Slavery is bad, okay What is slavery then?

[OC for ME]

I figure the West isn't part of Yankeedum.

Thus the "y" and the "-ish."

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

The only viable thing you mentioned is defense, this should be done by a small import tax and true volunteers. The last defensive war U.S. waged was the War for Independence. <snip.

Technically....."we" "insurected." It, the war, was not defensive until the War of 1812.....Revolutionary War Part Deux.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Technically....."we" "insurected." It, the war, was not defensive until the War of 1812.....Revolutionary War Part Deux.

Is it insurrection if you discover you owe no allegiance?

 

[OC for ME]

Is it insurrection if you discover you owe no allegiance?

They all owed allegiances, some of them did not want to keep paying for the privilege.....good on them.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

They all owed allegiances, some of them did not want to keep paying for the privilege.....good on them.

+1

I guess it depends a bit on your point of view. I like the one pointed out by Spooner in No Treason #1,

 

[arentol]

Nice sidestep. It has a lot to do with it because this "nation" was founded upon the principles of non consent. The founders refused to give consent and fought for independence over it. The founding documents such as the DOI, is an article of non consent and secession. The constitution does not back up your claims.

I didn't sidestep anything. First, because the question was unanswerable, WTF is "...the part of Great Britain" supposed to mean? Second, because the legal situation of 18th century American colonists is entirely different from that of modern US citizens, and therefore really isn't particularly relevant. You were the one trying to sidestep the discussion by bringing up irrelevancies to the core issue like this. My point is that taxes are not slavery. If you want to bring up the colonists then you might want to demonstrate to us how slave owners were slaves themselves. That would be an interesting point to try and defend.

Bull I am not born with any moral obligation to "give to others" especially a government elected by a minority. This is the same tired argument that conflates society with government, this simply isn't true. The benefits of society has nothing to do with taxes, society has historically many benefits without them. Usually when the government decides to start providing services it complicates things and makes it worse. This also ignores the principles of our founding of protecting individual rights.

Who is sidestepping again? True, you are not born with said obligation. But you do earn it by voluntarily accepting the benefits provided by you government. I am conflating nothing. Society without government is essentially always less effective and efficient than with it, though of course the effectiveness can vary greatly. As a demonstration I will suggest you look into what a massive PITA it was to travel by car from New York City to Los Angeles in the late 1920's, a time during which road constructions and services were left entirely in the hands of the various states and of private industry. Once it was nationalized interstate travel was improved rapidly and everyone in the US benefited directly and indirectly as a result. But if you think the government has genuinely made our transportation system worse then please stop using it, and EVERYTHING that benefited from it. I imagine that will leave you with a few sticks at best. Enjoy not being part of the benefits provided by the government that helps run our society.

It is the job of government to provide a negative effect on society. Learn about natural law and rights.

I guess you aren't taking this discussion at all seriously. Not sure why anyone would even bother talking to someone who can type this with a straight face. Not sure why I am bothering.

I suggest you get together with some like-minded individuals and form a commune. I am sure it will go very well for you. But don't be surprised when you suddenly find yourself putting people in charge of various areas of responsibility, and realize a year down the line that you have a government... And that you need things on a regular basis from the other societies, things they could not readily provide without the US government.

Education isn't in the constitution, neither is healthcare, or food, and saying those who don't want government to do these things is the same as not wanting them done.

Sidestepping again. Almost nothing is directly mentioned in the constitution, and these things presence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The fact is that for better or worse the government DOES contribute directly and on an ongoing basis to these things and YOU benefit on a daily basis from these and many other things, as provided by the government... The government provided by and in service to, society, and without which society would be far less effective and would not provide you with about 95% of the benefits you experience from society. You can deny all this all you like, but your denial does not change reality

The only viable thing you mentioned is defense, this should be done by a small import tax and true volunteers. The last defensive war U.S. waged was the War for Independence.

I am not a fan of aggressive wars myself. If for no other reason that they send the wrong message to the rest of the world, that it is "okay" to push your will on others at the barrel of a gun, and therefore increase violence, war, and terrorism in general. But it is not the only viable thing I mentioned.

The history of health care shows your premise that "poor" people wouldn't have access to it is wrong an a few levels, historically and it's based on the assumption of how things are done now after massive government interference. Before government interference into medicine, black communities were mostly poorer than white, yet they had more healthcare, through lodges and other charities.
So you don't get to make up "general rules".

I didn't say that poor people wouldn't have access to healthcare. My comment was on the quality of the healthcare and the level of accessibility to it that they have. Before government interference in medicine? Do you mean over 100000 years ago? Government has had it's hand in healthcare since the days of tribes made of a couple dozen people.... If you don't think the "chief" in many tribes could tell the "witch doctor" who to provide care to and who not to, when to do it, and even how at times, then you are lying to yourself. If we are limiting this to the US alone, then how did the doctors working in those lodges and for those charities get their education? Who supported and managed the cities that supported the education institutions from which they gained that education? Who helped maintain and manage the cities where the sulfates and other drugs were produced? Who helped establish and maintain the roads over which the medicines traveled to those communities? Who established a common currency to allow easy trade to ease purchase of those medicines? Would all these things have happened without government. (No, they wouldn't have, or not nearly as effectively).

Actually his premise fits in very well with some of the listed definitions of slavery in the dictionary. So what we have is folks who want to ignore the involuntary conscription acts of government because it doesn't fit into the definition of chattel slavery.

I agree it is fun.

If you mean that some of those definitions can be intentionally misinterpreted to support his definition, then I agree. If you mean they mean what he is saying, I disagree.

The involuntary conscription acts of government are not the same thing as taxes. I feel they do approach being slavery though. Fortunately we have moved beyond them because we have finally realized how wrong they really are, and hopefully we l never turn back from that realization.

 

[marshaul]

You guys are aware that there's already a dirty word for what taxes are.

"Extortion".

 

[OC for ME]

You guys are aware that there's already a dirty word for what taxes are.

"Extortion".

Although, I do "feel" like a slave to those I carry on my back via my taxes.....that 40 some odd percent that is.

 

[Primus]

I didn't sidestep anything. First, because the question was unanswerable, WTF is "...the part of Great Britain" supposed to mean? Second, because the legal situation of 18th century American colonists is entirely different from that of modern US citizens, and therefore really isn't particularly relevant. You were the one trying to sidestep the discussion by bringing up irrelevancies to the core issue like this. My point is that taxes are not slavery. If you want to bring up the colonists then you might want to demonstrate to us how slave owners were slaves themselves. That would be an interesting point to try and defend.



Who is sidestepping again? True, you are not born with said obligation. But you do earn it by voluntarily accepting the benefits provided by you government. I am conflating nothing. Society without government is essentially always less effective and efficient than with it, though of course the effectiveness can vary greatly. As a demonstration I will suggest you look into what a massive PITA it was to travel by car from New York City to Los Angeles in the late 1920's, a time during which road constructions and services were left entirely in the hands of the various states and of private industry. Once it was nationalized interstate travel was improved rapidly and everyone in the US benefited directly and indirectly as a result. But if you think the government has genuinely made our transportation system worse then please stop using it, and EVERYTHING that benefited from it. I imagine that will leave you with a few sticks at best. Enjoy not being part of the benefits provided by the government that helps run our society.



I guess you aren't taking this discussion at all seriously. Not sure why anyone would even bother talking to someone who can type this with a straight face. Not sure why I am bothering.

I suggest you get together with some like-minded individuals and form a commune. I am sure it will go very well for you. But don't be surprised when you suddenly find yourself putting people in charge of various areas of responsibility, and realize a year down the line that you have a government... And that you need things on a regular basis from the other societies, things they could not readily provide without the US government.



Sidestepping again. Almost nothing is directly mentioned in the constitution, and these things presence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The fact is that for better or worse the government DOES contribute directly and on an ongoing basis to these things and YOU benefit on a daily basis from these and many other things, as provided by the government... The government provided by and in service to, society, and without which society would be far less effective and would not provide you with about 95% of the benefits you experience from society. You can deny all this all you like, but your denial does not change reality



I am not a fan of aggressive wars myself. If for no other reason that they send the wrong message to the rest of the world, that it is "okay" to push your will on others at the barrel of a gun, and therefore increase violence, war, and terrorism in general. But it is not the only viable thing I mentioned.



I didn't say that poor people wouldn't have access to healthcare. My comment was on the quality of the healthcare and the level of accessibility to it that they have. Before government interference in medicine? Do you mean over 100000 years ago? Government has had it's hand in healthcare since the days of tribes made of a couple dozen people.... If you don't think the "chief" in many tribes could tell the "witch doctor" who to provide care to and who not to, when to do it, and even how at times, then you are lying to yourself. If we are limiting this to the US alone, then how did the doctors working in those lodges and for those charities get their education? Who supported and managed the cities that supported the education institutions from which they gained that education? Who helped maintain and manage the cities where the sulfates and other drugs were produced? Who helped establish and maintain the roads over which the medicines traveled to those communities? Who established a common currency to allow easy trade to ease purchase of those medicines? Would all these things have happened without government. (No, they wouldn't have, or not nearly as effectively).



If you mean that some of those definitions can be intentionally misinterpreted to support his definition, then I agree. If you mean they mean what he is saying, I disagree.

The involuntary conscription acts of government are not the same thing as taxes. I feel they do approach being slavery though. Fortunately we have moved beyond them because we have finally realized how wrong they really are, and hopefully we l never turn back from that realization.

Gotta say sir, I appreciate you being able to articulate this and put it out there. I agree with you entirely so far and I've attempted to make some of these same arguments, even in this same thread, but your doing a much better job then I ever did. Although its not real hard to be more articulate and smarter then I

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[arentol]

Gotta say sir, I appreciate you being able to articulate this and put it out there. I agree with you entirely so far and I've attempted to make some of these same arguments, even in this same thread, but your doing a much better job then I ever did. Although its not real hard to be more articulate and smarter then I

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Thanks.

Let me tell you what really bothers me about this whole line of reasoning being presented by the OP and others...

It is the audacity, the freaking unmitigated gall, the complete lack of empathy and caring, that it takes to claim that just because they have to pay a few dollars in taxes they are "slaves".

Really dude? Really? You have to pay 10%, 15% maybe even 20% of your money in taxes and you are a slave? Oh woe is you. Oh the humanity of it all!!!!

You know who gets my sympathy? Jaycee Dugard gets my sympathy. The victim of Raul Ochoa gets my sympathy. Peddu Pattaiso gets my sympathy. The tens of millions of people in the world today who are or ever were ACTUAL FARKING SLAVES get my sympathy.

People who have been free all their lives and who have the freedom to come on forums like this and make idiotic statements like "Giving the government a few thousand dollars in taxes each year is slavery!" get nothing but my utmost contempt. People who have never felt the sting of a whip; been shot up with drugs to addict them and make them compliant so they can be easily abused; who have never been taken from their home and the ones they love, shipped overseas, and forcibly penetrated over and over with all manner of things in a underground ***** house; who have never been chained in a basement against their will for days, weeks, or months on end; or anything even vaguely like any of those things; yet who have the audacity to claim they are "slaves" because of taxes.... They insult me, they insult you, they insult every person who is or was a slave, who loves someone who is or was a slave, and every person in this world with an ounce of decency in them. This whole line of reasoning is despicable and disgusting, and I don't know how someone can be so farked in the head to ever reach this kind of idiotic conclusion, let alone actually make a statement that even vaguely attempts to equate a minor amount of taxes to slavery.

Or another approach:

Slavery is straight up evil. Pure, unmitigated, evil. I don't think that this is really disputable, as enslaving someone is clearly one of the top three worst things you can do to another person. So if you feel that you can HONESTLY claim that you and all the rest of us slaves to the federal government of the United States of America, then you are claiming that the US government (and the government of basically every country, state, and city in the world, and basically every prior government in the history of mankind as well) is pure evil and that any right-minded and good individual with any decency at all should immediately take up arms and attempt to destroy all governments everywhere. Is that what you are saying? Because if not then you don't REALLY think taxes are slavery and this whole line of reasoning and argument is a pile of crap and you know it.



Anyway, I know a lot of people here don't really think that taxes are slavery and are more focused on defeating sub-arguments made by others that are perhaps a little misplaced, and just generally debating. So there is really only one person the above is truly aimed at. Hopefully that person will realize, and maybe even acknowledge, the error of their ways. I don't really care if they do acknowledge it though, as this whole thing is so ridiculous that I can't really take it seriously (which is why I am not at all angry or upset over this, quite frankly I think it is pretty hilarious). It does kind of blow my mind though that someone would actually have so casual a view of slavery that they would ever try to equate it to paying taxes. What is going through that persons head?

 

[georg jetson]

Well arentol, at least you didn't make an emotional argument.

You make my point though... some like yourself enjoy being slaves. Slave by consent.

 

[georg jetson]

You guys are aware that there's already a dirty word for what taxes are.

"Extortion".

Nah. It's slavery. Extortion is what is done to the state governments by the feds.The feds take the slaves property and then use it to force the state governments to do its bidding.

Well... maybe that's bribery.

 

[arentol]

Well arentol, at least you didn't make an emotional argument.

You make my point though... some like yourself enjoy being slaves. Slave by consent.

You are right. I did not make an emotional argument. I made an emotional statement*.

That you can't tell the difference tells me a lot about you, and how little point there is debating anything with you.


As to me being a slave... I refer you to my post you were responding too, and add you to the person that was directed at. You insult every actual slave in the history of mankind, and I feel badly that you have so little empathy for others who are actual slaves today that you would equate my paying taxes to their plight.

*I made my non-emotional arguments earlier, quite effectively if I say so myself.

 

[georg jetson]

You are right. I did not make an emotional argument. I made an emotional statement*.

That you can't tell the difference tells me a lot about you, and how little point there is debating anything with you.


As to me being a slave... I refer you to my post you were responding too, and add you to the person that was directed at. You insult every actual slave in the history of mankind, and I feel badly that you have so little empathy for others who are actual slaves today that you would equate my paying taxes to their plight.

*I made my non-emotional arguments earlier, quite effectively if I say so myself.

Discussing the meaning of slavery and suggesting that it comes in varying degrees is hardly insulting. In fact it's necessary for a slave to first realize they are, in fact, a slave. I think Frederick Douglas and others like him would encourage any debate necessary to keep slavery from every getting to the degree that they endured. It is much better to push back at the slightest hint of slavery than to wait until it's in full form and almost irreversible without blood shed.

On a side note, I don't think you can speak for all "actual" slaves. Quite presumptuous of you.

ON edit, let me say one more thing...

Way to go OP for picking such a relevant and usefull topic for discussion!!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I didn't sidestep anything. First, because the question was unanswerable, WTF is "...the part of Great Britain" supposed to mean? Second, because the legal situation of 18th century American colonists is entirely different from that of modern US citizens, and therefore really isn't particularly relevant. You were the one trying to sidestep the discussion by bringing up irrelevancies to the core issue like this. My point is that taxes are not slavery. If you want to bring up the colonists then you might want to demonstrate to us how slave owners were slaves themselves. That would be an interesting point to try and defend.

The colonist were British citizens, do you not realize that? They were part of the British Empire.

No the legal system at the founding and of the colonist is supposed to be the same one we have today. Common law.

Who is sidestepping again? True, you are not born with said obligation. But you do earn it by voluntarily accepting the benefits provided by you government. I am conflating nothing. Society without government is essentially always less effective and efficient than with it, though of course the effectiveness can vary greatly. As a demonstration I will suggest you look into what a massive PITA it was to travel by car from New York City to Los Angeles in the late 1920's, a time during which road constructions and services were left entirely in the hands of the various states and of private industry. Once it was nationalized interstate travel was improved rapidly and everyone in the US benefited directly and indirectly as a result. But if you think the government has genuinely made our transportation system worse then please stop using it, and EVERYTHING that benefited from it. I imagine that will leave you with a few sticks at best. Enjoy not being part of the benefits provided by the government that helps run our society.

And the taxation of the colonist were to benefit them, they rejected it. Do you disagree with their rejection?
More assumptions, I gave examples were they were more efficient.
Your assumption is that it only improved because of its nationalization.
Please cite were it is constitutional to do so.

I guess you aren't taking this discussion at all seriously. Not sure why anyone would even bother talking to someone who can type this with a straight face. Not sure why I am bothering.

So you don't know about the theories of natural law which the founders studied? I said it seriously because I know what it means apparently you don't.

I suggest you get together with some like-minded individuals and form a commune. I am sure it will go very well for you. But don't be surprised when you suddenly find yourself putting people in charge of various areas of responsibility, and realize a year down the line that you have a government... And that you need things on a regular basis from the other societies, things they could not readily provide without the US government.

