View Poll Results: Is Taxation Slavery?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    18 17.14%
  • No

    78 74.29%
  • Other (Explain)

    9 8.57%
Page 34 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 872

Thread: Is Taxation Slavery?

  1. #331
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I've heard plenty of Republicans use this argument when things like that occur.
    So... is it valid?

  2. #332
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    lol begging the question fallacies are simply fallacies which pre-suppose their own conclusion in the premise. By telling me to simply leave the country she is pre-supposing that the state has legitimate jurisdiction over the territory which she is telling me to leave which it does not.
    Oh, ok. Never mind.

  3. #333
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,547

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    IIRC Texas v. White was a post-war decision; if it makes secession unconstitution, it does so from the point of the decision, and not points prior.
    "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except throughrevolutionor through consent of the States."

    Revolution = Insurrection. Since the US government did NOT recognize the states as a Confederacy, it was considered illegal.

    "Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation." - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection

    The state suspension of the prewar government did require the US to put down the insurrection and reestablish the relationship between Texas and the original union. These duty's were created by the Constitution in its grant of the power to suppress insurrections exactly as LA stated.

    Are you with me so far?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    If it is impossible to secede from the union, then it is impossible to re-admit 'secessionist' states to the union because they never actually left said union.

    HOWever, the 'secessionist' states, as part of their process for 're-admission' to the union, wre require to ratify the 13th-15th amendments.
    Since they were still considered members of "perpetual union" and recognized as such according to the they were never re-admited to begin with.

    The federal government cannot force states to ratify amendments, and so weren't the 13th-15th were ratified unconstitutionally?[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  4. #334
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    No. Texas v. White did not do that. It indicated that secession was NEVER Contitutional. The issue it was discussing was from prior to the decision.
    The point was that this was settled after the war, and by the winning side. It was not settled before the war, and was not settled until such a time that one side was unable to do anyting except exist at the mercy of the other.

    And, as an aside, reading the decision, there is a distinct lack of constitutional citation, the strongest of which is the "perpituity" clause or the articles and the "more perfect union" clause of the preamble. As has been discussed elsewhere, neither item carries any force of law. Given that, while obviously legally binding, is much like any number of other decisions that amount to a "well, because we said so".

    The Federalist Papers are documents that explain the meanings behind some of the issues contained in the Constitution. The have been heavily cited, throughout history in SCOTUS cases regarding Consitutional law.
    Yes.... and as we know, they carry no legal force.
    I note a particular lack of citation of said papers in the decision, BTW.

    True.
    The states were not re-admitted to the Union. They were re-admitted to having representation in Congress, having pulled out of Congress, voluntarily, in 1861.
    Well, OK...
    The states are entitled to these representitives according to the Constitition. No condition may be laid upon this entitlement, expecially not the demand that a state ratify a proposed amendment.

  5. #335
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    They seceded from the union, therefore losing their right to vote on an amendment
    So, since they did leave the union, there was no insurrection, and then, not being states, are not eligible to ratify an amendment.
    This directly calls into question the constitutionality of the ratification of the 13th-15th amedments.

  6. #336
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    Don't you think that giving tax cuts when we have such a huge deficit is pandering to a certain class of voters? Or, are they special?
    You mean like the 'midddle and working class families' that make 200/250k or less?
    So, The Obama is pandering to them? With tax cuts that, if you listen to the partisan bigots that have opposed them ever since they were originally proposed, did nothing for them?

    Who would have ever thougt YOU would have accused your Secular Messia of pandering.

  7. #337
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    No, I believe that would be unacceptable to the majority. It would be unjustifiable to do that.
    you believe in mob rule, I do not

    and when the people who pay most of the taxes stop paying them by moving or hiding their assets the mob will starve

    in England, fans were waiting to see World Champion Sprinter Bolt compete. However, the greedy British tax collectors had a novel concept. If Bolt runs 6 events a year and makes 6 million dollars globally in endorsements, appearance fees, etc, the Brits demanded that he be taxed on one 6th of his total income because one of those six events was to be in britain. Wisely, Bolt cancelled his appearance in England and the mob has less money to loot and the track fans won't get to see the most popular man in athletics



  8. #338
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Again, this is a Petitio Principii begging the question logical fallacy because this line of argument must pre-suppose its own conclusion that the state is legitimate:
    Ultimately government "legitimacy" comes from its ability to kill people and remain in existence



  9. #339
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Ummm... as I mentioned before we don't live in the 1800's and this would include any date preceding that.
    Yes today we have a far more advanced market economy there is even less of a reason for the state.

    Now lets add in a small group of Quakers no less.

    Yea that is what the US is made up off.
    It wasn't a small group it was the Pennsylvania colony and what the hell does being Quaker have to do with it? You must be confusing the Quakers with the Puritans. Not all Quakers are even theists let alone Christians, some Quakers are secular humanists, some are Athiests, some Quakers are even Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans and Jews. So actually you would be correct that is what America is made up of.




    No one said it did. It was a hell hole then, and now under anarchy it is still a hell hole.
    Civil war is not anarchy.

    "Who says anarchy, says negation of government;
    Who says negation of government, says affirmation of the people;
    Who says affirmation of the people, says individual liberty;
    Who says individual liberty, says sovereignty of each;
    Who says sovereignty of each, says equality;
    ...Who says equality, says solidarity or fraternity;
    Who says fraternity, says social order.
    By contrast:
    Who says government, says negation of the people;
    Who says negation of the people, says affirmation of political authority;
    Who says affirmation of political authority, says individual dependency;
    Who says individual dependency, says class supremacy,
    Who says class supremacy, says inequality;
    Who says inequality, says antagonism;
    Who says antagonism, says civil war;
    From which it follows that who says government, says civil war. Yes, anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war. -- Anselme Bellegarrigue

    I does not work on any kind of large scale. You seem to ignore this.
    You have not given one legitimate reason why not.

    I have an idea. Start a anarchist commune. Tell us how that works out for ya.
    I'm an individualist not a communist thanks.

  10. #340
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Is Taxation Slavery?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Ummm... No. She is saying if you don't like the situation here and are in no position to change it (and in my opinion) never will be. Get out.
    Again this presupposes the legitimacy of the state's claim to the territory in which I live which is the very thing I am arguing against, it is a begging the question logical fallacy.

Page 34 of 88 FirstFirst ... 2432333435364484 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •