentially be a "potential danger". Seems like a very slippery slope. How many personal property rights restrictions must we endure for the sake of the common good? Seems like more and more, society is turning into a giant prison; it is prisoners who are not allowed to choose for themselves what possessions they can have with them.


"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property."
"It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree..."
— Ayn Rand

 

well there just happens to be people who are taking a serious look at precisely that:

Now You Need to Be a Judge to Talk About Evidence
by Marc Stevens


If you want to hear some really stupid things from bureaucrats, just ask them for evidence their laws apply to you. Once you get past the initial evasions, and you just stick to asking for evidence and a responsive answer, if they don’t just hang up or scream for a cop to arrest you, then the stupid really comes out.

This call to a California tax bureaucrat on 24 May 2013, was regarding a form letter that I got, and yes I was a little angry. Though with good reason. The agent was supposed to have been doing a three month investigation into the evidence proving the California constitution and laws applied to about twelve people the agency is attacking. Instead of providing any evidence, all the agent did was recite the constitution and code.

He avoided my calls for weeks and by chance I got him on the line. When confronted directly on the evidence proving the constitution and laws applied, he had nothing. For those who may feel bad for Brian, keep in mind he assured me he was investigating; investigating for three months. Despite not having found any evidence, he insisted the laws applied and there was jurisdiction and gave his blessing to the attacks.

Now for the stupidity. When challenged on the evidence the laws applied, all Brian could come up with was:

“Um, well. I can’t answer that because I’m not a judge.”
​

This guy tried to convince me you have to be a judge to do a tax assessment.
Never mind that his associates at the tax bureaucracy are not judges and are applying the law to millions of people everyday.
http://marcstevens.net/podpress_trac/web/9291/0/Brian_2013-05-24.mp3

​

that is a favorite;


Kolby is an sitting Tempe City council member and joins the show today to shed some light on the applicability of the law.

http://marcstevens.net/podpress_trac/web/9183/0/NSP_2013-05-04_Calvin_KolbyGranville.mp3

Notes:

• “What facts do you have to demonstrate and submit as supportive evidence that the laws/codes apply to anybody?”
• Bureaucratic dodging and denial of inquiry from the likes of Judith Baumann.
• Differentiating between objective facts and legal opinion.
• Fallacious circular reasoning of using the law [legal opinion] to factually demonstrate applicability of the law [legal opinion].
• A layman’s ability to analyze fact.
• Applicability based on geography.
• The contrarian concept of “consent of the governed.”
• Analyzing the “social contract,” factual element by factual element.
• Government’s monopoly on the use of force to provide their products and services to citizens.
• “Should a product or service be provided at the barrel of a gun?”
• “Laws are more valuable than anarchy.” [Anarchy is without rulers (legislators), it is not without rules (laws).]
• Is doing business in the same manner as government criminal for an individual?
• Historically, government is forced upon populations.
• Voluntaryism through non-compliance with the violent STATE.
• Sociologically evolving beyond assumptious concepts of such as permanent jurisdiction.
• The myth of “opting-in” to government.
• When is it okay to systematically murder another member of society because they violate a legal opinion?
• Abiding by the “rules of a house.”
• The delusion of property rights.
• Sacrificing some freedom’s to secure freedom.
• The government has “no duty to protect.”

that is some seriously good stuff.

 

I was not referring to taxes in my post. Though, in some cases, the government tries to force people to do things, or stop them from owning things, by levying ridiculous taxes on them.

 

Short answer? No. No it doesn't. It should be determined by your ability to obtain it lawfully and righteously, not to mention your own personal wealth.

 

Yes sometimes government have the right to tell us what we are allowed to own, but not always as government makes the rule for our safety.

 

Well, to start, it's not really your house, unless the deed is registered with the government.

Second, of course the government can dictate what you can own and what you can't own.

Well, you can still own stuff that they say you aren't allowed to own, but if they catch you, they can confiscate it, and punish you.

Because man is a social animal, without society the individual is nothing.
Society can make and enforce rules, in the form of the government, and in other forms.
That's just reality.

 

The government is not allowed to come into your home without a warrant.

The government can tell you what you may not own, but unless they have a warrant, they can't come into your home to enforce anything.

 

gov't's have no rights at all. rights are reserved to the people. laws grant POWER to the govt, but the ultimate veto is the bullet box. Rights come out of the barrel of a gun. If you're not able/willing to kill people who would usurp your rights, you soon won;t have any. there's always plenty of people willing to enslave/kill you.

 

Yes.

..........

 

Some younger people may not be aware of this, but from 1933 to 1974 gold was basically illegal to privately own in the U.S. (with some small exceptions). Gold coin and gold bars were confiscated. The government had fixed the price of gold at $20.67 per ounce, then after confiscation raised the price to $35. Since the dollar was backed by gold at that time, this essentially devalued the value of the dollar by 59%. So the individual owners of gold were not adequately compensated; this was basically a seizure of private wealth.

 

What the government has the power to do is clearly stated in the Federal and State Constitutions. Any power not specifically given to them in those contracts remains with the people.
The problem is people allow themselves to be intimidated by government because they lack the courage and the knowledge to stand up for their rights.
Being a Citizen carries with it responsibilities. The vast majority of Citizens abdicate their duties as citizens and instead occupy their lives with circuses such as television and the millions of other distractions that are easy to occupy their leisure hours.
They spend no time whatsoever educating themselves about what it takes to make this country a place where people are free peruse their lives without the fear of government tyranny. That is until government tyranny seriously impacts their life, and by then it is usually too late because they find themselves playing a game they are ill equipped to play.

 

Yep hell in Cali you can't own the water that falls on your house. Lol.
You don't own your own children is what the progressive are saying.
You don't own your own life. The government can kill you with out a trial when it feels the need or want.

 

Yes sometimes government have the right to tell us what we are allowed to own, but not always.

 

You might closely examine your State Constitution, any protections are likely to be very vague; the State government can pretty much do whatever it wants. As for the U.S. Constitution, yes, the powers are clearly stated, but those powers can also be vaguely interpreted and creatively stretched and twisted, to the point where there is effectively very little limitation on the powers of the government under the U.S. Constitution. You are basically at the mercy of the courts, otherwise to try to assert your rights effectively means revolution.

 

Your interpretation of constitutions is not quite right. The purpose of the Federal and State constitutions are not to grant you rights or protections, they are to specifically state what powers the citizens give to government.
All power originates from the citizen. The citizen then gives certain specifically stated powers to the Federal or State government by contract.
That means, unless the power to do something is specifically stated in the constitution, the government does not have the power to do it.
Any powers not specifically given to the government within those contracts remains with the citizens from where all power originates.

 

Theoretically yes, in practice no. Just try to "assert" your rights and see what happens. We could have a long discussion on what the true meaning of the Constitution actually is, but that is a separate topic.

It means they do not have the lawful power under the Constitution to do it. They still have the effective power to violate the Constitution. Suppose, just hypothetically, that a judge issued an arrest warrant. You think anyone is going to give a care it was a violation of the Constitution?

As long as the ordinary law gives officials discretionary powers, they basically have the unabridged power. That's just how it is in reality.

 

Agreed, but only because the people are ignorant of the law, which gives them the ability to act criminally without losing credibility. It is the citizens duty to be aware of the law and its governments compliance with it.

 

Perfect examples of public ignorance vs. Gov. power:
The Patriot act. A common response to that at the time was: "Fine, I wasn't using my rights anyway".
"Smart" phones. People in Drone Zones have no clue as to what a Drone Zone is. The Feds make a deal with a municipality to allow spy drones to operate in the municipal air space. Among other things, these drones are perfecting the means by which small arms in the drone can zero in on the signal from a phone. A former CIA director was quoted as saying that the modern "smart" phone is the most advanced spy device ever developed.
This ain't your grand dads' world we're living in.....

 

No, they should not be allowed to tell me what I can own (as long as I am not a felon or something) or what I can or cannot do with my body. That is just my opinion.

 

Whenever I am faced with the question of whether or not it is right for a government agent to do something, I ask myself whether it would be right for me to do the same thing. The government agent and I are both people, so whether something is right or wrong should apply to both of us equally.

Since it would clearly be wrong for me to dictate what my neighbor may own, I can't see that it would be right for a government agent to do so.

 

I wonder how a pair of police officers would respond if you came over to them wearing a holster with a gun and demanded to see identification...
The last time a police officer pulled me over (because one of the tail lights was burned out ), she had her hand resting on the gun in her holster. That certainly seems a little threatening to me.
How can one really even know if they're a real cop?

I'd be curious to know how law enforcement deals with other law enforcement officers from different departments, when they encounter them out in field. If they approached them the same way they approach civilians, there's a good chance they'd wind up dead.

Seems a little unfair in an allegedly "free" society; it's the principle of the thing.
Sorry for getting off-topic a little, but yes, basically I agree with you.

 

Your position depends on the government recognizing your rights, so you are wrong. If the government chooses to do something, it does it. The only way you can stop them is if you have more people with better weapons willing to die for your nonsense than the government has willing to die for theirs, and I put my money on the government winning that fight every single time.

 

Does the government have the power to stop you from owning child porn, drugs or a human being?

 

I don't think the question was whether the government has the ability. I think it was whether it is right for them to do so.

 

You might see this:
Child pornography law, unintended consequences
New computer virus can plant child porn on your computer, one innocent computer owner already arrested

As for that slavery part, of course the government has the right to stop one person from infringing on the rights of others.