Sigh........you mean like the founders did against great Britain?

Sidestepping again. Almost nothing is directly mentioned in the constitution, and these things presence, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It has everything to do with the subject at hand you do realize that the feds are not to do these actions unless spelled out specifically in the constitution, right? Why have a constitution as Madison argued if they can do what ever they want in the name of general welfare or commerce clause? You have yet to cite a constitutional cite for your "services". I will wait.

The fact is that for better or worse the government DOES contribute directly and on an ongoing basis to these things and YOU benefit on a daily basis from these and many other things, as provided by the government... The government provided by and in service to, society, and without which society would be far less effective and would not provide you with about 95% of the benefits you experience from society. You can deny all this all you like, but your denial does not change reality

Hogwash, the benefit of services isn't what is being argued, try again.

I am not a fan of aggressive wars myself. If for no other reason that they send the wrong message to the rest of the world, that it is "okay" to push your will on others at the barrel of a gun, and therefore increase violence, war, and terrorism in general. But it is not the only viable thing I mentioned.

It is the only constitutional thing you mentioned, government should exist for 3 things (this was the government the founders envisioned), Protecting individual property rights (which the other things you mention does the opposite), defense and arbitration.

As I say to others who pose the same theories as you do if it isn't theft come take it yourself.

I didn't say that poor people wouldn't have access to healthcare. My comment was on the quality of the healthcare and the level of accessibility to it that they have. Before government interference in medicine? Do you mean over 100000 years ago? Government has had it's hand in healthcare since the days of tribes made of a couple dozen people.... If you don't think the "chief" in many tribes could tell the "witch doctor" who to provide care to and who not to, when to do it, and even how at times, then you are lying to yourself. If we are limiting this to the US alone, then how did the doctors working in those lodges and for those charities get their education? Who supported and managed the cities that supported the education institutions from which they gained that education? Who helped maintain and manage the cities where the sulfates and other drugs were produced? Who helped establish and maintain the roads over which the medicines traveled to those communities? Who established a common currency to allow easy trade to ease purchase of those medicines? Would all these things have happened without government. (No, they wouldn't have, or not nearly as effectively).

LOL......please argue what I said.

If you mean that some of those definitions can be intentionally misinterpreted to support his definition, then I agree. If you mean they mean what he is saying, I disagree.

I meant exactly what I said and what the dictionary says.

The involuntary conscription acts of government are not the same thing as taxes. I feel they do approach being slavery though. Fortunately we have moved beyond them because we have finally realized how wrong they really are, and hopefully we l never turn back from that realization.

It is the same, are you paid for the work in filling out your forms? Are you reimbursed for the accountant? How much of the year do you have to work to pay involuntary taxes (admittedly you may pay them without coercion)?

We have not moved beyond it is the draft still not in effect?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In the bible those who owed money they couldn't pay back and worked to pay it off were considered slaves. Indentured servants were considered slaves. Etc.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

“There is a clear distinction in this particular case between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Although I am reluctant to rely on the decision of oligarchs in black, this case shows how judges of this country viewed what we "owe" to government (not society).

 

[davidmcbeth]

From: Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC v. Blaine Township, 649 F. Supp. 2d 412:

While the Township may wish it were not so, there is no dispute here on the law. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that corporations have the right to assert the very sort of constitutional claims alleged by Range herein. Indeed, in the Township's brief supporting its motion to dismiss, the Township recognizes that "[o]ver the past 150 years, the judiciary has conferred constitutional protections—once intended to protect only natural persons-upon corporations. The method by which the judiciary has conferred rights upon corporations has consisted of `finding' corporations in the various constitutional guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, and the Contracts and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution." (Def. Mem. at 20) (citing Santa Clara Cty. v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (1886) (corporations are "persons" entitled to protections of Fourteenth Amendment); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26, 28, 9 S.Ct. 207, 32 L.Ed. 585 (1889) (same); First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978) (corporations entitled to First Amendment protections); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct. 370, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906) (corporations entitled to Fourth Amendment protections); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141, 82 S.Ct. 671, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962) (corporations entitled to Fifth Amendment protections)); see also, Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520, 79 S.Ct. 962, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1959) (corporation has standing to assert claims under the Commerce Clause to 418*418 challenge state regulations); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 17 U.S. 518, 4 L.Ed. 629 (1819) (Contracts Clause applies to corporations).

