This is why estate taxes should be 100%

[Tonitrus]

It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.

In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. 

Do you still have to report it?  Any limits on the amount per "transaction"?  (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)

[Capetan Mihali]

Am I a neo-con?

Nah, I am a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative.

In order to be a neo-con, you must previously have been a socialistTrotskyist.

FYP

[Razgovory]

Well ultimately all rights are about being allowed to pass ones wealth, values and philosophy on to ones children.

Elaborate. I don't think I agree, but if you can back that up I can be convinced.

The rights we cherish and identify as the important rights are not valuable in themselves. Freedom of speech only matters because speech has consequences, if speech didn't have consequences it would not matter and nobody would either bother suppressing it or fighting for its freedom.

The idea of rights we have I believe is wrong. Every right we enumerate or list or claim has been fought for historically for specific concrete reasons. Originally I thought that rights were primarily focused on life, conscience and freedom. When reading up properly (not the myth-history we get in school) on the Magna Carta it became clear that the document was fundamentally a means to prevent the King from "stealing" feudal holdings from their "rightful" owners by by legal confiscation. Tyranny win the mind of the Magnates was not killing Barons the King didn't like, Tyranny was disinheriting the killed Baron's children. The right to a trial by jury is not there because the fair trial was in and of itself a virtue, but because the unfair trial was a tool for confiscation and disinheritance.

The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.

The root cause analysis is as follows, free speech is neccessary for a free election, without which our right to vote doesn't matter which is necessary for a free and sovereign parliament, without which rules and laws which protect the individual and his right to think, spend, pray, earn, eat, fuck etc. etc. are meaningless.

What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?

[MadImmortalMan]

It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.

In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. 

Do you still have to report it?  Any limits on the amount per "transaction"?  (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)

I believe that any transaction over 10k is reported to...somebody. The FBI maybe. I don't think you have to report it unless you are over the limit.

[Viking]

What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?

I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.

[Razgovory]

I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".

[Maximus]

I just had an image of a puppy winning his tug-of-war and doing a victory dance with the rope.

[Neil]

I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".

It could just be he doesn't respect you and doesn't want to have a discussion with you.

[Razgovory]

I'll take that as "I didn't think that out as much as I thought I did".

It could just be he doesn't respect you and doesn't want to have a discussion with you.

Yes, that is true.  I'm sure he doesn't.  He's made it clear he doesn't respect people he disagrees with.  He's said that before.  But Viking would answer (as he has in other threads today), if he had a good answer.  He doesn't, so he retreats into Grumblerism.

[garbon]

What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?

I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.

So what about the Barons who wanted their rights enshrined so that they didn't have to worry about being dispossessed during their own lifetimes?

[Barrister]

It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.

In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. 

Do you still have to report it?  Any limits on the amount per "transaction"?  (I thought the U.S. had some over-10k-and-the-feds-look-for-drug-money kind of thing)

I believe that any transaction over 10k is reported to...somebody. The FBI maybe. I don't think you have to report it unless you are over the limit.

UP here we report transactions over $10k to FINTRAC.

[Viking]

What is the important consequence of the right to eat and fuck?

I don't consider you a serious interlocutor so I'm not going to bother answering.

So what about the Barons who wanted their rights enshrined so that they didn't have to worry about being dispossessed during their own lifetimes?

Well, when given the choice they did choose to confess lesser capital crimes to avoid the treason charge which permitted the king to disinherit.

[The Minsky Moment]

The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.

Legally enforcable property rights predate feudalism
By a very long time.
But hey fun riff.

[Viking]

The first rights that are established are the feudal property rights and the rights which are used to protect those property rights.

Legally enforcable property rights predate feudalism
By a very long time.
But hey fun riff.

I must have missed the bit where Roman Patricians kept their land during the barbarian conquest without some quid pro quo vis a vis the conquerors.

[The Minsky Moment]

I must have missed the bit where Roman Patricians kept their land during the barbarian conquest without some quid pro quo vis a vis the conquerors.

The point eludes me.

Your claim is that feudal property rights are the "first rights to be established"
Which is off to begin with because in a sense there is no such thing as feudal property rights at all; "feudalism" in the ideal typology refers to a system where control over property stems from personal relationships whose contractual nature is not enforceable by law.  Magna Carta wasn't generated until the post-feudal age is well udnerway (indeed that is in part why it arises.)

If your argument that rights aren't really rights if at some point in past, present or future their integrity holds only because of some explicit or implicit quid quo pro involving a powerful actor, than there aren't and have never been any such thing.

If your argument is something else, it isn't clear.