 

[arentol]

The colonist were British citizens, do you not realize that? They were part of the British Empire.

I do realize that. What I am saying is that your question, "So the colonist should have just left the part of Great Britain?", made no sense at all. I literally don't understand wtf you were trying to say. Only thing I can think of that you might have meant is "So the colonists should have just left THAT part of Great Britain?" Is that what you meant?

No the legal system at the founding and of the colonist is supposed to be the same one we have today. Common law.

We are discussing taxes, not legal systems. Those are two independent things. Besides, you are the one who brought up the colonists, and the colonists, pre-revolt, were under the British legal and tax systems. The US is under completely independent systems that are not the same as the British systems. Just because we have our legal system rooted in common law does not make it the same actual system as the British Empires system of the 18th century, so you can't just pull them out and say that their situation equates to ours. Also, our legal and tax systems have evolved and changed as they must (as the British systems have as well). Also, you weaken your own basic point as the colonists didn't revolt in protest of paying taxes, and they definitely didn't revolt because they claimed that paying taxes made them slaves, which would be the only thing you could say that would make this whole point in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. They FULLY believed that they should pay reasonable taxes to the King. What they disagreed with was how little representation they had in the taxation process.

And the taxation of the colonist were to benefit them, they rejected it. Do you disagree with their rejection?

I do not disagree with their rejection, because their rejection was not of the taxes, but of their lack of input on the nature, timing, and fairness of the taxes relative to the rest of the empire. It would be like if the Federal Government started taxing corporations and individuals in southern states at 40% while the rest of the country paid only 20%, and southern senators were barred from all votes on taxes. That was effectively their situation and their complaint. Not that any of this is relevant to whether taxation is slavery.

More assumptions, I gave examples were they were more efficient.
Your assumption is that it only improved because of its nationalization.
Please cite were it is constitutional to do so.

You gave precisely zero examples. You made a series of statements with no facts or examples to back them up, just blather.
It isn't an assumption, it is a historically recognized fact. The workers were paid by the federal government directly and indirectly, the work was planned by the federal government, both directly and indirectly, and the materials were paid for by the federal government, both directly and indirectly. But it is awesome how you provide no examples and say you did, then dismiss my example with a single sentence with no facts to back it up.
I am not going to get in a debate over the constitution. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether taxes = slave anyway. Nothing about it addresses this subject at all, and all you are trying to do here is move the discussion to being about the constitution, as you do with almost every discussion on these forums because you think you can crush anything and everything you disagree with on this forum with "Cite the constitution". It works for those who respond to such requests because the constitution is incredibly vague so it is almost impossible to directly use to "prove" anything.

How about this. You cite the constitution to show where it says paying taxes mean we are slaves. If it doesn't say that then clearly we aren't. See how easy it is to use the constitution to back up any argument you want?

So you don't know about the theories of natural law which the founders studied? I said it seriously because I know what it means apparently you don't.

Again you are trying to move the discussion to an irrelevant topic where you think you know more than anyone else so that you can "win". My challenge to you is to show where those theories say that paying taxes makes you a slave. Get back to me on that won't you?

Sigh........you mean like the founders did against great Britain?

No, not at all like that. First I am not suggesting revolt, I am suggesting a society that attempts to remain as independent of US society as possible, and that has no government. That is what I suggest since you claim that governments only purpose is to "provide a negative effect on society." If that is its purpose the obvious thing that follows is that society should be better without government. So I suggest you try actually NOT have a government for your society and see how that works out. This has absolutely nothing to do with the colonists and their revolt, and again you are distracting from the topic of this discussion to move to an area you think you know better than anyone else so you can "win", which I am sure in your mind all my responses will prove you have done, despite you having added nothing of relevancy.

It has everything to do with the subject at hand you do realize that the feds are not to do these actions unless spelled out specifically in the constitution, right? Why have a constitution as Madison argued if they can do what ever they want in the name of general welfare or commerce clause? You have yet to cite a constitutional cite for your "services". I will wait.

I am not arguing the legality of providing those services (again, you are attempting to distract from the topic), I am arguing that you benefit from them regardless and so can not claim that you are a slave for having to provide a small contribution to them, which is just one of MANY reasons that paying taxes in the US doesn't make you a slave.

Hogwash, the benefit of services isn't what is being argued, try again.

Oooh. I should have read this earlier. I could have used a variant of it for every line of your post to this point. So far almost nothing you have said addresses what is being argued.

It is the only constitutional thing you mentioned, government should exist for 3 things (this was the government the founders envisioned), Protecting individual property rights (which the other things you mention does the opposite), defense and arbitration.

That is just like your opinion man. And since there isn't a government in the world that performs only those 3 tasks it almost seems as if limiting a government to those things is not actually feasible.
BTW, the founders proposed and passed a number of things while members of congress that were NOT specifically mentioned in the constitution, and which violated those three things you list above. It is almost as if they envisioned a perfect world where the government would only need to do those three things, while accepting that we do not live in a perfect world and so more is required of a government. Your vaunted founders disprove the majority of your "arguments".

As I say to others who pose the same theories as you do if it isn't theft come take it yourself.

Ahh, so it is theft. If it is theft, then by definition it is not slavery since a slave master claims ownership of the slave and all he does. How can he steal what is already his? If it is theft to collect taxes from the laborer then the laborer can not be a slave. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

LOL......please argue what I said.

ROFL. You start doing me the same courtesy and maybe I will.

I meant exactly what I said and what the dictionary says.

Cite?

It is the same, are you paid for the work in filling out your forms? Are you reimbursed for the accountant? How much of the year do you have to work to pay involuntary taxes (admittedly you may pay them without coercion)?

We have not moved beyond it is the draft still not in effect?

I would love to see you walk up to Al Sharpton and tell him that you are slave because you have to fill out some forms and give the government a few dollars each year. If you think that is slavery then clearly you have no concept of what it means to be a slave.

You can argue taxes are wrong, illegal, etc. all you want. More power to you and I might even agree with you on some portion of your arguments in that area. But when you equate paying taxes in the US to slavery, you lose pretty much all credibility. It is a mediocre argument at its absolute very very very best, argued by a master debater against a 3rd grader, but then on top of that it has all the issues associated with it that I mentioned in my "emotional statement". Use it in front of anyone that knows Jaycee Dugard, or who's great grandmother was a slave, or who is just a decent human being who realizes slavery is a really really bad thing, and you will be dismissed out of hand as a complete nutjob and a-hole. I would suggest finding a better thread to argue tax legality on than one based on such an untenable position.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I do realize that. What I am saying is that your question, "So the colonist should have just left the part of Great Britain?", made no sense at all. I literally don't understand wtf you were trying to say. Only thing I can think of that you might have meant is "So the colonists should have just left THAT part of Great Britain?" Is that what you meant?



We are discussing taxes, not legal systems. Those are two independent things. Besides, you are the one who brought up the colonists, and the colonists, pre-revolt, were under the British legal and tax systems. The US is under completely independent systems that are not the same as the British systems. Just because we have our legal system rooted in common law does not make it the same actual system as the British Empires system of the 18th century, so you can't just pull them out and say that their situation equates to ours. Also, our legal and tax systems have evolved and changed as they must (as the British systems have as well). Also, you weaken your own basic point as the colonists didn't revolt in protest of paying taxes, and they definitely didn't revolt because they claimed that paying taxes made them slaves, which would be the only thing you could say that would make this whole point in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. They FULLY believed that they should pay reasonable taxes to the King. What they disagreed with was how little representation they had in the taxation process.

The taxation requires a legal system and they are interlinked. They are not two separate issues.

SNIP
I am not going to get in a debate over the constitution. It is irrelevant to the discussion of whether taxes = slave anyway. Nothing about it addresses this subject at all, and all you are trying to do here is move the discussion to being about the constitution, as you do with almost every discussion on these forums because you think you can crush anything and everything you disagree with on this forum with "Cite the constitution". It works for those who respond to such requests because the constitution is incredibly vague so it is almost impossible to directly use to "prove" anything.

How about this. You cite the constitution to show where it says paying taxes mean we are slaves. If it doesn't say that then clearly we aren't. See how easy it is to use the constitution to back up any argument you want?


The constitutions are limiting documents. They are a list of things the government MAY and/or MUST do. They are supposed to be there to protect the rights of non-corporate people. One of those rights is the right of self-ownership. Part of that is the right to contract and own property. If the government can tax something then it's not a right. If the government could tax your earnings at the rate of any % greater than 0% then it is not a right. Even licensed occupations the license is a FLAT tax no matter how much you earn under the use of that license. If you claim that your earnings are a profit/gain (income) then you are claiming that your knowledge and labor(s) have no value.


Again you are trying to move the discussion to an irrelevant topic where you think you know more than anyone else so that you can "win". My challenge to you is to show where those theories say that paying taxes makes you a slave. Get back to me on that won't you?

Which taxes are YOU referring to? Now you're being ambiguous and unclear to try to 'win' this.

No, not at all like that. First I am not suggesting revolt, I am suggesting a society that attempts to remain as independent of US society as possible, and that has no government. That is what I suggest since you claim that governments only purpose is to "provide a negative effect on society." If that is its purpose the obvious thing that follows is that society should be better without government. So I suggest you try actually NOT have a government for your society and see how that works out. This has absolutely nothing to do with the colonists and their revolt, and again you are distracting from the topic of this discussion to move to an area you think you know better than anyone else so you can "win", which I am sure in your mind all my responses will prove you have done, despite you having added nothing of relevancy.


In order to be independent again there will have to be a revolution. So, you can't have it both ways.


I am not arguing the legality of providing those services (again, you are attempting to distract from the topic), I am arguing that you benefit from them regardless and so can not claim that you are a slave for having to provide a small contribution to them, which is just one of MANY reasons that paying taxes in the US doesn't make you a slave.



Oooh. I should have read this earlier. I could have used a variant of it for every line of your post to this point. So far almost nothing you have said addresses what is being argued.



That is just like your opinion man. And since there isn't a government in the world that performs only those 3 tasks it almost seems as if limiting a government to those things is not actually feasible.
BTW, the founders proposed and passed a number of things while members of congress that were NOT specifically mentioned in the constitution, and which violated those three things you list above. It is almost as if they envisioned a perfect world where the government would only need to do those three things, while accepting that we do not live in a perfect world and so more is required of a government. Your vaunted founders disprove the majority of your "arguments".



Ahh, so it is theft. If it is theft, then by definition it is not slavery since a slave master claims ownership of the slave and all he does. How can he steal what is already his? If it is theft to collect taxes from the laborer then the laborer can not be a slave. Sorry, can't have it both ways.

So slavery IS the ownership of another? The government claims it owns your paycheck despite a lack of law to back up it's claims. The government claims to own you and your labor which is why it wants to control how much you think you earn, your health care, what you eat, and what you put into your body. If that is not clear signs of claimed ownership I don't know what is.



ROFL. You start doing me the same courtesy and maybe I will.



Cite?



I would love to see you walk up to Al Sharpton and tell him that you are slave because you have to fill out some forms and give the government a few dollars each year. If you think that is slavery then clearly you have no concept of what it means to be a slave.

There were white slaves too. That does not get talked about much at all though. And about your buddy Al Sharpton, ar you talking about the same one who was caught "discussing" a cocaine deal? The one that looks like he could have been working for the FBI? Or are you talking about the Al Sharpton that is racist?

You can argue taxes are wrong, illegal, etc. all you want. More power to you and I might even agree with you on some portion of your arguments in that area. But when you equate paying taxes in the US to slavery, you lose pretty much all credibility. It is a mediocre argument at its absolute very very very best, argued by a master debater against a 3rd grader, but then on top of that it has all the issues associated with it that I mentioned in my "emotional statement". Use it in front of anyone that knows Jaycee Dugard, or who's great grandmother was a slave, or who is just a decent human being who realizes slavery is a really really bad thing, and you will be dismissed out of hand as a complete nutjob and a-hole. I would suggest finding a better thread to argue tax legality on than one based on such an untenable position.


Wow, again without being specific about what it is you're talking about. You're creating a logic trap. Because if we say, "yes taxes are slavery" then you can come back and demand that we explain how the tax on gasoline is slavery. So you will have won in your mind.

My responses are in green.

You're either intellectually dishonest or your brains cells are all disconnected.